Tomorrow (well, today by the time most people read this), the Italian Olympic Committee’s case against Alejandro Valverde will begin in Rome. It’s an interesting and unusual case, as it has the potential to break new ground in how anti-doping cases can be prosecuted, as the venerable Sam Abt wrote in The New York Times today.
The case being brought against Valverde by the Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI) has to do with Valverde’s connection to the Spanish Operacion Puerto investigation. An Italian agency prosecuting a case against a Spanish cyclist for an offense that occurred in Spain? This is a new twist, indeed. It’s a case that has been in the works for quite some time, however.
Under International Cycling Union (UCI) rules, it’s incumbent upon the cyclist’s national federation to prosecute doping offenses — even those offenses which occur outside the cyclist’s home country. That’s why USADA brought the main case against Floyd Landis, even though the alleged offense occured at the 2006 Tour de France. (France’s anti-doping agency also brought a case against Landis, which to many observers seemed to be in contravention to the UCI’s rules on how anti-doping cases should be prosecuted. But that’s another story.)
Operacion Puerto, as it’s played out in the Spanish courts, has had all the humor of a Pink Panther movie or a Keystone Kops comedy. The net result has been that no actual prosecutions of Spanish athletes for doping offenses has occured, because the judge overseeing the criminal cases has not allowed the Spanish cycling federation access to the evidence. So, how can those whose names have been connected to the OP scandal be prosecuted? If CONI succeeds in their case against Valverde, and if their suspension is upheld at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and if that suspension is then enforced throughout the cycling world, then the anti-doping agencies will have a powerful new weapon. They can simply shop a case around to wherever might be the most convenient place to get a conviction.
Valverde may well be guilty of involvement in Operacion Puerto. But it’s up to the Spanish federation to bring charges against him, and if they can prove he’s guilty, impose a sanction on him. If the UCI or other national federations have a problem with how the Spanish courts or the Spanish federation has handled the case, should they be allowed to bring cases against the athletes they suspect of involvement?
There may be a bit of national pride on the line here. Ivan Basso served a suspension for admitting to “intending to dope” and working with the infamous Dr. Eufemiano Fuentes to store blood that might be reinjected in the lead-up to the Tour de France or other races. Valverde, suspected of involvement, has so far escaped punishment.
CONI claims to have proof that some of the blood seized from Dr. Fuentes’ offices matches Valverde’s DNA from a blood sample taken last year, when the Tour de France made a brief stop-over in Italy. And, according to Abt’s article, it appears as though Spain’s Guardia Civil may have passed some of the evidence from OP (like the blood bag or some of its contents) to CONI. So they may have the goods on him. But procedurally, they don’t appear to have the standing to prosecute. Why then don’t they work with the Spanish cycling federation to bring doping charges against Valverde? Perhaps because the judge in the OP case refused to allow the Spanish federation access to that evidence? Would using that very same evidence that was given to CONI to prosecute the case run afoul of some Spanish laws, perhaps?
If Valverde is guilty, and if he goes free on a technicality, that certainly would be frustrating to anyone who values fair competition. But at the same time, the proper rules and procedures need to be followed in the prosecution. Shifting a case to a more favorable venue seems like an end-run around the rules.
Abt’s article also says that Valverde will not be present, nor will any lawyers representing him, and neither will anyone be representing the Spanish cycling federation at tomorrow’s hearing in Rome. Instead, Valverde is suing the Italian authorities in Spanish courts, claiming they don’t have standing to bring the case. This may all be well and good, but I think it’s a tactical mistake on his part not to be in Rome, even if the fix is in. He should be arguing loudly and clearly to those authorities that they have no right to prosecute this case, not hoping that the Spanish courts will somehow intervene in his favor.
If he has any hope of winning his case in an appeal to the CAS, he needs to be represented now, making the case that this is a breach of protocol. Either way, though, if Valverde wins many will believe he went free on a technicality. And that may well be true.
But the system was created a certain way, and the rules pretty clear on who has the standing to prosecute a doping case. Even though they may be frustrated that a doper will go free, Italian authorities have no real standing to bring this case. If they succeed, a whole new chapter in doping prosecutions may open up. And the danger to the athletes is that they could be prosecuted in places where it will be inconvenient, to say the least, to defend themselves.
Very likely, CONI will issue a suspension against Valverde. Very likely, it will be upheld at the CAS level. And very likely, we will see a number of prosecutions of athletes by federations in countries where they are neither licensed nor reside. Whether this will lead to a fairer, better anti-doping system is open to debate. And whether there will be fewer athletes doping as a result of this turn of events is open to debate. One thing seems pretty clear, however, and that is that the athletes are going to be the ones who stand to lose the most from how this is likely to play out.
