[harlond]

Here's a partial quote from the cyclingnews.com story on the release of the Spanish doping report: "The names at the centre of the affair, which is being treated as a crime against public health, as Spain hasn't got its anti-doping law in place yet . . . ."

Why should the absence of a law against doping interfere with a doping investigation, when you can just "treat" it as a crime against public health? Well, I haven't read the applicable statutes, so I won't make assumptions, but boy is that a strange statement to make in a news story and leave unexplained. Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[harlond]

Well, that's sorta my point. Doesn't it seem a little strange that Spain is conducting a criminal investigation into doping when it doesn't have an anti-doping law? If they're going to treat it as a crime against public health, the criminal would seem to be the persons providing the treatment that threatens public health, not the members of the public--i.e., the riders--getting the treatment. As I say, I don't know the laws under which the police are proceeding, but if the crime being investigated here is a crime against public health, it seems like a fair question to ask why from all appearances the riders, rather than just the doctors and other treatment providers/procurers, are being targeted.

 

[harlond]

You can't prove the Doctors were a hazard to public health unless you can prove they dispensed harmful drugs or harmful treatment to their patients. So the riders are the evidence - if they can prove that riders were given harmful drugs/treatment, they can prove thier case against the Doctors.

And what part of that requires the Spanish authorities to help ruin the careers of their witnesses? You don't see that as a somewhat odd aspect of the criminal investigation into a crime against public health?