Facebooktwitterredditpinterestmailby feather

Speaking of dopers, the International Court for Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has rejected Alejandro Valverde’s challenge to his two-year suspension from racing on Italian soil. Further, should the UCI decide to pursue this matter more openly, Valverde could face a global racing ban for up to two years.

CONI investigators had acquired blood samples seized as part of the ongoing Operación Puerto case in Spain and were able to compare DNA to another sample Valverde submitted to Italian anti-doping officials when the Tour visited Italy in 2008.

An analysis conducted on the blood seized in the Puerto case not only matched Valverde’s later sample, but also contained evidence of EPO use. As a result, the Italian panel imposed a two-year ban on the Spanish rider.

That suspension, however, has not translated into a world-wide ban. By upholding the Italian suspension, it’s assumed that Valverde will likely face a worldwide ban. The UCI already tried in vain to keep Valverde out of the 2007 worlds based on alleged Puerto links, but CAS ruled then to allow Valverde to compete.


It’s about time this matter was resolved, either with a ban or just let him ride. Puerto was what, 2006? Glad to see the wheels of justice are finally rolling along.

In this latest appeal, the three-member CAS panel ruled that CONI had jurisdiction to impose the suspension and concluded that evidence presented in the case was not only admissible but also relevant and could reasonably lead to a two-year suspension.Meanwhile, Valverde didn’t appear willing to accept the decision without a fight. In a statement posted to his website following the CAS ruling, Valverde’s attorneys said they plan to appeal the CAS decision in a Swiss federal court, accusing at least one of the three CAS panelists of being inherently “biased,” since had once worked for the World-Anti-Doping Agency…

Yeah, it’s because one of the panelists was biased! They didn’t bother to look at the pile of DNA analysis and supporting evidence. Maybe it was something in one of his supplements? Maybe it was that shot of Patron?

More over at CyclingNews

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestmailby feather

About Flodizzle

Another cyclist toiling away in graduate school. Go figure. Tucson, Arizona, USA

5 thoughts on “Doper

  1. The whole thing is a shell game at this point. Even IF he was banned by the UCI, it would be argued that the ban should retroactive to the date his samples were found in the Puerto case.
    And the larger question is if he has failed an administered drug test. It could be argued that since the samples found in the Puerto case were not taken as a part of an administered, overseen test, would they be admissible?

    IMO, too much time has passed. If he fails a test in 2010, then throw his ass out, but for now, I say to just let him race.

  2. Yes, but what about all the rest from Operation Puerto? The last I knew, they had some ridiculous thing like a hundred bags of blood all rich with EPO. One was labeled “AC”. Supposedly though, the “AC” we all know was cleared…I say, Yeah, Right!

  3. The Spanish are free to cheat. Valverde is a good example. AC another. No way that dude goes uphill like that without the juice. Just ask the ‘Cobra’, Ricardo Ricco.

  4. Just to clarify, it was BLOOD DOPING, not EPO. So it was just BLOOD stored and then via an IV put back into the person at a time when they wanted a boost. At least they were smarter than Hamilton and used their own blood, not the blood of other people.

    Ricco took CERA, along with more than half of the Pros, until it became detectable.

    As for the AC, they used NICKNAMES, not initials on any of the bags of blood. That much has been all over the press, for a long time.

    CONI took blood destined for testing for performance enhancing drugs, decided not to do that and ran DNA tests instead, which is a breech of CONI’s and the UCI’s rules. CONI refused to tell Valverde how they got the alleged blood from the Canary Islands, which is where Operation Puerto all took place. Add to that, and this was reported during the Veulta last year by the British commentators on SKY, CONI still refused to tell WADA, the UCI and CAS how they got the blood from Puerto leads me to wonder what the validity of CONIs claims are. That may have changed since then, but that has not been reported anywhere, to the best of my knowledge.

    Not saying he didn’t, just saying…..

  5. Ed,
    It was blood doping, but EPO was found in the blood. See the following article: Both EPO and blood doping improve aerobic performance by increasing oxygen carrying capacity (hemoglobin). Adding intravascular volume, in blood doping, also increases cardiac output (Starling law) which further increases oxygen delivery. O2del = cardiac output(arterial O2 content).

    Secondly, “AC” is just as much a code name as “Piti”, “Valv”, or any of the rest of them. I give “AC” the benefit of the doubt, by I still have suspicions.