Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

OP is back, the good, the bad and the ugly...

2K views 19 replies 9 participants last post by  badge118 
#1 ·
Okay Operation Peurto is going to trial. FINALLY, the is good...

The prosecution still gives no info to WADA. This is bad...

The prosecution is only bring forward evidence against cycling even though Feuntes himself said cyclists only made up about 1/3 of his customer base (can't have Nadal, Real Madrid or Barcelona caught out on doping can we.) That is just damn ugly.

http://road.cc/content/news/74495-wada-chief-slams-operacion-puerto-trials-focus-cycling
 
#3 ·
  • Like
Reactions: Bluenote
#6 ·
And they will likely lose that case. That is what is REALLY sad. WADA pushed for this case in a very cynical manner. basically "The Judge won't let us have the evidence SO if the Prosecutor brings a case forward on the health and safety angle, the evidence will be made public and we can get it without the judge barring us."

Problem is the Judges have been pretty damn careful to make sure the only evidence relates to health and safety which means the only testimony being allowed is related to cycling since thus far that is the only sport that has had any people say 'Fuentes got me sick with Manzano." Evidence outside the alleged safety violations is not being permitted so WADA is not going to get anything they didn't already know.

I think that is why they are raging so much. They thought they were going to do a clever end around the Judges and they got the door slammed in their face.
 
#7 ·
I guess the tough part is the 'public health' part. Potentially harming a few cyclists isn't exactly a public health crisis in the making. I mean, it seems like misuse of his medical license, but not exactly like an epidemic in the making.
 
#8 ·
Actually it's the harm in general. Yeah Manzano got sick. So did Ricco. Ricco however got sick from a home transfusion job. There is a lot of studies on how different practices in unregulated or unsupervised circumstances is harmful. There is little to no studies however in the harm, or lack there of in a doping program that is supervised by a properly trained professional.

Right or wrong really isn't coming into this case, it is all about whether they can prove that Feuntes' actions placed his "patients" at risk knowingly and then whether or not his patients were not aware of said risk.
 
#10 ·
Being cynical and serious at the same time:


This is why we have doping in cycling. It's exactly like pornography: Frowned upon in public yet privately condoned and consumed.

Doping is as much of cycle racing as the bicycle is. Using the TDF as a historical reference, there was doping before the TDF was organized. The first doping case was in 1896.

This thread only reconfirms my opinions on pro cycle racing and doping.
 
#11 · (Edited)
I wouldn't say it is condoned but it sure as **** is subjective. Back in the day doping was romanticized by the general public. Their favorite athletes did not necessarily make millions more than they did. They flogged themselves over mountains allegedly for their love of the sport and the fans. They fact they had to dope for the fans entertainment was practically applauded "look at the pain these riders will go through for us."

However as time went on drugs in general started being seen as "bad." Add to that the fact riders can get paid a butt ton more (thus people can say "he get paid to flog himself" even though most get paid less than the average US wage), subjective morality has changed regarding drugs in general... now doping is bad. Not based on science that much but rather subjective ideas of fairness and the like.

This change imo is a good thing BUT I know it will likely change before I die. As recreational drugs are decriminalized and legalized it will be harder for people to rationalize doping in sport still being wrong. Add to this the fact that if gene doping ever gets off the ground all bets will be off. I think we will look on this era of doping in sport and the harsh pursuit of violators the same way people look at Prohibition in the US, an interesting historical period to study but that was eventually seen as a waste of resources.
 
#14 ·
He isn't smarter, just in a better position. Italy had a law against doping (sometimes called sport fraud) for a while. Ferrari needed to deny, deny, deny to not just avoid jail but to try and preserve his livelyhood and the reputations of his clients.

Fuentes need only show that what he did was not dangerous to his patients. So far, I believe, only one person has categorically stated that treatment by Fuentes made him ill, Manzano. Bringing up all the good, strong, healthy and successful athletes he treated is basically the only defense he has. The fact that in doing so Spanish Sport could be shown to be a dope filled pit of deceit is simply a happy coincidence for his defense.

I am not sure about Spain but in the US when procedure or case law are vague or contradictory on an issue the Court has discretion and can give a Prosecutor (or Defense Attorney) leeway on certain issues. With the Nuclear Option Fuentes has I don't think the Prosecutors are going to find the Judges giving them much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bluenote
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top