The Court of Arbitration for Sport has upheld the two-year ban imposed on cyclist Alejandro Valverde by the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI). According to the press release from the CAS:
Lausanne, 16 March 2010 – The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has dismissed the appeal filed by the Spanish cyclist Alejandro Valverde against the decision of the National Olympic Committee of Italy (CONI) suspending him for two years from all sports events organized on Italian soil. As a consequence, the suspension remains in force until 10 May 2011.
On 11 May 2009, the CONI Anti-Doping Tribunal suspended Alejandro Valverde for a period of two years from all sports events organized in Italy. The CONI ordered the suspension based on evidence found by the Italian judicial authorities. In particular, it was established that a blood sample obtained from the athlete on 21 July 2008 at an anti-doping control organized by the CONI on the occasion of a stage of the Tour de France 2008 (in Chiusa di Pesio) contained the same DNA as the blood contained in a bag seized by the Spanish Guardia civil at the premises of Dr. Fuentes in proceedings known as “Operation Puerto”. The Italian judicial authorities had, indeed, obtained, on 30 January 2009, a sample from this bag which, according to an analysis performed by the Barcelona laboratory in 2006, contained EPO. The CONI Anti-Doping Tribunal then stated that its anti-doping regulations had been breached on the grounds of the use of a banned substance as well as the attempted use of a prohibited method.
On 17 June 2009, Alejandro Valverde filed an appeal with the CAS in order to request the annulment of the CONI decision. The case was submitted to a Panel of CAS arbitrators composed of Mr Romano Subiotto QC, United Kingdom (President), Professor Ulrich Haas, Germany and Mr Ruggero Stincardini, Italy. A hearing took place in Lausanne on 12, 13 and 14 January 2010 during which the parties, their counsels, witnesses and experts were heard.
The CAS Panel considered that the CONI had jurisdiction to render the decision under appeal before the CAS and that the evidence analyzed by the judicial authorities and used in the CONI proceedings was not only admissible but also relevant and could reasonably lead to the outcome determined by the CONI Anti-Doping Tribunal. Finally, the CAS Panel ruled that the sanction was proportionate to the violation of the CONI regulations by Alejandro Valverde.
The full award with the grounds (in French) is published on the CAS website (www.tas-cas.org).
One of the main issues in the Valverde case was whether CONI had jurisdiction to bring a case against the cyclist, or whether the case should have been brought against the cyclist by the Spanish cycling federation, instead. With today’s ruling, the CAS has upheld CONI’s ability to bring cases against foreign nationals, and by extension has opened the doors to other national federations and anti-doping agencies doing the same. Previously, under the World Anti-Doping Code and the rules of the UCI, doping cases were to be prosecuted by the sports federation and/or anti-doping agency of the country in which an athlete is licensed.
More to come, as time permits.
Even supposing he’s guilty of the offense, this sure seems to create a jurisdictional shambles. Take an athlete, charge him in 8 places, and if doesn’t defend and wiln all of them, impose a ban and make world-wide.
Well, the system is designed to convict those accused of doping.
TBV
CoNI never had jurisdiction. This case was bungled from the start. Neither the UCI, nor WADA, had the organizational strength of character or a respect for the concept of “the rule of law” to set matters right. The same holds true for CAS, in spades.
For the sake of argument and as a gesture of extending an olive branch to my fervent “get them however you can” anti-doping proponents, let’s (1) hypothetically assume Valverde is guilty. If that is the case, then (2) the Spanish federation should have pursued a case against Valverde. Let’s then hypothetically assume (3) the Spanish are generally reluctant to pursue anything having to do with OP, especially when it involves one of their nationals and failed to do so when they should have. Then, (4) the remedy is for either/both UCI/WADA to pursue a case against Valverde, not CoNI.
There is nothing in the sporting regulations that allows an Italian sports entity to pursue and prosecute an anti-doping case against a Spanish licensed rider. I defy any reader here, and any CAS/CoNI/UCI/WADA official to cite a rule that does.
It will be interesting to acquire a translation of the decision to see what rationale CAS used this time to wiggle around the rules to get to the pre-ordained ruling.
When the various national and international sports and anti-doping organizations are so obviously corrupt and so obviously colluding, it becomes hard for me to care if an individual athlete is cheating, or not. YMMV.
Why this wasn’t taken care of with Basso and the others is beyond me! Meanwhile, he has been racing and collecting oodles of money…..
So how does this sit with Lance in France? Politically, it’s my understanding that the current ASO management is much more favorable to Lance. But then there’s Bordry sitting there at the AFLD, with grudges against both Lance and the ASO. He wouldn’t be that crazy, right?
tom
And Valverde is now going to make a “federal case out it.”
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valverde-disputes-cas-decision-on-his-italian-ban
Where, oh where have we heard this before?
“All this has happened before, and it will happen again.”
He’ll have to go through the Swiss courts, as specified. The reason the Swiss courts are specified is because of the leeway afforded to WADA/CAS/UCI. If Valverde actually challenges via the courts, he might (stress the word “might”) have a case that could win? It’s clear the alphabet soup have violated a multiple of their own rules/procedures wrt Valverde. Good luck to him.
You know there’s this pesky thing about rules. Everyone has to live by them. The people who make them, and the people they apply to. When the rule makers (WADA, et. al.) are so empowered that they can find ways to avoid being held to their own rules, procedures and protocols, why then should the people to whom those rules apply (the athletes) behave as required?
Anti-doping rules — whether effective or not — are there to ensure the mythical “level playing field.” The rulemakers have to set an example. If they want the athletes to play fair, then they do, too.
Regardless of whether Valverde is innocent or guilty, he’s supposed to be prosecuted by the Spanish federation. WADA and the UCI could have (and probably should have) appealed to the CAS if they were unsatisfied (as they apparently were) with the actions of the Spanish federation.
I’m sure that WADA and the UCI will now impose a worldwide ban on Valverde, and if Valverde appeals to the CAS, I’m sure he’ll be shot down on that, too.
In the various authorities zeal to get an (alleged) doper, I’m afraid they’ve opened a Pandora’s Box. While this particular case may result in justice being done, the precedent set will allow federations to take actions against foreign nationals that they don’t like, for whatever reason.
Good luck to Valverde on his challenge. Whether Valverde is guilty or not, the rulemakers have to live by their own rules, too. If this ruling stands, then they can pretty much do anything in the name of convicting someone accused of doping — including shopping around for a venue where the desired result can be obtained. While it may be objectionable to let a guilty man go free, the greater good of ensuring that adjudications are done in the proper manner is crucial for the credibility and the integrity of the whole system.
I would hope that the Swiss Federal Courts might see it this way, but I sure wouldn’t hold my breath.
“the precedent set will allow federations to take actions against foreign nationals that they don’t like, for whatever reason”
Do you have any evidence for this or are you just slinging around random, anti-foreigner prejudice?
Jim,
One, I always like to get a diversity of points of view. Two, that’s my opinion, taking yesterday’s ruling to its logical extreme. Will it happen? Hard to say, but the precedent set, from where I see it is this: Rules of jurisdiction and procedure don’t matter. If there was an athlete who was incredibly unpopular amongst the powers that be for whatever reason (think, say Lance Armstrong in certain countries and quarters of the sport), those powers could trump up a doping charge, declare a ban, and if the athlete was suspected by many of being a doper, the UCI (for example) could impose a worldwide ban. Probably won’t happen to Armstrong, but the point is it could happen to someone.
Valverde’s case isn’t one of a trumped up charge. But it does seem to play into a narrative related to the Puerto case. A certain Italian rider served a two-year ban, and the Italian authorities and others were mad that other riders implicated in the case (like Valverde) didn’t. There may even be a bit of national pride in the case, for all I know. And even the powers that be at the UCI wanted Valverde serving a ban. So the Italian case is quite convenient to their ends, even though it’s not being done through the proper protocol.
Is Valverde guilty in this case? There’s a lot of evidence that suggests he might well be. But to ban him, the authorities have to follow their own rules for prosecuting the case. Otherwise, the credibility of their system suffers. If they want to change things so that any agency can bring a case, that’s their prerogative. But they are doing so through judicial fiat, rather than a simple rule change. Odd, don’t you think?
As for the bit about anti-foreigner prejudice, none whatsoever. And that’s a cheap shot. I know what anti-foreigner prejudice is first hand. I am a foreigner, and I’m not a foreigner. I’ll leave you to figure out that riddle.
The concept whereby national federations (or their designees, example: USADA) are exclusively responsible for pursuing possible anti-doping cases against their licensees is well founded. I have few complaints about the safety net whereby entities such as WADA or UCI may appeal if they are of the opinion a national federation is not pursuing a legitimate case against one of its licensees. That part seems fair. IoC’s and WADA’s undue influence, if not total control over the arbitrator selection process which frequently determines the outcome of CAS decisions, is not at all fair, but I digress……
The recent CAS precedent has reversed a portion of the system that was actually well thought out and went a long way toward preventing the manipulation of start lists for various sports, based upon nationalistic jealousy, political infighting, or petty grudges. That pandora’s box is now wide open. So far, I’ve only seen it manifest with the exclusion of Italian teams from a mid level Spanish professional race. I’d expect the reprisals to ramp up. JIm’s MMV.
At the risk of repeating: There is nothing in the sporting regulations that allows an Italian sports entity to pursue and prosecute an anti-doping case against a Spanish licensed rider. I defy any reader here, and any CAS/CoNI/UCI/WADA official to cite a rule that does.
Jeff,
I agree, the concept that the home country should be responsible for prosecuting anti-doping cases is well thought out, and if I had my druthers, it would be a rule that would be carved in stone.
As you said, it’s one of the very few protections to prevent the manipulation of start lists, etc. Without such a protection, I’m afraid it’s only a matter of time before we see various entities trying to manipulate who gets to compete.
Spanish cycling federation and Sport Minister have made a joke of Puerto.
Like in every modern nation, blood storage, manipulation, transportation and infusion have to follow protocols, equipments have to be controlled by official supervision body. But Fuentes had no one of that. So it was very simple for spanish Justice to deal with Puerto …. until too much athletes were found involved.
How to condemn an athlete like Valverde who probably had seen many other great spanish athletes in Fuentes’ office.
What would happen if he begins to whistleblow other athletes?
How can we have faith in a national federation to prosecute his own athletes? Better to have a foreign or international juridiction to do it.
I just don’t see a queue of federations lining up to take actions against foreign nationals that they don’t like, you’re just muddying the waters throwing that one in.
The case against Valverde came down to two simple points. One, he had a bag of his blood stored with Fuentes. As far as both CONI and CAS are concerned that is a doping violation. As long as it is in the freezer there is intent, and that’s what they got Basso for. There is no need to actually find evidence of him injecting the blood back to bust him for doping. Second, while Fuentes had that bag of blood, Valverde rode in some Italian races. Hence he doped while riding in circumstances where he was under the jurisdiction of the Italians, so he’s fair game for their anti-doping authorities. That’s the summary of yesterday’s ruling.
Now had the Spanish opened an inquiry of their own and acquitted him then CAS might well have thrown out the Italian ruling on grounds of double jeopardy. We don’t know whether or not they would because they’ve had to rule on such a case so far.
Jean C,
I’m not arguing Valverde’s guilt or innocence. That’s not the point. The point is that CoNI had/has no right to pursue an anti-doping case against a Spanish licensed rider. CAS ruled incorrectly. In apparently trying to please its master, CAS set a precedent that will, in my estimation, result in some difficult and unintended consequences. Those consequences relate to enabling unfriendly nations to engage in dirty tricks by providing them the ability to disqualify another’s athletes from competition.
CoNI didn’t have standing, no matter how strong its case against Valverde. Given the Spanish federation declined to pursue Valverde, the rules allowed either/both UCI/WADA to appeal to CAS to pursue a case, and they could have done so with CoNI’s evidence if CoNI desired. That would have been proper and not have opened pandora’s box for nationalistic reprisals.
JIm,
No one here is muddying the waters. A reprisal has already occurred. I’ve previously referenced a mid level Pro race in Spain where the organizer specifically excluded Italian teams and cited Valverde’s treatment by CoNI. The box is already open. Now it’s just a matter of degree. How much will come flying out in the future is a matter of speculation. The fact that reprisals have started is not. You may or may not see a queue. The more intelligently conceived reprisals will be less overt. If you don’t think nationalistic reprisals happen(ed), then you don’t remember international competition in the cold war era. The system employed where national federations became responsible to pursue their licensees for anti-doping violations was a landmark and important deterrent to the loathsome practice. Now it’s been reversed. Congratulations CAS!
CAS doesn’t seem to give a rat’s rear end about the concept of double jeopardy. Regardless, CoNI didn’t have legitimate standing. The correct procedure was for UCI and/or WADA to appeal to CAS to pursue Valverde. Whether they did not due to financial considerations, political considerations, or other considerations seems to be the larger question. Whatever the rationale, they’ve made a shambles of their own rules. If they don’t respect the rules they write, then why should the athletes?
Wasn’t the door opened in the Landis case? Didn’t the French prosecute him and he get a 2 year ban in France, all before the decision in Malibu? And aren’t start lists being manipulated already by promoters refusing to allow various riders, otherwise in good standing, into their competitions?
“Wasn’t the door opened in the Landis case? Didn’t the French prosecute him and he get a 2 year ban in France, all before the decision in Malibu?”
Yes and no. The agreement for multiple nations not to pursue concurrent cases had not gone into effect, by a matter of weeks IIRC. AFLD met the letter of the code, but not the spirit of the code. Floyd agreed not to race in France for a specified period of time.
“And aren’t start lists being manipulated already by promoters refusing to allow various riders, otherwise in good standing, into their competitions?”
Yes they are and that’s not good. Now CAS has compounded the problem by encouraging national federations to get in on the action.
William,
In a sense, you’re right. The French case against Landis did open the door a crack. In exchange for not pursuing the case until after the Malibu arbitration took place, Landis agreed to not race in France in 2007. It was a symbolic gesture in a number of ways, as he didn’t have an employer, and short of a team picking him up for the 2007 season, he wasn’t racing in France anyway. The French case was conducted in November 2007, after the Malibu decision had been announced, and before the CAS hearings were held.
One could argue that French authorities had some standing, based on French law at the time, and because the event took place in France. But the result didn’t get appealed to the CAS, so their approach wasn’t put to the test.
The CONI case against Valverde is the first I know of of this particular type that went to the CAS. Although there’s officially no precedents within the CAS system, as Mike Straubel of Valparaiso University’s Sports Law Clinic told me, in practice there is. Opinions in cases cite other CAS opinions all the time. So, with the Valverde case having been decided by the CAS, the precedent is now set.
Jean,
You’re raising a good point. As outsiders, we may look at the Spanish laws at the time, and at the way the Puerto case was handled and come to the conclusion that it’s pretty much a mockery of our ideas of justice. But there’s another aspect to that case, which I’ll address in my next response.
Jim,
I’m certainly not trying to muddy any waters. I’m with you, up to a point. Where we diverge is on the question of who gets to prosecute a case.
CONI acquired a blood bag from the Puerto case that was alleged to belong Valverde, through a judge or prosecutor associated with the case (can’t remember which at the moment). Then, when the Tour made an overnight stop in Italy, the Italian anti-doping authorities took a blood sample from Valverde in part to see if the DNA of the blood in the bag matched Valverde’s DNA from a known sample. And from what we’ve heard the DNA from both samples matched up.
Where it gets tricky, then, is who gets to prosecute the case. Under the UCI and WADA’s rules, it’s the Spanish federation or the Spanish anti-doping agency, because that’s where Valverde is licensed.
While it’s true that the Italian agency took the sample that matched the sample in the blood bag, they don’t actually have the right to bring the case. As a signatory of the WADA Code, CONI is bound by WADA’s rules for results management. Those rules state that it is the right and obligation of the athlete’s home federation to pursue anti-doping cases.
The Tour stop in Italy wasn’t part of an event running under a Italian sanction. Or, more simply put, it wasn’t an Italian race. It was a French race crossing briefly into Italy, as the Tour has done on other occasions there, and in other nearby countries over the years.
CONI was doing the testing for the AFLD on that particular stage because of a cooperation agreement between the AFLD and the Italian agency.
To your point about double jeopardy, I would buy your argument about individual cases being pursued in Spain and Italy leading to an appeal to the CAS, except for one small detail.
The UCI and WADA both have a right to file an appeal to the CAS of the decision by Spanish authorities not to pursue a case against Valverde. They didn’t need the Italians to start a case against him.
And there’s a precedent for the UCI appealing an outcome it didn’t like. Remember Alexander Vinokourov? When the Kazakh federation gave him only a one-year sanction after he was caught blood doping, the UCI (and WADA, too, if I recall correctly) successfully appealed to the CAS to have the sanction increased to two years.
So, in the Valverde case, they could have gone straight to the CAS. And under the UCI’s and WADA’s own rules, that’s how it should have been handled. The UCI could have collected a blood sample from Valverde as part of their in- or out-of-competition testing protocols and matched things up. They didn’t need anyone else’s help.
While justice may have been done, it was accomplished the wrong way. That’s my point. Everyone, including the rulemakers, have to play by the rules.
When they don’t, it’s bad for the overall credibility of the system. As Jeff pointed out:
As far as various groups queuing up to pursue cases against foreign athletes, I rather doubt that we’ll see very many overt cases. Most agencies who pursue such a strategy will be much more subtle, I suspect. The door is now open, though. How many walk through, we’ll just have to wait and see.
The Valverde CAS decision is there :
http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/4073/5048/0/Sentence%20FINALE%20%20INTERNET%20_2010.03.16_.pdf
and CAS clearly states that CONI was right to prosecute Valverde.
As I understand it, every “CONI” has the right to protect his national sport event of “extern” dopers, that seems fair when a NAS is able to gather enough clues or evidence about the doping of an athlete not prosecuted by his own federation.
Rant,
About TDF on Italian soil, Italian are master of everything on their soil. They can test who they want. Even if the European Economic Community exists, there is more independance between European nations than there is between Canada and USA, so much more than between US states.
Everyone is still chief at home.
Jean C,
There is no question that CoNI has every right to test any athlete in the testing pool who is competing, training, living in, or just visiting Italy. They also have the right and duty to report any AAF or breach of anti-doping rules. Insofar as any rider licensed in a country other than Italy is concerned, that’s as far as CoNI’s authority extends wrt the regulation of sports.
The CAS decision is so obviously incorrect that it should be embarrassing. It was also avoidable as UCI and/or WADA had standing to go after Valverde in CoNI’s stead.
Please cite the portion of the WADA code or the relevant UCI rule that allows CoNI to pursue and prosecute an anti-doping case against a rider licensed by the Spanish Federation.
Hint: CAS didn’t do it because it couldn’t. The arbitrators in the Valverde case are either corrupt, incompetent, or both. They should be ashamed and CAS embarrassed. This laughable decision further diminishes the standing of the organization and its pool of so called arbitrators.
Finally, I have a challenge for you. If you supply the cite I asked for (2 paragraphs above), I’ll compose and post a poem praising CAS/WADA/IoC/CoNI and then will refrain from posting here for a minimum of 3 months. Let’s see the cite. I’m itching to sing the praises of the alphabet soup.
Jeff,
You are an expert of french laws, of italians laws, of WADA rules,… and so.
It’s a (val)pity that your huge abilities and skills are not employed. Maybe Valverde would accept your help.
Until now, I am very confident that CONI was right, especially in regard to Italian laws and international agreements they have accepted, and never Valverde’s lawyer were able to prove that they were wrong or corrupt.
Jean C,
We’re not discussing “laws”. We are discussing sports related rules and codes, specifically those of the UCI and WADA. I’m guessing one should not need an attorney or be an “expert” to understand UCI rules or the WADA code. I’m thinking that would be important as a minority of professional cyclists have been fortunate enough to have received an advanced education.
The challenge is still there for you to supply an applicable cite. The ball is in your court.
The CAS judgement goes into great detail on the competence of CONI to judge Valverde’s case. Start at page 19 of the document Jean linked to. Copy and paste it bit by bit inot Google translate if you need to. Clause 88 is probably the bit you want:
l’Article 7.1, alinéa 2, du « Documento Tecnico attuativo del Programma Antidoping WADA », approuvé le 30 juin 2005, prévoyait que « l’UPA peut aussi demander, à l’encontre d’individus non affiliés ayant commis une quelconque violation du Règlement, des mesures préventives, également dans le but d’empêcher des récidives »
for which Google gives:
Article 7.1, paragraph
2, the “Documento Tecnico del Programma attuativo Antidoping Wada, approved June 30, 2005, provided that “the UPA may also ask, against individuals unaffiliated having committed any violation of the regulations, measures prevention, also in order to prevent recurrence ”
Valverde is clearly an “individual unaffiliated” as far as CONI is concerned
I’ve read an electronic translation of the ruling in full. First, Valverde is damned well affiliated. He’s a RFEC licensee. CAS uses another catch-all clause in an attempt to rationalize their ridiculous ruling. I’ll leave you to try to discover which one. It is BS. It’s the job of CAS to arbitrate based upon the WADA code and applicable sport’s rules – which in this case would be the UCI. That’s about it.
I’ve asked where, in the WADA code or the UCI rules, is the authority granted for CoNI to pursue and prosecute an anti-doping case against Valverde, who is licensed in Spain by RFEC? So far that question has gone unanswered.
Seriously, if the rules are all clearly stacked in a presumption of guilt, with no recorse for the accused, why would any rider seriously consider riding clean? Why not dope to the gills? There is a fairly significant change you’ll get popped *even if clean* and be stuck with the sentence. If you’re gonna do the time, best have a shot at the crime, hunh?
Really surprised that the really high profile athletes don’t employ their own parallel testing. Imagine LA getting popped these days. Would different rules apply?
Well, not only are the rules stacked against the athlete, it’s not precisely clear what the rules are. If you look at the UCI rulebook section that covers anti-doping activities (the PDF I have dates to 2007 or 2008), starting at paragraph 182 and going all the way through paragraph 275, you’ll find an extensive discussion of results management, procedures, right to a fair hearing, penalties and so forth. From reading all that, the references are to a rider’s National Federation conducting investigations and instigating disciplinary procedures. Which is how Floyd Landis wound up facing USADA, as USA Cycling delegates results management and disciplinary investigations and hearings to USADA.
But then there’s paragraph 11 at the front of the anti-doping rules has this:
Article 183 clearly states that for riders who don’t normally compete at the international level, the rider’s home federation is responsible, but that wouldn’t be the case with Alejandro Valverde, who makes (soon to be made) his living racing internationally. Articles 187 onwards state that the rider’s National Federation receives and handles anti-doping rules violations, but that pesky article 11 suggests that despite all that, another national federation could bring a case against a foreign rider participating in an event in that federation’s country.
Going to WADA’s code, both for 2003 and 2009, I found this comment to a section talking about results management and hearings.
I could have sworn that there was a section in both the UCI and the WADA code explicitly stating that the rider’s National Federation had responsibility for anti-doping results management and prosecution, but I think I may have to eat crow on this one. It looks like both the UCI and WADA have left themselves enough wiggle room over the years to allow for a proceeding like the CONI vs. Valverde case.
I’m not sure about the “Technical Document” referred to in the quote Jim provided, but it seems that the UCI’s own rules might allow such a prosecution, even without a technical document to “clarify” things.
It looks as if I have to eat crow too. Rant has the discretion to request the penalty I offered. Jean C does not as he did not produce an applicable cite. It’s up to you Rant. You may insist on a poem and vacation from posting for me, or not.
Jeff,
No penalty will be imposed, no vacation, and no poetry required. Truth be told, I was looking into this earlier today, to respond to what Jean had posted. I’d started down this path before the challenge was issued. I just hadn’t posted it before then.
Rant,
I’m not sure why I doubted the UCI, WADA, and CAS wouldn’t employ rules that allow them to stack the deck to such an extent that they can do pretty much as they please??? I blame it on a temporary lapse in judgement that resulted in a suspension of reality. Hopefully I’m back to my senses now.
Thanks for the cites and thank you for not making me write that poem……
Jeff
So it turns out that this door was in fact open all along, at least since the promulgation of the rules cited above. In the long run, I don’t think that there will be much if any blatant moves to railroad another country’s athlete(s) because of this, at least not much above what could be done equally well by other means. So even if the rules are revised to give first jurisdiction to the athlete’s national federation or ADA. with the international federation and/or WADA taking over if the national groups fail to act, there are other ways to either retaliate or manipulate competition.
Some people thought that the charges against Landis were cobbled up by the French, who were thought to be tired of foreigners in general and Americans in particular, winning the Tour. I personally don’t think so and whether or not in this particular case that was true or not is immaterial to my argument. The fact is that any country that wants to manipulate results could always fiddle with lab testing. All you’d need to do is get the targeted athlete to take part in a competition, or train on your soil so that you can have him/her tested. Sure, you’d need the lab to cooperate, or to in on the deal from the start. But that would be true even if you were trying to leverage some out-of-country testing as CONI did in the Valverde case.
And of course we still have promoters refusing to allow certain athletes to enter, and by refusing to take action, the UCI has given tacit approval to this.
I just want to recall that Landis and valverde’s case are not similar.
Landis was caught when WADA agreement was not ratified by french parlement, so his case had to be treated in France according the laws which were valid at that time. “Unfortunately” USADA were already under the WADA agreement so Landis had to face 2 hearings.
Fortunately for Landis, French dropped their cases after Landis’ 2 years bans.