1. Valverde was in Kelme directed by Vicente Belda.
2. Kelme had a team program (Puerto docs, Manzano etc).
3. Belda is on trial for his part in the Fuentes operation.
4. Valverde left Kelme in 2004 and from that point on had no contact with Fuentes.
5. Fuentes conserved a bag of blood (no. 18) which is alleged to be that of Valverde's.
6. There is a note on folio 106 of the Puerto summary made by Fuentes to the effect that bag no. 18 was kept in case the relationship with “Bala”* recommenced *(Valverde’s nick name – why didn’t he use Piti? see point 8 below).
7. There is no evidence that the relationship which existed under the direction of Belda was recommenced after Valverde left Kelme.
8. Valverde has a dog born in May 2005, the year after he left Kelme.
9. When arrested Fuentes went out of his way to implicate Valverde by asking the Guardia if “had they found everything about Valverde”.
10. The decision of Judge Serrano to not allow the use of evidence in the trial against Fuentes, Saiz, Belda et al, is completely consistent with ordinary legal principles governing a fair trial and with the Spanish legislation governing this.
11. The manner in which the RFEC has dealt with the Spanish riders implicated in Puerto is in no way different to the manner in which ASADA dealt with Allan Davis. The question has to be asked as to why Australia is deemed to be a part of the new cycling culture and Spain a part of the old culture and the problem. What forces are really at play here?
12. CONI's best argument against this (as set out in their appeal documents in Spain) is that the law is not clear, but they do not provide any legal support for this proposition.
13. CONI only has power to prosecute foreigners for events that occurred outside of Italy after 2007. Even if this law covered the relevant events (i.e. from 2004) the retrospective extra territorial application of criminal laws is on general principles problematic constitutionally.
14. In Bareclona on or about 27 February 2009 WADA’s John Fahey told Spanish Sport’s Minister Lissavetzky that the ‘Valverde’ issue was not a matter for WADA but for Spain.
15. On the basis of all of this it is very difficult to see how CONI or the UCI can actually win a case conducted on the basis of law (as opposed to a media lynching).
Where are we going with all this. Maybe someone should ask Hein?