Like a phoenix rising from its own ashes, the on-again, off-again Operacion Puerto investigation is now on, again. A news flash at CyclingNews.com brings word that the investigation has been reopened at the behest of the International Cycling Union (a/k/a the UCI), the World Anti-Doping Agency, the Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC) and prosecutors representing Spain’s Superior Council of Sports (the CSD).
As CyclingNews.com reports, so far the only cyclist serving a suspension for his involvement in Operacion Puerto is Italy’s Ivan Basso, whose two-year suspension will end in October. Jan Ullrich, who retired from professional cycling almost a year ago, has been tied to the investigation. As have Santiago Botero, Alberto Contador, Tyler Hamilton, Francesco Mancebo and Alejandro Valverde, among others.
VeloNews.com has a report on the story, too, which includes this item:
A source linked to the Spanish government told AFP on Thursday that Madrid prosecutors claimed there could be new evidence on possible crimes concerning the obtaining, transport, preservation and identification of bags of blood seized during the inquiry.
As VeloNews.com also reports:
The decision to reopen the case may satisfy demands from the UCI and World Anti-Doping Agency, both of which have requested the right to use thousands of pages of evidence generated by the investigation.
During the World Anti-Doping Conference in Madrid last November, former WADA president Dick Pound expressed frustration with the lower court’s decision.
“We still have evidence coming from the documentation that is available to the UCI that would indicate (whether any) particular cyclist might have been involved in Operación Puerto,” Pound said. “The records and blood bags were coded and that code has been broken.
“The judge has said that none of the evidence, which is already available to all the parties, including us and the UCI, can be used for sports-sanctions purposes until the criminal case is entirely finished. We are sitting up there with a whole bunch of information that we know exists but you are prevented from using it.”
At that same conference, UCI president Pat McQuaid met with Spanish sports minister Jaime Lissavetzky to discuss the use of Puerto documents in the governing body’s own investigation.
Exactly what new evidence may have been unearthed has not been made public, at least, not in the few articles that I’ve seen up to this point. Perhaps that will come out over the coming days. With all of the documentation and evidence that’s existed up to now, I really wonder what new information there could possibly be. Then again, as anyone who’s combed through the records of other ongoing investigations knows all too well, there’s a wealth of information to be gleaned from that 6000-page dossier related to the case.
At some point the people pushing to re-open the investigation are going to have to show their cards. When they do, we may find that they’ve got the goods on a few big fish (and probably a few small fry, too). Then again, we may find that it’s just the same-old, same-old. Repackaged, recycled and recirculated. For the sake of the credibility of both the sport of cycling and the anti-doping system, I hope their evidence is solid and unimpeachable. Given the way the anti-doping system has worked up to now, I’m not at all confident that it will be.
If it turns out that there’s some actual substance to all the mud that’s been slung over the last 21 months, there will certainly be some lessons to be learned and there will no doubt be athletes who pay a price for their involvement with Dr. Fuentes and company. I can’t help but wonder if others will be affected, too. Like, say, team management or medical staff who might have led a coordinated doping effort with the help of Dr. F. Or other medical professionals outside of any teams, who might have assisted Fuentes and his crew.
If, on the other hand, it turns out that this is more bluff and bluster from certain quarters, no one will escape unharmed. Cycling as a sport, and numerous cyclists, will be dragged through the mud again for naught. Our sport can’t afford more of these long, protracted mud-fests. At some point even the most die-hard fans will walk away, as will the sponsors. It’s already happening. If this is just more of the same, matters will only get worse.
While it is good to bring people to justice, at a certain point we need to focus on the here and now, rather than the past. If there’s no substantive new evidence, and this turns into just another excuse for certain people to flex their power, then we will all lose. Including those who are struggling amongst themselves for power and control over the sport.
So, the people who are pushing this better be able to deliver results. And believable results, not just the kind that pass a kangaroo court. Otherwise, this whole sorry, sordid exercise will have been a huge waste of time and resources. And neither of those exists in unlimited supply.
A Tale of Barry Bonds and a Positive Test
To quote Roseanne Roseannadanna, “Never mind.” See this ESPN.com article, instead.
According to this article at ESPN.com, Barry Bonds tested positive for steroids in November 2001, about a month after he set the single-season home run record. Exactly who tested Bonds, and which steroid he may have tested positive for, is not clearly stated in ESPN’s story. Still, it offers this information about a motion filed by Federal prosecutors who are putting Bonds on trial for perjury:
“At trial, the government’s evidence will show that Bonds received steroids from Anderson in the period before the November 2001 positive drug test, and that evidence raises the inference that Anderson gave Bonds the steroids that caused him to test positive in November 2001,” U.S. Attorney Joseph Russoniello wrote.
The U.S. government made the assertion in a document that asked a federal court to reject Bonds’ motion last month to dismiss the charges that he lied about past steroid use.
In December, Bonds pleaded not guilty to perjury charges stemming from his testimony during the Balco investigation. Those charges stem from testimony Bonds gave four years earlier, during which time he denied using performance-enhancing drugs.
Today’s revelation is just one of a few brief hints as to the case Federal prosecutors have built against Bonds. However, if this information stems from records seized from Victor Conte or Balco, it may not be rock solid. Conte has suggested that little or no chain of custody documentation exists to proved whether or not the results really came from a sample provided by Bonds. Or Conte could talking smack, just to get his own name in the media.
In time, we’ll get to see how all of this turns out. I wonder if Barry Bonds is familiar with an old Johnny Cash song, Folsum Prison Blues?
I hear the train a comin´
It´s rolling round the bend
And I ain´t seen the sunshine since I don´t know when,
I’m stuck in Folsom prison, and time keeps draggin’ on…
If Federal prosecutors prove their case, that could be the soundtrack to Bonds’ future.
Rant,
Just for a small moment — let us not forget that there may very well be people who are actually trying to “clean up” the sport of cycling. In fact it would appear that there is a hell of a push to “get everybody” who has been “marked” as aiding and abetting the corruption that exists in cycling. Who ever these people are who are spearheading the fight have managed to turn the process into “doing what is necessary” to “deal” with the situation. Putting every body in a perfect “Catch-22” situation. Very clever people these.
This whole circus is dependent on the manipulation of public opinion. The “manipulation” is this — DO WE REALLY CARE ABOUT – METHOD?
It has been pointed out to me by individuals on this blog that I am an “anti-doper” in my stance and if I voice my resistance or acceptance of METHOD — my views are classed as “anti-doping” — rather then some one who is entirely against accepting the METHODS being applied to stop doping. Well, I put to you all that this isn’t about doping. It is all about HOW we all choose to “change cycling” and get the bastards who are “responsible.”
Here we all are today — arguing whether ASO is being “fair” in excluding ASTANA or whom ever from their racing calendar. It appears to me that many of us have lost sight of what this fight is really all about.
Our ACCEPTANCE of labeling and “classifying habits” – misses the point – but – clearly highlights the problem of misdirection. The same way that people label and classify me as an “anti-doper” – misdirects my true intent.
In actuality all my comments have one single thread, if I am anything it is – AGAINST THE METHODS BEING APPLIED – to fight corruption in my sport, cycling. But this “labeling” of me is certainly not the issue.
The issue is about METHODS being applied to clean up the sport of cycling, and now that the travails of cycling has opened the door to all other sports, the issue still remains — a matter of METHOD.
One has to be completely naive to assume that ASO, the UCI, the Giro organizers, the organizers of the Tour de Espana may in some magical way be EXCLUDED from being seen as “part of the problem.”
Our personal beliefs are being “triggered” when we only see the present situation as a question of guilt or innocence of individuals and groups. This is misdirection about the real issue — that being METHOD. None of us will get closer to understanding that this is not an issue of “good guys” versus “bad guys!” It is about how we all choose to fight CORRUPTION that exists in our sport.
It is also a question of what kind of world we want to live in. Are we ready to accept others to do our “thinking for us?” I have no intention of waiving my right to do my own thinking. No matter how I am labeled. But this isn’t about me — it is about you all doing your own thinking and whether you all think that METHOD is important — over your own personal beliefs.
Floyd Landis would not be on the brink that he is — if we as a whole had not merely sat back – answering with silence and confusion – the issue of accepting that there is “any justification” to do “what ever it takes” to fight corruption in cycling. The issue is and has always been a question of the METHODS we actively or passively agree to in the world of pro cycling. Certainly not whether ASO or the UCI or others are being “fair” one way or another.
If Operation Puerto was just a complete failure, it’s just because political people have cleared the sh*t which could have destroy spanish sport (not only cycling, football, tennis too), and a lot of money lost:
Real de Madrid : 350 Million€ /year close of 500 M $
Barcelona : 290Million
Valencia : 100M
Money, money…
I don’t see what has politically changed so it’s probably a PR campaign to restore Spanish tainted blazon. Only very little and selected fishes could be caught. And probably they would avoid to catch who can whistblow big fishes.
The only hopes are the leaks able to restore some kind of Justice in corrupted system.
Hey Rant,
Belgian team Quickstep has announced its rider selection for the Tour of California. Tom Boonen, Paolo Bettini, Dmytro Grabovskyy, Kevin Hulsmans, Kevin Seeldraeyers, Andrea Tonti, Matteo Tosatto and Jurgen Van de Walle.
I am waiting to see how the issue of riders who are under suspicion is going to be handled by the T of C — considering the brouhaha that went down just a little while ago? Are we in for some “surprise announcements?”
But then again — ASTANA is going to be there and so is Levi – returning to defend his title. As of now — it would appear that AmGen is not reading from the same book of rules that ASO and the UCI are using. And what of the hoopla from USAC? How will they explain their particularly interesting stance?
Don’t misunderstand my comments — I want Lippie to race as well as Boonen and Bettini — but I am most curious — how all this is explained away by the UCI — who is silent as far as the ASO decisions.
What about the other named names associated with Operation Puerto — who may be racing in the TofC — inquiring minds want to know.
For change, I’m with Jean C here – OP is a bunch of politics. Notice how only cyclists names have been made public (AFAIK) even though it has been stated that there are a large number of athletes from other sports involved? Football is big business in Spain and elsewhere in Europe, teams are established institutions with long histories, ties to particular cities or communities, etc., rather than the rather temporary nature of cycling teams (even before the current crisis, sponsors came and went). Whether Real or Barca are actually paying off the authorities, or if the authorities are just going easy on them (as Congress has gone easy of MLB in the past, i.e., anti-trust exception) I don’t know.
William,
When the dust settles from OP, I wouldn’t at all be surprised to see that the re-opening of the cases was more about politics than anything else. The prosecutions of whomever the various agencies go after are likely to be highly politically charged affairs, in my estimation, too. And for those who manage to escape prosecution — whatever sport they play in — we may never find out the truth behind all of the posturing.