http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest...-in-bag-18.html
Not a big surprise, of course, but it looks as though the DNA matched.
Full Version: Valverde confirmation?
QUOTE(Velo @ Jun 11 2009, 05:53 PM) 
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest...-in-bag-18.html
Not a big surprise, of course, but it looks as though the DNA matched.
Ouch.
Yeah, his ride in the Dauphine today is a sign that he's given up on riding the Tour (or at least contesting the Tour), and will have to be satisfied with Catalunya and the Dauphine.
QUOTE(ludwig @ Jun 11 2009, 02:01 PM)
Yeah, his ride in the Dauphine today is a sign that he's given up on riding the Tour (or at least contesting the Tour), and will have to be satisfied with Catalunya and the Dauphine.
And maybe nothing else for the next two years. Obvious now why the UCI is suddenly taking more of an interest in Valv's case.
It still makes no sense that there are blood bags that have been linked to riders and not DNA tested.
QUOTE(ludwig @ Jun 11 2009, 02:01 PM)
Ouch.
Yeah, his ride in the Dauphine today is a sign that he's given up on riding the Tour (or at least contesting the Tour), and will have to be satisfied with Catalunya and the Dauphine.
I think his ride today is plenty of confirmation of his doping.
Period.
End of story.
Glad to see him go.
QUOTE(Burkni @ Jun 11 2009, 07:01 PM)
It still makes no sense that there are blood bags that have been linked to riders and not DNA tested.
I thought the UCI was planning to sue Spanish Justice for the right to do this (as the Germans did re. Ulle).....this seems to have gone the way of the blood passport.
As for Valv, he's been pretty much the most successful rider in the peloton (only Bettini and lately Contador compete with his palmares) for several years now...obviously a shining example for David Millar's new generation. Confirmation that he was doping occurred in March 2004 with the Manzano revelations.
QUOTE(Hombre @ Jun 11 2009, 08:57 PM)
I think his ride today is plenty of confirmation of his doping.
Period.
End of story.
He came in with another rider on a mountain stage in a break. How does that prove doping?
I still don't understand why Armstrong can race this July but not Valverde. Among other things, was the EPO in the 1999 Tour samples adequately explained (other than the lab being French)?
QUOTE(smug @ Jun 12 2009, 11:26 AM)
I still don't understand why Armstrong can race this July but not Valverde. Among other things, was the EPO in the 1999 Tour samples adequately explained (other than the lab being French)?
Because Valverde is actually serving a suspension in a country the Tour passes through?
QUOTE(Burkni @ Jun 11 2009, 09:01 PM)
It still makes no sense that there are blood bags that have been linked to riders and not DNA tested.
Strange indeed. I can't figure out why CONI went after Valverde and not the enitre list.
I neither like nor dislike Valverde, though I do wish he would tell the truth. Can you blame him though, when you see what is happening to Kohl.
QUOTE(frenchfry @ Jun 12 2009, 11:50 AM)
Strange indeed. I can't figure out why CONI went after Valverde and not the enitre list.
Thought it had something to do what what they have been able to get their hands on; in Valverde's case, they got some DNA samples when the Tour passed through Italy last year.
One would assume that other "potential Puerto riders" were there too, though...
QUOTE(Hombre @ Jun 11 2009, 11:57 PM)
I think his ride today is plenty of confirmation of his doping.
Period.
End of story.
If you had bothered to look it up, you'd easily find out that Valverde and Szmyd, by any historic measure, climbed Ventaux yesterday at a modest rate - 20-30 watts below the recent Giro standard and minutes slower than any record performances on Ventaux.
The fact that you replace sober assessments by absolutist, opinionated rants while pouring scorn, insults and vitriol on riders you don't like, speaks volumes about your lack of serious knowledge re cycling performance specifically and human physiology in general.
Period.
End of story.
QUOTE(Hombre @ Jun 12 2009, 04:57 AM)
I think his ride today is plenty of confirmation of his doping.
Period.
End of story.
Glad to see him go.
Who is the biggest fraud of sport history ? maybe Lance Armstrong ?
What do you think we should do?
QUOTE(rational head @ Jun 12 2009, 06:44 AM)
If you had bothered to look it up, you'd easily find out that Valverde and Szmyd, by any historic measure, climbed Ventaux yesterday at a modest rate - 20-30 watts below the recent Giro standard and minutes slower than any record performances on Ventaux.
The fact that you replace sober assessments by absolutist, opinionated rants while pouring scorn, insults and vitriol on riders you don't like, speaks volumes about your lack of serious knowledge re cycling performance specifically and human physiology in general.
Period.
End of story.
Hey thanks for the input.
Please post the times and watts since I havent seen any.
QUOTE(MrHarm @ Jun 12 2009, 05:40 AM)
Because Valverde is actually serving a suspension in a country the Tour passes through?
but at least valverde has no blood sample FROM THE TOUR that shows the existence of EPO. both trangressions, if correct, are from years back and should be either discarded or enforced for both riders.
QUOTE(smug @ Jun 12 2009, 01:12 PM)
but at least valverde has no blood sample FROM THE TOUR that shows the existence of EPO. both trangressions, if correct, are from years back and should be either discarded or enforced for both riders.
+1
QUOTE(smug @ Jun 12 2009, 09:12 AM)
but at least valverde has no blood sample FROM THE TOUR that shows the existence of EPO. both trangressions, if correct, are from years back and should be either discarded or enforced for both riders.
Have you ever been a member of the bar?
QUOTE(smug @ Jun 12 2009, 03:12 PM)
but at least valverde has no blood sample FROM THE TOUR that shows the existence of EPO. both trangressions, if correct, are from years back and should be either discarded or enforced for both riders.
That sounds far too logical to be enacted.
Perhaps Valverde's biggest transgression is not to be tweeting in his own defence.
both trangressions, if correct, are from years back and should be either discarded or enforced for both riders.
discarded.
no valid test failure for either rider, thus no valid sanction.
discarded.
no valid test failure for either rider, thus no valid sanction.
QUOTE(frenchfry @ Jun 12 2009, 09:41 AM)
Perhaps Valverde's biggest transgression is not to be tweeting in his own defence.
i like to call it "twitting".
QUOTE(vanishingPoint @ Jun 12 2009, 09:28 AM)
Have you ever been a member of the bar?
i am a member of the bar. is vaughn requiring that now for membership here?
QUOTE(Hombre @ Jun 12 2009, 09:03 AM)
Hey thanks for the input.
Please post the times and watts since I havent seen any.
Puissances modestes au Ventoux
And be nice to Fab if French isn't your strength
QUOTE(frenchfry @ Jun 12 2009, 05:50 AM)
I can't figure out why CONI went after Valverde and not the enitre list.
An excellent question. Ditto the UCI.
Selective enforcement of rules makes a mockery of "the system". How exactly does it help cycling when those entrusted with detection and enforcement responsibilities show themselves to be arbitrary in their application of the rules?
Not that I'm interested in defending Kohl or Valverde, but if a system of "justice" can't be applied with consistency, systematically, in a way that advances the goal of a "level playing field" FOR ALL, then what is it worth? And how can it be argued to be fundamentally just, in the first place. An "unjust" system of "justice" is one that will achieve little in the way of deterrence and little in the way of making those who are victimized by the nature of the "crime" feel truly better about the nature of the environment.
It may seem like ancient history now, but I'm sorry Jan Ullrich's pleas about uneven and unfair application of "the rules" were seemingly dismissed simply because he was one of the ones who got "caught." His basic contention had great merit on the substance. Trying to quash the argument simply because it was Ullrich who made it was wrong, IMO.
Scapegoating is offensive to fair-minded people. That includes people who generally would support the UCI, CONI, AFLD, etc. in pursuing anti-doping policies. If they can't be fair in the application of the rules, they ought not be granted the power to oversee their enforcement. Plain and simple.
QUOTE(smug @ Jun 12 2009, 10:16 AM)
i am a member of the bar. is vaughn requiring that now for membership here?
QUOTE(vanishingPoint @ Jun 12 2009, 10:56 AM)
just wondering what's behind the thought process of comparing LA to Valv and referring repeatedly to inadmissible
Your point wouldn't be so silly if the Tour based its exclusions on strict evidentiary standards.
QUOTE(floridacyclist @ Jun 12 2009, 09:54 AM)
An excellent question. Ditto the UCI.
Selective enforcement of rules makes a mockery of "the system". How exactly does it help cycling when those entrusted with detection and enforcement responsibilities show themselves to be arbitrary in their application of the rules?
Not that I'm interested in defending Kohl or Valverde, but if a system of "justice" can't be applied with consistency, systematically, in a way that advances the goal of a "level playing field" FOR ALL, then what is it worth? And how can it be argued to be fundamentally just, in the first place. An "unjust" system of "justice" is one that will achieve little in the way of deterrence and little in the way of making those who are victimized by the nature of the "crime" feel truly better about the nature of the environment.
It may seem like ancient history now, but I'm sorry Jan Ullrich's pleas about uneven and unfair application of "the rules" were seemingly dismissed simply because he was one of the ones who got "caught." His basic contention had great merit on the substance. Trying to quash the argument simply because it was Ullrich who made it was wrong, IMO.
Scapegoating is offensive to fair-minded people. That includes people who generally would support the UCI, CONI, AFLD, etc. in pursuing anti-doping policies. If they can't be fair in the application of the rules, they ought not be granted the power to oversee their enforcement. Plain and simple.
one of the best posts i've seen here floridacyclist.
QUOTE(floridacyclist @ Jun 12 2009, 10:54 AM)
An excellent question. Ditto the UCI.
Selective enforcement of rules makes a mockery of "the system". How exactly does it help cycling when those entrusted with detection and enforcement responsibilities show themselves to be arbitrary in their application of the rules?
Not that I'm interested in defending Kohl or Valverde, but if a system of "justice" can't be applied with consistency, systematically, in a way that advances the goal of a "level playing field" FOR ALL, then what is it worth? And how can it be argued to be fundamentally just, in the first place. An "unjust" system of "justice" is one that will achieve little in the way of deterrence and little in the way of making those who are victimized by the nature of the "crime" feel truly better about the nature of the environment.
It may seem like ancient history now, but I'm sorry Jan Ullrich's pleas about uneven and unfair application of "the rules" were seemingly dismissed simply because he was one of the ones who got "caught." His basic contention had great merit on the substance. Trying to quash the argument simply because it was Ullrich who made it was wrong, IMO.
Scapegoating is offensive to fair-minded people. That includes people who generally would support the UCI, CONI, AFLD, etc. in pursuing anti-doping policies. If they can't be fair in the application of the rules, they ought not be granted the power to oversee their enforcement. Plain and simple.
+1
fixed that for you, smug esq.
thanks, campy, you have a good grasp of the law, especially for a republican. 
QUOTE(smug @ Jun 12 2009, 11:01 AM)
Your point wouldn't be so silly if the Tour based its exclusions on strict evidentiary standards.
Apples and Oranges do sound silly.
it can be apples and oranges when people aren't intelligent enough to grasp the analogy. 
QUOTE(smug @ Jun 12 2009, 05:01 PM)
Your point wouldn't be so silly if the Tour based its exclusions on strict evidentiary standards.
What makes you think that ASO wouldn't have allowed Valverde to race the Tour if he actually could race the whole race?
This is not a case of ASO excluding Valverde because of doping investigations, it's a case of CONI having suspended him in Italy, the Tour going through Italy and ASO saying that they're not interested in having Valverde at the Tour when it is decided in advance that he will have to quit before the "Italian" stage...
it's a good point, there is a practical implication of even letting valverde race. but as a spanish rider who has not been sanctioned by his own national association (or international) for a matter originating in Spain, it seems unfair to valverde and the tour to allow italy to decide who rides in france's national bike race.
but there are practical implications as well in allowing armstrong to race. there is epo in his frozen samples from the 1999 tour, which of course is a time where there was no test for epo. absent any indication that that fraud is involved, i would think that that matter would have to be addressed before armstrong can ride.
but there are practical implications as well in allowing armstrong to race. there is epo in his frozen samples from the 1999 tour, which of course is a time where there was no test for epo. absent any indication that that fraud is involved, i would think that that matter would have to be addressed before armstrong can ride.
thanks, campy, you have a good grasp of the law, especially for a republican.
i thank you, my fellow american!
but as a spanish rider who has not been sanctioned by his own national association (or international) for a matter originating in Spain, it seems unfair to valverde and the tour to allow italy to decide who rides in france's national bike race.
i have to wonder if the organizers aren't letting someone with more vindictiveness do their dirty work for them?
i would think that that matter would have to be addressed before armstrong can ride.
ain't gonna happen. a rider must approve the re-testing and public release of the results, per the code of the west...er...uci regulations.
i thank you, my fellow american!
but as a spanish rider who has not been sanctioned by his own national association (or international) for a matter originating in Spain, it seems unfair to valverde and the tour to allow italy to decide who rides in france's national bike race.
i have to wonder if the organizers aren't letting someone with more vindictiveness do their dirty work for them?
i would think that that matter would have to be addressed before armstrong can ride.
ain't gonna happen. a rider must approve the re-testing and public release of the results, per the code of the west...er...uci regulations.
QUOTE(smug @ Jun 14 2009, 11:46 AM)
it's a good point, there is a practical implication of even letting valverde race. but as a spanish rider who has not been sanctioned by his own national association (or international) for a matter originating in Spain, it seems unfair to valverde and the tour to allow italy to decide who rides in france's national bike race.
That's what you get for running France's national bike race through Italy, I guess
The difference between the two cases is that Valverde's is an investigation that is recognized by the ASO, UCI, etc...
Armstrong's case, on the other hand, was done by an independent investigator. Regardless of the outcome, the way in which the results were found were considered to be unethical, and against regulation. The investigator was not supposed to try and match the names with the codes. In fact, I think they were obtained illegally (though I could be wrong about French law in this matter). Therefore they are not recognized, despite the fact that they turned up positive results.
Armstrong's case, on the other hand, was done by an independent investigator. Regardless of the outcome, the way in which the results were found were considered to be unethical, and against regulation. The investigator was not supposed to try and match the names with the codes. In fact, I think they were obtained illegally (though I could be wrong about French law in this matter). Therefore they are not recognized, despite the fact that they turned up positive results.
QUOTE(MrHarm @ Jun 14 2009, 08:41 PM)
That's what you get for running France's national bike race through Italy, I guess
Who says ASO didn't simply plan it this way?
QUOTE(Perico @ Jun 14 2009, 09:58 PM)
The difference between the two cases is that Valverde's is an investigation that is recognized by the ASO, UCI, etc...
Armstrong's case, on the other hand, was done by an independent investigator. Regardless of the outcome, the way in which the results were found were considered to be unethical, and against regulation. The investigator was not supposed to try and match the names with the codes. In fact, I think they were obtained illegally (though I could be wrong about French law in this matter). Therefore they are not recognized, despite the fact that they turned up positive results.
Nothing was done illegaly, just one lie to Armstrong to obtain his authorization to deliver his sample identification. I don't want the king in that matter sueing Ressiot for a small lie.
Nothing was done illegaly, just one lie to Armstrong to obtain his authorization to deliver his sample identification. I don't want the king in that matter sueing Ressiot for a small lie.
nothing that is said or done by a man that lies can be trusted.
he lied.
he's a liar.
the only thing a man really has on this planet is his word. ressiot has...nothing. he's a self-admitted liar.
odds are, if he lied once he's lied numerous times.
he's not fit to polish my boots.
nothing that is said or done by a man that lies can be trusted.
he lied.
he's a liar.
the only thing a man really has on this planet is his word. ressiot has...nothing. he's a self-admitted liar.
odds are, if he lied once he's lied numerous times.
he's not fit to polish my boots.
Valverde is promising to help Contador in the TOur against...
ARMSTRONG
let the fights begin ladies and gents!!
Besdies being a convicted doper now Valverde is going out and promising to help his countryman against his own teammate. Thanks for the payback Valv Pitt since it as obvious Contador helped Valv win against Evans.
Wow. What a drama we have on our hands now.
I can only hope Valv races, does poorly, tests positive, again. and can chew on these words from a French prison cell.
ARMSTRONG
let the fights begin ladies and gents!!
Besdies being a convicted doper now Valverde is going out and promising to help his countryman against his own teammate. Thanks for the payback Valv Pitt since it as obvious Contador helped Valv win against Evans.
Wow. What a drama we have on our hands now.
I can only hope Valv races, does poorly, tests positive, again. and can chew on these words from a French prison cell.
QUOTE(fab @ Jun 14 2009, 05:39 PM)
Nothing was done illegaly, just one lie to Armstrong to obtain his authorization to deliver his sample identification. I don't want the king in that matter sueing Ressiot for a small lie.
I said it could be illegal (that was what I was implying). If it is not illegal in France, it is still unethical and the fact that the UCI or the ASO did not give permission for the results of the test to be released.
It is not unlike a crime investigation, in as much as the fact that to obtain evidence, law enforcement must have a legal warrant signed by a judge. If the cops were to search a premises without that warrant, the evidence is inadmissable in court.
Had Walsh or Ressiot gone through the proper procedures, instead of falsely misleading the organization and Armstrong, then it could be admitted. However, they didn't.
Yes, the results came back positive. However, it would not hold up in any court, and not only would Ressiot and Walsh have a lawsuit from Armstrong, but the UCI would be liable as well.
The bottom line is that you can't gather evidence through illegitimate means and expect the results to be acted upon. I don't see why this is so difficult for some to grasp.
The absolute worst thing that could've happened did. By obtaining those results illegitimately, they squashed the chance they had of nailing Armstrong for the results. It's not going to magically change, unless new evidence is turned up.
And Campy makes a great point, even if you disagree with the final analysis.
Rousset lied, and guess what? His credibility is out the door.
The case of the 1999 samples is closed and won't be reopened because Rousset lied to get the samples. There is no way around that fact. Because of his dishonesty, the UCI and/or the ASO would be liable for his actions were they to act upon them. Is it really that hard to grasp?
He ruined his own case, and there's really nothing that can be done about it now.
QUOTE(Perico @ Jun 15 2009, 01:37 AM)
I said it could be illegal (that was what I was implying). If it is not illegal in France, it is still unethical and the fact that the UCI or
It is not unlike a crime investigation, in as much as the fact that to obtain evidence, law enforcement must have a legal warrant signed by a judge. If the cops were to search a premises without that warrant, the evidence is inadmissable in court.
Had Walsh or Ressiot gone through the proper procedures, instead of falsely misleading the organization and Armstrong, then it could be admitted by lance 's fan boy, I doubt !. However, they didn't.
Yes, the results came back positive. However, it would not hold up in any court, and not only would Ressiot and Walsh have a lawsuit from Armstrong, but the UCI would be liable as well.
So, why Lance didn't sue?
The bottom line is that you can't gather evidence through
Your description don't correspond to the related fact!
The absolute worst thing that could've happened did. By obtaining those results
NO. By not revealing the truth, Armstrong could sleep quietly with his 6 + 2 + N unknow postive cases ! The debates would have never happened and Lance's fan would have pushed their mantra that Lance wins fair and clear!
And Campy makes a great point, even if you disagree with the final analysis.
Rousset lied, and guess what? His credibility is out the door.
The case of the 1999 samples is closed and won't be reopened because Rousset lied to get the samples. There is no way around that fact. Because of his dishonesty, the UCI and/or the ASO would be liable for his actions were they to act upon them. Is it really that hard to grasp?
He ruined his own case, and there's really nothing that can be done about it now.
I think you have to revisit History and to search similar cases and how positive have their effect been to have a better world and not let criminals and dishonest people to lead others people.
Who is the big liar? Ressiot or Lance Armstrong? Who duped the most people? for which reasons? Who threatened people?
By reading your post and your own standard Lance is a much bigger liar than Ressiot.
QUOTE(CAMPYBOB @ Jun 15 2009, 12:20 AM)
nothing that is said or done by a man that lies can be trusted.
he lied.
he's a liar.
So what about Sir Lance?
Have you never lied?
Are all lies equal?
QUOTE(Perico @ Jun 14 2009, 08:37 PM)
I said it could be illegal (that was what I was implying). If it is not illegal in France, it is still unethical and the fact that the UCI or the ASO did not give permission for the results of the test to be released.
It is not unlike a crime investigation, in as much as the fact that to obtain evidence, law enforcement must have a legal warrant signed by a judge. If the cops were to search a premises without that warrant, the evidence is inadmissable in court.
Had Walsh or Ressiot gone through the proper procedures, instead of falsely misleading the organization and Armstrong, then it could be admitted. However, they didn't.
Yes, the results came back positive. However, it would not hold up in any court, and not only would Ressiot and Walsh have a lawsuit from Armstrong, but the UCI would be liable as well.
The bottom line is that you can't gather evidence through illegitimate means and expect the results to be acted upon. I don't see why this is so difficult for some to grasp.
The absolute worst thing that could've happened did. By obtaining those results illegitimately, they squashed the chance they had of nailing Armstrong for the results. It's not going to magically change, unless new evidence is turned up.
And Campy makes a great point, even if you disagree with the final analysis.
Rousset lied, and guess what? His credibility is out the door.
The case of the 1999 samples is closed and won't be reopened because Rousset lied to get the samples. There is no way around that fact. Because of his dishonesty, the UCI and/or the ASO would be liable for his actions were they to act upon them. Is it really that hard to grasp?
He ruined his own case, and there's really nothing that can be done about it now.
i wonder why the samples were kept. i also wonder if they continue to keep samples.
So what about Sir Lance?
lance says he didn't do the dope and he didn't lie about not doing the dope. ressiot said he lied about the dope.
guess who i believe?
Have you never lied?
moi? i'm god. besides, as god i've given you that thing called 'free will'. i don't command you to believe my divine word regarding lance and ressiot. you're free to make your own choice...just watch out for that lake of fire on your left there.
Are all lies equal?
to the point that a liar cannot be trusted...yes.
ressiot lied. he's a liar. his reputation is less than that of any sanctioned doper.
proving a lie by lying??? yeah. that'll work really well...
i could explain it to you, but it would involve a long, boring dissertation on the density of bricks, personality disorders, ocd, fixation, transference, denial, anger issues, superiority complexes, and much laughter.
i wonder why the samples were kept. i also wonder if they continue to keep samples.
you got any idea what saint lance's piss is gonna bring on ebay? lndd can finally afford that new mass spectroscope and a scanning electron microscope!
lance says he didn't do the dope and he didn't lie about not doing the dope. ressiot said he lied about the dope.
guess who i believe?
Have you never lied?
moi? i'm god. besides, as god i've given you that thing called 'free will'. i don't command you to believe my divine word regarding lance and ressiot. you're free to make your own choice...just watch out for that lake of fire on your left there.
Are all lies equal?
to the point that a liar cannot be trusted...yes.
ressiot lied. he's a liar. his reputation is less than that of any sanctioned doper.
proving a lie by lying??? yeah. that'll work really well...
i could explain it to you, but it would involve a long, boring dissertation on the density of bricks, personality disorders, ocd, fixation, transference, denial, anger issues, superiority complexes, and much laughter.
i wonder why the samples were kept. i also wonder if they continue to keep samples.
you got any idea what saint lance's piss is gonna bring on ebay? lndd can finally afford that new mass spectroscope and a scanning electron microscope!
QUOTE(Velo @ Jun 11 2009, 01:53 PM)
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest...-in-bag-18.html
Not a big surprise, of course, but it looks as though the DNA matched.
I have ironclad proof that Valverde did not dope!
not once in the article on him in Velonews did the word 'traquil' come up.
Can't be a doper -- ya'll know that's the code word!
good news, valverde has never tested positive.
good news, valverde has never tested positive.
and neither has his dog.
let alejandro race.
and neither has his dog.
let alejandro race.
I say let him race. It will be big time drama when these guys start working for each other (Valv and Cont) and the other folks help the Tornado or not.
Also I have tried to read this entire thread and need to know do I have to be a member of a bar? If so I can say without a doubt I am a member of several bar's!
Cheers
Also I have tried to read this entire thread and need to know do I have to be a member of a bar? If so I can say without a doubt I am a member of several bar's!
Cheers
QUOTE
Spanish sports minister Jaime Lissavetzky believes "there are a number of doubts and questions" over Alejandro Valverde's suspension from racing in Italy by the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI) and has questioned the fairness of the decision.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lissavetzk...on-questionable
The entire argument is based the jurisdiction, and totally ignores the fact that Valverde was a user of Fuentes' doping services.
The Spanish political and justice systems are in cohorts with the doping facilitators, and are no better than Fuentes himself.
QUOTE(frenchfry @ Jun 16 2009, 09:18 AM)
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lissavetzk...on-questionable
The entire argument is based the jurisdiction, and totally ignores the fact that Valverde was a user of Fuentes' doping services.
The Spanish political and justice systems are in cohorts with the doping facilitators, and are no better than Fuentes himself.
It is the way Valverde himself has focused on the question of jurisdiction, and not the question of guilt, that has removed most doubts I ever had about this case.
I find it easier to understand the Spanish, as I to some extent agree that the whole jurisdiction issue is problematic at least in principle. Of course, they're still a bunch of doping facilitators for not having done anything at all with the case...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.