• jules

    this could be huge

    • martin

      Rather

    • Steve

      unlikely, many of the Athletes and cyclists can just refuse to give a DNA sample and there will be nothing to use for comparison, The only way names come out is if a deal has been struck for Fuentes to give names himself.

      • jules

        anyone with a blood passport has already given up DNA data.

        for active athletes, WADA can just take a sample any time they like. that’s kind of how Valverde was caught – everyone suspected his blood was part of the Puerto haul. the Spanish anti-doping authorities curiously avoided testing that, but the Italians managed to get Puerto blood samples. then they simply tested Valverde when he entered Italy and matched the samples.

        you can run but you can’t hide. more will fall from this. and it’s good.

        • Superpilot

          True, but under the time bar, they may not be able to simply test the bags and then search for the current or past blood passport DNA data. As it has no case to pursue within the allowed time period, possibly they may be disallowed from even establishing a link. They could test the blood and find any ‘impurities’, but then be barred from seeking out a match for whose blood that is. I certainly hope they do test them all, and then even if they are legally blocked, somehow or other names or links may come to light from outside of WADA. I think this is what Shane (awesome work Shane!) is alluding to, they would need to make an exception. I think you can tell that the whole thing is still dirty, by how the blood bags suddenly became available precisely ONE MONTH after the ten years has elapsed.

          • Dave

            The relevant statute of limitations at the time (2006) was eight years, not ten, so it’s much more than one month overdue. It may be possible to argue for an extension on the basis that the relevant date for ‘starting’ the anti-doping process was actually when WADA and the other concerned agencies first asked for the blood bags (2013, comfortably inside the eight years) rather than when a judge finally said yes.

            I don’t believe there is anything preventing the testing and matching of samples, the only problem would be the inability to use them to obtain a ‘proper’ sanction under the WADA Code. The information can still be relevant to making current decisions such as whether a media outlet should honour a retired rider with a prominent position on TV, or whether ASO should invite Movistar to the Tour and Vuelta next year.

            It would be no different to the re-testing from the 1998 Tour de France which led to the downfall of O’Grady, Zabel and others.

            • jules

              agreed.

          • jules

            the IAAF re-tested 2005 samples. they were within the 10 yr. period, but WADA found that the IAAF had erred and that the 8 yr. period should have applied – as the 8 yrs. had expired for those samples and the new 10 yr. limit shouldn’t have been retrospectively applied.

            but the results were published. it’s a bit unclear if they got away with that on the basis of proceeding in good faith – i.e. mistakenly believing the 10 yr. period applied. or whether they can just publish and the limit doesn’t apply to disclosure. I’m hoping the latter.

            • Dave

              If the latter does not apply, it could always be handed over to a government body which would not have so many restrictions on what the WADA Code does or does not allow.

              The investigation into the 1998 Tour that I mentioned before would be a useful precedent – it was overseen by the French parliament, not a regular anti-doping body.

              • jules

                yeah but doping is a criminal offence in France, which is where the French parliament gained their mandate to intervene with Tour samples.

                I don’t think it’s a crime in Spain and I’m sure it wasn’t when the samples were seized. other govts. like the French can’t intervene as Puerto was outside their jurisdiction – unless maybe there was evidence the Puerto samples were used by riders in French races, but seems unlikely (without having first done the full investigation – chicken and egg scenario).

                the Puerto case was of course on the basis of criminal offences associated with medical malpractice, not cheating in sports.

                • Dave

                  A parliamentary investigation is not a criminal prosecution though, and would not have the same restrictions on jurisdiction as a parliament can typically investigate anything it damn well pleases.

                  CONI might be the body to do it in France rather than Italy – both to run the investigation and to ask the Italian government to authorise something a little more free ranging than what WADA would normally allow.

                  • jules

                    interesting. maybe.

                    I don’t understand your point about CONI though. as the Italian Olympic body, they have no jurisdiction in France and the French parliament are unlikely to award them any.

                    • Dave

                      But they do have it in Italy.

                      My suggestion is more that CONI and the Italian government take inspiration from the French parliament’s investigation which showed there’s scope to investigate doping outside of a WADA sanctioning process, and then do something similar in Italy – not that the French need to be involved in any way.

          • ebbe

            Shane has done nothing other than copy-paste the work of others. He even *retrofitted* my comments about the number of blood bags, mostly (almost exclusively) cyclists and athletes being involved, and other sports likely using different doping methods into his piece after it turned out his hopes of other sports being implicated were idle. The “awesome work” here was done by Guarda Civiel and (partially awesome) by the Spanish judge. Other work (albeit largely speculative – so I’ll leave it to the reader to decide how awesome it is) was done by the admin of velorooms.com, who compiled the (unconfirmed and uncomplete, but still) list of names.

  • ebbe

    211 blood bags
    from 36 sportspeople
    – 23 cyclists
    – 12 athletes
    – 1 (yet) unknown sport

    So it’s not very likely we’ll see football/tennis/basketball/etc players identified from this. And why would they use blood bags anyway? They’re barely tested for EPO, testosterone/steroids, AICAR, etc, so they can just dope (continuously).

    • dsd74

      Wasn’t there a second division Spanish football team that admitted a couple of years ago to using Fuentes? Or am I confusing doping rings?

      • ebbe

        No, you’re correct! ;-)

        However, “using the services of Fuentes” does not automatically mean they used blood bags specifically. There are many other, easier ways to dope, all of which Fuentes could have offered to football/tennis/basketball/etc players… especially since there is comparatively barely any testing in those sports and/or it’s covered up.

        Releasing the blood bags and finding out whose blood is in them will only reveal names of people from sports where blood bags are used, typically (mostly) cycling and athletics. It will certainly not reveal anybody and everybody who has ever used Fuentes’ services to dope in other ways. It will probably even divert attention away from those other cheats. Since Fuentes himself is now acquitted, he also has no reason to give up any names.

        Most likely, only/mostly names of cyclists and athletes will – in some time – be revealed. Simply because they’re only looking at mechanisms these sports tend to use. Not exclusively, but certainly predominantly. In the media and the eyes of the public, all of this will only make cycling look worse compared to other sports.

        It’s as if we’re *only* looking at the crime of “copying homework” (ignoring fraude, corruption, theft, etc) and therefore concluding that school kids must be the absolute worst criminals in the world.

        • jules

          Fuentes is on record as saying he would give up more information on other dopers – including saying that Spain would lose world championships as a result. presumably the football World Cup.

          the Spanish authorities have responded with horror – they just want him to shut up and go away. they’ve never asked him for that info. which is weird, cos it’s kind of their job..

          • Superpilot

            Just suggests that the authorities knew, or refused to act, or didn’t do their jobs correctly, and have fear of reparations themselves. So rather than the athletes and their careers, one could presume (without proof, lets allow judicious argument) that it is about protecting diplomats? *mind blown*

            • jules

              the Spanish authorities are nothing short of a disgrace. they have actively blocked attempts to utilise the samples. the Guardia Civilia did the right thing in busting up Fuentes’ outrageous doping factory. but everything apart from that has been a blatant attempt to protect (mostly) Spanish dopers who were responsible for an unprecedented era of Spanish sporting glory.

              Valverde was only caught due to the Italians stepping in (which is not evidence of Italian commitment to anti-doping, just opportunism to target a rival country’s sporting hero – but, happy outcome).

              the Spanish should be lumped in with the Russians and Nigerians and be completely blacklisted. it’s a joke that any of those nations can go to the Olympics.

              • Superpilot

                Haha, I love a bit of mirth, and well founded on the bumbling that has gone on here. However, be careful jules! According to this list (never definitive of course!), there are more Americans than any other country. The same amount of Australians as Spanish and Nigerian combined. Granted, they are not all Olympic sports. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sportspeople_in_doping_cases_by_nationality

                • jules

                  yeah but a list of doping convictions is as much an indicator of how effectively an anti-doping body is doing their job, as much as how badly behaved their athletes are. the US has a lot of positives because they take that stuff seriously. their pursuit of Lance was beautiful. if Lance was Spanish, he’d still be the king now.

                  • Dave

                    Credit has to go to CONI (the Italian Olympic Committee and anti-doping body) for their hard work on that front too, they took up as much of the slack as they could with Puerto and have also shown they aren’t afraid to take down big Italian names.

                    The UCI statement on the latest Puerto news says that CONI will be involved in what happens next, which is a good sign.

      • Larry @CycleItalia

        I remember reading somewhere a quote like “If all of Fuentes clients were to be known FIFA would be asking for a World Cup to be returned” which meant the contents of these bags would likely never be matched to their owners and made public. But just-in-time to scandalize the TdF (and more?) they might yet be ID’d?

  • awesometown

    What’s the point of opening this back up? Does Wikipedia really need that many more crossed out lines in esoteric palmeres?

    • TV Time Tommy

      Umm, OK, well, there’s this little thing called the truth… it’s the reason why, when new evidence becomes available in old criminal matters, police will re-open cases. They want to solve the case.

      But, if you don’t believe in the intrinsic value of truthfulness, then perhaps commercial imperatives might have more appeal. I’m pretty sure SCA Promotions saw the point in re-opening the Lance Pharmstrong files. A $10m point, to be precise.

      So I hope they name and shame and throw the book at the sly dogs who own the blood bags (no pun intended barillo, piti). Wikipedia edits should be the least of our concerns.

      • awesometown

        The truth is going to do what? Give all of us the ability to smugly nod our heads in confirmation that bad stuff has happened? So some races can be retroactively awarded to second place finishers and we can have one of those awkward photoshoots where a jersey is awarded a decade later to a retired rider?

        That and a dollar will get you on the subway.

        Cycling needs to learn to look forward… in technology, in business and media practices and in doping. Worry about the immense problems the sport is currently dealing with. Don’t just feed the jackals on the internet who need to endless harp on old doping cases.

        • jules

          no. athletes need to know that they might get done at the event they doped, or at any time in the future. every time a doper lays their head on a pillow at night, they should be wondering “will I wake up tomorrow to headlines about me?”

          no rest for the wicked. it’s just better not to dope. that’s the lesson that must be taught.

        • Superpilot

          I think what is more interesting is the samples that do not involve cyclists.

          • awesometown

            True, maybe. But what are you going to do? Is WADA going to turn up at some retired footballer’s house and demand blood? You’d get a door in your face if you’re lucky.

        • TV Time Tommy

          It’s eminently possible to be forward looking whilst concurrently resolving matters from the past. They’re not mutually exclusive. In fact, I would argue one informs the other. Bringing past matters to a resolution not only sends a message to those athletes weighing up the idea of PEDs, but it reveals the nature and extent of a doping problem – and therefore what methods might be needed to address that problem moving forward.

          • awesometown

            When has this worked? What prosecution of past doping discretions has done anything to chip away at current doping offenses?

    • Steve

      nobody can be banned or have their results changed from this, so you kinda have a point, but reputation wise it will dent a few

  • winkybiker

    I’m more one for looking forward. Don’t worry about the old dopers whose blood is in those bags. There’s likely not much that can be administered in the way of sanctions on the basis of 10-year-old evidence, and they’ll be gone soon enough anyway. Just enact automatic lifetime bans for anybody caught from this point forward.

    • Dave

      Throw in the right for race organisers to decline entries from previously sanctioned “former” dopers (hence reducing their value to teams) then you’ve got a deal.

      • winkybiker

        Wouldn’t disagree in principle, but retrospective limitations and rights are always a bit problematic.

        • Dave

          No need for retrospective enforcement, simply a rule to affirm race organisers have the discretion to invite or decline anyone for whatever reason they deem necessary.

          It will probably be a moot point anyway as the WorldTour project looks like finally collapsing, leaving the World Championships as the only road cycling event where the organisers would be obliged to accept whoever is selected.

          • winkybiker

            By retrospective, I mean that to enact rules in this fashion would bring additional future punishment for past offences. The only thing that really matters to me is that there is zero tolerance moving ahead.

            • Dave

              I’m not sure that legitimate business decisions should be classified as ‘additional future punishment.’ Riders should think about the future impacts (all of them, not just the UCI suspension) before cheating.

              ASO, for example, should be well within their rights to use Danielson setting off the dope-o-meter last year as a good reason to not invite Cannondale to any of their races next year, or to invite the team on the condition that Danielson not be selected.

              • Superpilot

                But then your fav would have a chance of not going Dave?

                • Dave

                  True, one of the teams he’s rumoured to be talking to about next year does currently have a Puerto rider. That rider is out of contract though, and might not be renewed with the changing focus of the team.

              • jules

                that would make an interesting precedent.

                • Dave

                  If you’re talking about a conditional invitation, it is widely suspected that the precedent was already set by RCS last year. They invited the Pro Continental team CCC Sprandi Polkowice to MSR and the Giro, but neither the team’s Italian rider (and notorious “former” doper) Davide Rebellin or Stefan Schumacher were at either race.

                  If you’re referring to simply not inviting a team, ASO would not need to give a reason to either the team concerned or the public if they didn’t want to. They could even publicly blame it on something trivial if they wanted, perhaps Cannondale supplying the team with ugly bikes or Vaughters hitting on Prudhomme’s wife.

                  • jules

                    they can’t do it for WT races though I don’t think? although I think I read something about how ASO may just downgrade their races below WT as a workaround.

                    • Dave

                      Not for the WorldTour teams, though they could do it with the invitational slots given to Pro Continental teams.

                      The ASO races won’t be in the WorldTour next year, unless the UCI and ASO resolve their differences over the parts of the WorldTour reform which the UCI dropped.

                    • ebbe

                      And for ASO to downgrade their races, they’ll first have to reduce them to max one week… Or possibly cut both TdF and Vuelta up in three consecutive (but separate) one week races, and come up with a “trifecta cup” for winning the three weeks as a hole, or something.

                    • Dave

                      Err, no. It is only new events that are restricted to five days, the length of WorldTour races is decided by the Professional Cycling Council, and there’s a third rule declaring a ‘major tour’ to be 15-23 days long.

                      There’s precedent too – last time the Tour de France was not in the WorldTour (the ProTour at the time) it was still run to full length.

                      I don’t think the WorldTour will be an issue come the 2018 season, or it will be in ASO hands.

                    • ebbe

                      And if ASO decides to relegate their own races to continental level, then they are neither World Tour nor Major Tour any longer. Then, it’s a matter of: Are they accepted as “the same race” or not? If UCI says “no”, then the duration limit is applicable. No matter what the precedents were from times gone by, when the world tour did not even exist ;-)

                      Tour of Qinghai Lake has this exact same issue. They’ve (had to) split up the race in two (pro forma, which is being allowed). Don’t take my word for it, Bobby Traksel (who works for the UCI as you know) was discussing this on live commentary today

                    • Dave

                      Bzzzzt wrong! Have you already forgotten 2008-2010 when all three Grand Tours ran outside the ProTour/WorldTour series, and ran to full length?

                      If the UCI tries to block the Grand Tours being held outside the WorldTour, ASO will hand them a humiliating defeat in the nearest court using their very own regulations to do.

                      In any case, there’s another point of difference which applies to ASO but not the Chinese organisers – being big enough to choose between out-lawyering the UCI or simply telling them to get in the sea.

                    • ebbe

                      You do realise rules can change from year to year, right? This specific one has been changed 1.01.05; 1.01.08; 1.01.09; 1.07.12; 1.10.13; 1.01.15 – so situations from 2010 might have no bearing on this current situation at all.

                      A quick search on my phone only showed the 2004 UCI regulations, and indeed: these duration limits were structured completely different then. I don’t know about 2010.

                      We’ll see what happens. For now, I’m going with the person closest to this, who elaborated on this on national TV, over you. I’ll remember to let you knowif this ever comes indeed becomes an issue, Dave ;-)

  • Berne Shaw

    Valverde wow. Days of Future Passed not really. Could be his downfall. Or as we often see zero becomes of this, crime pays and the doping wheel keeps on turning. Heck we have the Prince of Torture signing up champions now.

    • Stewie Griffin

      Have you been living under a rock? He was suspended for 2 years being involved in this. What’s interesting to see, is that there was only 1 plasma sample from him compared to 20 bags of Mancebo blood

    • Nomad

      Piti already served a 2 yr ban (2010-2012) for his involvement in Puerto.

      Interestingly, I think he may one of very few athletes that served a doping ban that didn’t have a positive test for a substance, wasn’t sanctioned under ABP anomalies nor confessed to using PEDs or blood manupulation.

      • Dave

        Indeed he was.

        It was an important and historic precedent, one which came in very handy for ASADA when assembling their case against the Essendon AFL players.

    • SMT

      You’re quite the Anglo supremacist.

  • ebbe
    • Dave

      Allan Davis and Fränk Schleck were implicated in it at the time, so they may account for two of the unknown cyclists.

      Schleck was a teammate of Basso on CSC at the time, so perhaps he is ‘Amigo de Brillo’ with four bags.

      • ebbe

        “Luigi” is also rumoured to not be Dekker, but Cancellara. Of course, this is all speculation and we certainly should not take a speculative list as proof. Much, much more speculation here: http://velorooms.com/index.php?topic=1783.0

  • Carl Lewis

    I know how long this has been going on and how many times the court have already turned down the World Anti Doping Agency among many organisations. I would like to give a big thank you for all those organisations that have fought this appeal for years and stars like Andy Murray who highlighted what a joke the ruling was.

    I am very interested in what will happen now…

  • Carl Lewis

    Completely agree with you jules

  • Carl Lewis

    It was Real Sociedad that admitted to doping.

  • Mellow Jessica

    It remains to be seen if the agency can make an exception under its rules.

    And why should an “exception” be made? It’s called a statute of limitations for a reason!

    • jules

      you’re right, they can’t. they have no power to act outside their own rules

BACK TO TOP

Pin It on Pinterest

28 NEW ARTICLES
December 3, 2016
December 2, 2016
December 1, 2016
November 30, 2016
November 29, 2016