The case of Alejandro Valverde Belmonte v. Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI), Agence Mondiale Antidopage (AMA), and Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) was adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on March 16, 2010. The tribunal, composed of Romano Subiotto QC, Ruggero Stincardini, and Prof. Ulrich Haas, addressed doping allegations against Valverde, a Spanish cyclist implicated in the Operation Puerto scandal. The case centered on the admissibility of evidence, including DNA analysis linking Valverde to blood bags seized during the investigation, and the jurisdictional authority of CONI to impose sanctions.
The CAS affirmed its jurisdiction to conduct a de novo review under Article R57 of its Code, allowing it to independently re-examine facts and law. It upheld CONI's authority to sanction Valverde under Italian anti-doping rules, even though he was affiliated with a foreign federation, as the rules aimed to ensure fair competition and athlete health in Italy. The tribunal dismissed Valverde's objections to CONI's jurisdiction, noting his participation in Italian competitions brought him under its regulatory scope.
A key issue was the admissibility of evidence, particularly DNA analysis matching Valverde's blood sample to a seized bag labeled "Pouch No. 18," which contained recombinant EPO. Valverde contested the chain of custody and the legitimacy of the evidence, arguing procedural violations and privacy breaches. The CAS ruled the evidence admissible, emphasizing its discretion under Swiss law and the CAS Code to evaluate proof, provided procedural fairness was maintained. It found no unlawful violation of Valverde's privacy rights, as the DNA analysis served a prevailing public interest in combating doping. The tribunal also noted Valverde's consent to sample collection during the 2008 Tour de France, which allowed for broader anti-doping use under WADA guidelines.
The tribunal rejected Valverde's claim that a Spanish court's revocation order invalidated the evidence, stating the order had no extraterritorial effect and the samples had already been analyzed. It further dismissed challenges to the reliability of the DNA evidence, highlighting the uniqueness of genetic profiles and the absence of contamination risks. Testimony from Jesús Manzano, a former teammate, corroborated Valverde's involvement in doping practices, including blood reinfusions and EPO use. The CAS found Valverde's explanations for his blood's presence in Fuentes' possession unconvincing and concluded he had attempted to use prohibited methods.
The tribunal upheld CONI's two-year ban on Valverde from participating in Italian competitions, effective from May 11, 2009, and ordered him to pay a nominal procedural fee. It declined to impose a global suspension, as its jurisdiction was limited to CONI's territorial scope. The decision reinforced the principles of fair play and anti-doping enforcement, underscoring the robustness of DNA evidence in doping cases and the importance of cross-border judicial cooperation in sports arbitration. The ruling highlighted the challenges of balancing athlete rights with anti-doping efforts, ultimately prioritizing the integrity of competitive sports.