[well, here is another of many discrediting stories pretaining to the operacion puerto, or should i say, how to pay someone to discredit riders so they can't race and the tour has a better chance of being won by a frenchman. jorg jaksche is one of my favorite riders, always strong and game for some aggressive riding. the following are excerpts from a cyclingnews.com story, read the whole story at http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/2006/interviews/?id=jorg_jaksche]
"Some weeks ago, my attorney had received positive signals by the federation saying that, after studying the documents, they would not open proceedings against me," Jaksche was relieved to say. "Moreover, this decision had nothing to do with the fact that the Spanish judge in charge of the affair had ordered that the documents could not be used by the federations - they took that decision independently."
Jaksche, who continues to deny that he has used performance-enhancing drugs or methods, meanwhile admitted that he was in contact with Fuentes, who according to the investigation of the Guardia Civil was the instigator of a wide-spread blood-doping network based out of Madrid. "He has a two-year old child, who suffers from a particular form of cancer, and looked to make contact with me because my father is a renowned ophtalmologist," he explained. "We have specialised clinics in Germany, and he was just trying to get information from my father to save his child's second eye, because it had lost one already. So this was the kind of relation we had, but I have nothing to do with his alleged doping activities - if they are indeed true, which only the legal procedure can establish." [it doesn't get any more messed up than this, what a bunch of lowlifes]
Jaksche's attorney, Michael Lehner, put it this way: "Submitting a DNA sample would reverse the burden of proof on which our legal system is based on. The notion 'in dubio pro reo' [innocent until proven guilty – ED.] would be undermined. The law foresees that the prosecution must prove its accusations to be true - it is not for the accused to prove that he is innocent." [very well put, a great explanation as to why the riders should not submit to DNA testing, along with what should be obvious privacy issues]