Hot on the heels of Boonen’s cocaine bust (the count now up to 3, by the way) comes another star losing his shine. We may have thought this one a foregone conclusion, indeed he can’t say the Italians weren’t communicating their intentions… Alejandro Valverde received a two-year suspension from the Italian anti-doping tribunal today in Rome for his connections to the 2006 doping investigation Operación Puerto. The decision prohibits the Spaniard, 29, from racing in Italy and the Tour de France, which passes through the country this year.

He will most likely appeal against this Italian ruling and does claim innocence in any case. The bigger question is what does the UCI do, faced with a Spanish rider banned not by his own governing national body, but by another? Do they take this further and resolve it – which would seem logical – or let it rest? I suspect they’ll wait until their hand is forced, either by the appeal itself or pressure from the parties concerned. But they’d be better advised, surely, to get to grips with the broader issue of the DNA evidence that this case rests on and act now. With Operation Puerto festering like an open wound the Italians have clearly telegraphed their intent to test and pursue those accused as soon as they step onto their territory. If the blood bags and the connected DNA evidence are available, and if the case is legally and ethically strong, why not pursue it?

Hot on the heels of Boonen’s cocaine bust (the count now up to 3, by the way) comes another star losing his shine. We may have thought this one a foregone conclusion, indeed he can’t say the Italians weren’t communicating their intentions… Alejandro Valverde received a two-year suspension from the Italian anti-doping tribunal today in Rome for his connections to the 2006 doping investigation Operación Puerto. The decision prohibits the Spaniard, 29, from racing in Italy and the Tour de France, which passes through the country this year.

He will most likely appeal against this Italian ruling and does claim innocence in any case. The bigger question is what does the UCI do, faced with a Spanish rider banned not by his own governing national body, but by another? Do they take this further and resolve it – which would seem logical – or let it rest? I suspect they’ll wait until their hand is forced, either by the appeal itself or pressure from the parties concerned. But they’d be better advised, surely, to get to grips with the broader issue of the DNA evidence that this case rests on and act now. With Operation Puerto festering like an open wound the Italians have clearly telegraphed their intent to test and pursue those accused as soon as they step onto their territory. If the blood bags and the connected DNA evidence are available, and if the case is legally and ethically strong, why not pursue it?

It’s getting to be ridiculous (IMHO) but Operation Puerto staggers on… it’s shut, then its open. Then it shuts again. Now the Italians allegedly use the Puerto DNA to allegedly pin Valverde to the alleged wall for a doping test on Italian soil during the (alleged) 2008 Le Tour. Is it legal? Will it stack up? Is it a witch-hunt?

The Italian Olympic Committee (CONI) requested a two-year suspension on Wednesday in Rome for Spanish cyclist Alejandro Valverde. CONI reportedly used DNA evidence to connect the 28-year-old Caisse d’Epargne rider to the Operación Puerto investigation.

Let the 2009 Le Tour doping scandal season begin! (Don’t forget that Puerto promised alleged links with soccer and tennis stars, too. It’s not just about the bike!)

It’s getting to be ridiculous (IMHO) but Operation Puerto staggers on… it’s shut, then its open. Then it shuts again. Now the Italians allegedly use the Puerto DNA to allegedly pin Valverde to the alleged wall for a doping test on Italian soil during the (alleged) 2008 Le Tour. Is it legal? Will it stack up? Is it a witch-hunt?

The Italian Olympic Committee (CONI) requested a two-year suspension on Wednesday in Rome for Spanish cyclist Alejandro Valverde. CONI reportedly used DNA evidence to connect the 28-year-old Caisse d’Epargne rider to the Operación Puerto investigation.

Let the 2009 Le Tour doping scandal season begin! (Don’t forget that Puerto promised alleged links with soccer and tennis stars, too. It’s not just about the bike!)

First up, a mention for elite athlete gone bad, Olympic gold medal sprinter Marion Jones. Ooops. It’s been a long time coming, hasn’t it? We’d feel sorry, maybe, if she hadn’t so stridently denied it.

Of course we Aussies often think or act like we are immune to the problem, but we are all in this together. From today’s Sydney Morning Herald: A track-and-field athlete and a swimmer are among the 24 Australian sportspeople who recorded anti-doping violations in 2006-07. The list included nine athletes from weightlifting and body-building, along with seven rugby league players – mostly from the Queensland and NSW state league competitions.

In the long run it will become increasingly difficult to manage performance enhancement amongst all sports, not just cycling. Today we have the question of which drugs to include, and in what quantities. To identify the drugs is hard enough, and so instead we identify the blood-count variables and set acceptable limits. When an athlete’s blood profile steps outside those parameters they are focused upon, questioned, tested or ‘rested’. It’s not perfect and many questions remain, such as ‘what after all is normal’, or ‘what is safe’? Indeed, what really is performance-enhancing? Caffeine is on the list one moment, gone the next. Cortico-steroids? It depends who you ask.

And tomorrow we face genetic manipulation. Whilst DNA-profiling will certainly help, if an athlete is baselined after the manipulation has occurred then what changes will we see? Presumably none. So do we baseline athletes at junior level, or even earlier? No doubt we will also turn to the limit-setting, but what if genetic manipulation confounds that as well? If we can manipulate our genome to produce more strength or endurance we are surely able to engineer apparently ‘normal’ blood profiles. So what next do we do? Give in?

First up, a mention for elite athlete gone bad, Olympic gold medal sprinter Marion Jones. Ooops. It’s been a long time coming, hasn’t it? We’d feel sorry, maybe, if she hadn’t so stridently denied it.

Of course we Aussies often think or act like we are immune to the problem, but we are all in this together. From today’s Sydney Morning Herald: A track-and-field athlete and a swimmer are among the 24 Australian sportspeople who recorded anti-doping violations in 2006-07. The list included nine athletes from weightlifting and body-building, along with seven rugby league players – mostly from the Queensland and NSW state league competitions.

In the long run it will become increasingly difficult to manage performance enhancement amongst all sports, not just cycling. Today we have the question of which drugs to include, and in what quantities. To identify the drugs is hard enough, and so instead we identify the blood-count variables and set acceptable limits. When an athlete’s blood profile steps outside those parameters they are focused upon, questioned, tested or ‘rested’. It’s not perfect and many questions remain, such as ‘what after all is normal’, or ‘what is safe’? Indeed, what really is performance-enhancing? Caffeine is on the list one moment, gone the next. Cortico-steroids? It depends who you ask.

And tomorrow we face genetic manipulation. Whilst DNA-profiling will certainly help, if an athlete is baselined after the manipulation has occurred then what changes will we see? Presumably none. So do we baseline athletes at junior level, or even earlier? No doubt we will also turn to the limit-setting, but what if genetic manipulation confounds that as well? If we can manipulate our genome to produce more strength or endurance we are surely able to engineer apparently ‘normal’ blood profiles. So what next do we do? Give in?