[Flo]

I can see it now..

Nice picture

[Flo]

wash your mouth out AG!

PS you trying to upset Pete?

alberto didn't use clen :

[L'arri]

Luis-Léon Sanchez, come on down. You're next!

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13789/Blanco-Cycling-scrutinizes-Luis-Leon-Sanchezs-past-due-to-reported-links-to-Operacion-Puerto.aspx

[Havetts]

Yep. Even those who escaped at first will be caught eventually, is my opinion.

[just some guy]

I do wonder who will be the dam buster of Spain, I have a feeling it is about to go, maybe court induced but maybe not.
Interesting times

[benotti69]

Surprised the Dutch FA have not been in touch with Fuentes and set him up in retirement in a former Dutch colony. Worth a world cup, No?

[AG]

interesting.

I wonder how Scarponi and Basso feel about LLS getting off scott free when they were done out of Peurto

[mew]

Luis-Léon Sanchez, come on down. You're next!

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13789/Blanco-Cycling-scrutinizes-Luis-Leon-Sanchezs-past-due-to-reported-links-to-Operacion-Puerto.aspx

D@mn! I really like Lulu....but he must feel the noose....
OP is not going away

who's next!

[Jamsque]

The Spanish government is still to interested in sweeping this under the rug, no dams will burst and there will be no reform in Spanish sport.

[kabloemski]

D@mn! I really like Lulu....but he must feel the noose....
OP is not going away

who's next!

Yeah I like him too. But like you said....

[Flo]

Former ONCE riders/entire roster involved in OP, total shock!

Byop not Alberto

[just some guy]

I have a question amongst the banter, if we use Allan Davis as an example, as he has been investigated and found not guilty.

Say Fuentes, names names, and what they did, which at the time is not illegal in Spain, as we know his defence is that there was no crimes against health, ie no one could get sick from transfusions and the like.

The defense proves this, but the world knows what he was upto against the dirty cyclists ( because we all know only cyclists dope, well that the idea from Spain anyway). Can WADA or ASADA  use this to ban Alby ?

[Flo]

I think so, so that would be what, 8 years?

[AG]

the UCI can ask each rider's national governing body to investigate.  If the offenses are still within the statute of limitations, and any offenses can be proven (including using testimony obtained in this case) then yes, they can be sanctioned.

Just because doping isnt illegal in spain, doesnt mean it is allowable in sport.  Its not illegal in many countries .... US, Australia, UK etc ...

the evidence can still be used

[just some guy]

I think so, so that would be what, 8 years?

I am not so sure as the cui would need to ask the Australian cycling fed to open an investigation, but the evidence may not be forth coming from Spain?

2 years for Ably 1st offence I think,

Others 8 or life.

But again not 100% sure.

[Flo]

I am not so sure as the cui would need to ask the Australian cycling fed to open an investigation, but the evidence may not be forth coming from Spain?

2 years for Ably 1st offence I think,

Others 8 or life.

But again not 100% sure.

wait Alby is Allan davis? ok

[just some guy]

the UCI can ask each rider's national governing body to investigate.  If the offenses are still within the statute of limitations, and any offenses can be proven (including using testimony obtained in this case) then yes, they can be sanctioned.

Just because doping isnt illegal in spain, doesnt mean it is allowable in sport.  Its not illegal in many countries .... US, Australia, UK etc ...

the evidence can still be used

Spain would need to provide the evidence, not sure court notes can be used , maybe they could?

Plus ably would need a fair hearing, would the court notes provide that?

Florry Alby = Allan Davis

[AG]

yeah first offense for Alby.

And the spanish werent willing to share before ... but you never know.

We have to remember that they found Alberto not guilty of the clen thing too - so they arent super keen to see him go down, so I dont have a lot of faith in the Spanish anti-doping body.

And alhough they wont be as keen to protect Alby - they also dont want him to talk and take others down with him either.  If he has nothing left to lose, he may just go all "landis" on them    :rolleye

[just some guy]

yeah first offense for Alby.

And the spanish werent willing to share before ... but you never know.

We have to remember that they found Alberto not guilty of the clen thing too - so they arent super keen to see him go down, so I dont have a lot of faith in the Spanish anti-doping body.

And alhough they wont be as keen to protect Alby - they also dont want him to talk and take others down with him either.  If he has nothing left to lose, he may just go all "landis" on them    :rolleye

Which gets me back to my dam buster post, 

[L'arri]

Allan Davis and others were not found not guilty, they were acquitted or, as the Roman law aptly calls it, relaxed. This means that a rock solid causal link could not be established and the outcome is therefore procedural: it does not state that they were innocent.

[AG]

I dunno about found not guitly.

I didnt think it ever went to arbitration.

They never laid charges as they deemed it not enough evidence.   Way different to being found not guilty.

[just some guy]

http://m.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/sport/other-sports/tom-english-fuentes-doping-case-silent-on-football-1-2761603#.UQVMG7PACos.twitter

[just some guy]

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-27/contador-letter-shows-move-to-clear-rider-in-doping-scandal.html

[just some guy]

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/01/analysis/the-puerto-quagmire-going-nowhere-fast_272934

[just some guy]

Andrew Hood ‏@EuroHoody
Just spoke with Spanish anti-doping chief; she said they are pressing that blood bags be released for analysis - judge could decide today

have asked if it is the 58 cyclists or the full 200 will let you know if I get an answer

[L'arri]

Spain v. Fuentes E, Fuentes Y, Labarta, Belda, Saiz - Day One summary

Mostly procedural as expected, a rather dry session and in complete contrast to the media scrum outside the court.



The ever dependable Carlos Arriba is covering the story for El Pais and these notes are drawn from his article on the trial (ES).

Manzano

Manzano withdrew his statement against Saiz. This was an unusual development though not much importance has been attached to it by journalists. The reason for the withdrawal appears to be that Manzano has been asked to restrict his testimony to the events of 2006.

We must remember that the charges relate only to 2006. If Manzano has nothing to say about Saiz which relates specifically to 2006, his unrestricted testimony would be considered both irrelevant and prejudicial to the respondent.

It is too early to say how beneficial this outcome will be for Saiz' case.

Procedural decisions

Judge Santamaria heard arguments about the admissibility and scheduling of evidence.

She will rule on whether to allow a statement from Tyler Hamilton which closely resembles his USADA affidavit and whether to move Contador's testimony toward the end of the hearing process.



Finally, and this is important, the judge is also expected to rule on the admission of blood bag evidence that relates in no small part to those "other sports" we've been hearing about so much. Once again, we must remember that the scope of the charges is quite limited and it is therefore not difficult to appreciate why Judge Serrano, who threw out the case some years ago, did not seem interested at that time in hearing about the identities behind the blood bags.

Santamaria seems more open to it, but it is a delicate argument: when talking about whether or not these people colluded to endanger the public health, does it really matter in the strictest sense to the case (even if it might to observers and the public) to whom the blood had belonged?

[Capt_Cavman]

...

Santamaria seems more open to it, but it is a delicate argument: when talking about whether or not these people colluded to endanger the public health, does it really matter in the strictest sense to the case (even if it might to observers and the public) to whom the blood had belonged?

Cheers for the summary.

I find it quite bizarre that a court would not seek to ask those whose health had been endangered, even if they would rather stay quiet about it.

[just some guy]

Cheers for the summary.

I find it quite bizarre that a court would not seek to ask those whose health had been endangered, even if they would rather stay quiet about it.

Government pressure...... 

[L'arri]

Cheers for the summary.

I find it quite bizarre that a court would not seek to ask those whose health had been endangered, even if they would rather stay quiet about it.

Government pressure......

It was always demonstrated to us that you make a legal decision and then you create the reasons for it later. Add to that the rather narrow character of the Roman law and you get these kinds of issues. It's an inflexilbility which people living in countries under common law systems such as Britain and Australia may find frustrating, as do I having seen plenty of both sides. 

The judge must try the respondents on the charges, which means that she narrows down the facts to the evidence and that evidence originates from a very short space of time in 2006. Unfortunately, you cannot bring years of doping history into this case.

A strict reading of 'endangering the public health' equally suggests that you should not concern yourself with the identities of people who are not directly involved, either as respondents or witnesses. Yes, it's their blood but they are not named in this case and they would be damaged by it, which you avoid unless it is absolutely necessary, unless it goes to the root of guilt. In this way, the notion of "public health" is as deliberately anonymous as it is general.

These are all matters of jurisprudence and Judge Santamaria's comportment on Day One suggests she may treat the evidence a little more liberally than Serrano did. Trials are associated with finality but it is rare that they satisfy everyone. As a former lawyer, I understand these matters and why they are being applied in this way, but as a fan the outcomes will probably disappoint and frustrate me.

[just some guy]

Andrew Hood ‏@EuroHoody
Also from judge: Fuentes' computers not evidence; blood and medicines both considered as evidence - Fuentes about to make statement to court