La Ciencia Maldita, con Puerta

La cultura anglosajona es gloriosa, y hace de una larguísima sentencia judicial un texto apasionante. Pero también puede ser cruel. El tribunal, es cierto, declara poco creíble la defensa de Puerta: que puso agua mineral en un vaso que su mujer había usado para tomar un remedio que calma las molestias asociadas a la menstruación (effortil) y que contiene etilefrina, la sustancia encontrada en la orina del cordobés. Y tomó el vaso maldito. El Tribunal descree:

30. We are concerned that the evidence of the player and his wife concerning the contamination of the player’s glass with effortil is not reliable. We do not say that it is deliberately misleading but we do not accept on the balance of probabilities that it is the complete or correct explanation of how etilefrine entered the player’s body. We considered carefully the demeanour and narrative of the player and Mrs Puerta. We are concerned that her account and that of the player constitute a self-serving speculative theory derived from the necessity of explaining the positive test as required under the Code and the Programme.

31. The events they describe are not commonplace and not such as to be likely to happen in the ordinary course of life. Even though the table was small, we do not see any reason why Mrs Puerta would use a glass which corresponded to the chair on which her husband had been sitting, rather than the glass she herself had been using. We are concerned that if the player and Mrs Puerta were sure of their account concerning the transmission of effortil to the player via the glass in question, they would have put that account forward much sooner than they did.

Pero el Tribunal considera que la ingesión fue involuntaria y que la cantidad encontrada no otorga una ventaja deportiva:

36. We find on the balance of probabilities that the player was contaminated by effortil and that this occurred during the period of about one to two days before the final at a time and place unknown, and with a dose that is unknown, and in circumstances that are unknown save that we find the source was Mrs Puerta’s medication. We do not believe on the balance of probabilities that the player was aware of the contamination. We consider that it must have occurred through the negligent or deliberate act of an unknown person. We think that is more likely to be the case than the theory of contamination via use of the player’s glass by Mrs Puerta for her medication.

38. We will return shortly to the consequences of our findings. First, we continue our narrative of the facts. The player lost the final in four sets. His performance was not, we accept, enhanced. The amount of etilefrene in his body was too small to have any effect on his performance. It later transpired that the approximate concentration was in the region of 192 ng/ml, which is about 50 times less than the reporting threshold of 10 micrograms per millilitre for ephedrine.

Le aceptan la defensa de "No Significant Fault or Negligence" pero no la ideal, "No fault or negligence". Se niegan a aplicar un 'principio de proporcionalidad', que implicaría dar una pena menor a la del Código, a pesar de que sienten que están impartiendo una sanción injusta:

98. We do have an uncomfortable feeling about the severity of the sanction, even a very uncomfortable one.

No aplican ese principio bastante sensato de proporcionalidad porque tienen miedo de debilitar al Código:

102. In many such second offence cases, the mitigating circumstances will include factors such as those invoked by the player here: a low concentration in the urine, a lack of intent to enhance performance, an honest mistake, a low degree of fault, and so forth. Indeed, some of these were the very factors which the CAS considered in Squizzato. The real question is whether it is open to international sporting federations to adopt rules which provide for an eight year suspension for two doping offences committed by mistake, i.e. whether eight years for two mistakes is disproportionate.

103. In the circumstances of the arduous fight against doping in sport, we are not persuaded that it is.

Me parece penoso. Me cansé del cut & paste, pero créanme que la onda de la argumentación es: "En este caso, Puerta no quiso sacar una ventaja, ni tuvo ventaja alguna. Estamos convencidos de eso. Pero si no le damos una sanción, después otros van a decir lo mismo". Es como la pena de muerte: "Bueh, le errararemos algunas veces, pero hay menos delito". O la invasión a Irak: "OK, era información débil, pero si cada vez que tenemos que invadir vamos a requerir evidencia concluyente, se nos complica".

Yo a priori era muy anti-Marianista, especialmente porque no me gustaba compartir bando con los conspiracy theorists, que siempre abundan. Pensé que se había dopado y ya. Pero después de leer la sentencia cambié de opinión. El Tribunal admite que ni hubo intención de sacar ventaja ni -lo que es mucho más importante- ventaja efectiva alguna en el glorioso Rolanga 2005.

Aguante Mariano.