Asthma-Jet under investigation

[El Imbatido]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/petacchi-under-investigation-in-italy

It seems Mr Petacchi was under investigation before the Tour even began. He is accused of having used PFC (Perfluorocarbon) and human serum albumin.

Wonder if Patty Mc will have anything to say about this.

Also a quick shout out to Ianf at bikeradar for the sweet title for this thread. I stole it from him

 

[Benotti69]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/petacchi-under-investigation-in-italy

It seems Mr Petacchi was under investigation before the Tour even began. He is accused of having used PFC (Perfluorocarbon) and human serum albumin.

Wonder if Patty Mc will have anything to say about this.

Also a quick shout out to Ianf at bikeradar for the sweet title for this thread. I stole it from him

They are not gonna kick him out of the TdF if they let RadioSmack ride and GH, DZ and CVV they are not gonna ask Petacchi to leave.

P De Clerc would have, but he is gone

 

[Straßenrennen]

And especially not during the "clean" tour. Sadly. Was excited also at first then pattys words about clean tour started ringing around in the empty space between my ears.

 

[craig1985]

Is PFC actually a performance enhancer (ie a lot, or the advantage is minimal), or rather something that will help Petacchi?

 

[Straßenrennen]

The article describes it as undetactable EPO subsitute... but since everyone was/is using epo.... it cant be as good but it cant be soo bad.

 

[badboygolf16v]

Nearly killed Gianetti.

Jeez was that twelve years ago..

 

[blackcat]

Is PFC actually a performance enhancer (ie a lot, or the advantage is minimal), or rather something that will help Petacchi?

fricken dangerous $hit, as badboygolf said, almost killed Gianetti. Musseuw's orthopedic surgeon said he almost had to amputate his leg cos of his use of PFC.

 

[Mr.38%]

PFC is perfect for cancer lovers.

 

[goober]

Old news. Wait until you see the other names coming out within 2 weeks!

 

[DirtyWorks]

Yeah. But...

Old news. Wait until you see the other names coming out within 2 weeks!

Do you mean the UCI will actually announce and ajudicate these 'other names?' Are they setting the stage for the "My doping was administered and arranged by myself." perp walk and two-year suspension? Meanwhile the DS's go back to refining their doping systems...

One issue that the FLandis bomb really crystalized for naive people like myself was the selective nature of the UCI's enforcements. The USPS's perfect immunity to PED detection is just the tip of the iceberg. It would be nice to know how many doped riders got a free pass during the worst of it all the way to today.

However, I think the UCI is fortifying itself to minimize collateral damage in the wake of whatever Novitzky gets prosecuted. I look at how USA Track and Field kept BALCO prosecutions from penetrating their federation despite the fact they had career-long PED users never once publicly test positive.

 

[nevada]

Just occurred to me that by keeping the ban for positives to 2 years the UCI has control over the riders - anymore than that could essentially be a life ban and there would be no incentive for the rider to obsrve Omerta.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Just occurred to me that by keeping the ban for positives to 2 years the UCI has control over the riders - anymore than that could essentially be a life ban and there would be no incentive for the rider to obsrve Omerta.

An excellent observation, I think.

 

[mr. tibbs]

Just occurred to me that by keeping the ban for positives to 2 years the UCI has control over the riders - anymore than that could essentially be a life ban and there would be no incentive for the rider to obsrve Omerta.

+1. Should be stickied at the top of The Clinic.

As for Petacchi, while I was reading about the investigation on CN's homepage, the ad banner at the top featured him and Wilier.

 

[Mambo95]

Just occurred to me that by keeping the ban for positives to 2 years the UCI has control over the riders - anymore than that could essentially be a life ban and there would be no incentive for the rider to obsrve Omerta.

The two years is specified by WADA's World Anti-Doping Code (section 10.2), not the UCI. It's standard across all subscribing sports. There's even a fairly lengthy comment in the Code explaing why bans need to be standardized across sports.

 

[slowspoke]

Old news. Wait until you see the other names coming out within 2 weeks!

And they are????

 

[turtlesoup]

he is asthmatic....... PFC is not allowed in inhalors sold in the states since 05' but i have no idea on the allowance in other countries. salbutamol is albuterol and is the main component in an asthma inhaler. I assume he has extreme levels from taking the meds through a nebulizer vs inhaler. As an asthmatic if i use my nebulizer i feel cracked out, its for emergencies only.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Just occurred to me that by keeping the ban for positives to 2 years the UCI has control over the riders - anymore than that could essentially be a life ban and there would be no incentive for the rider to observe Omerta.

I have mentioned before that the 4 year ban was a way to leverage confessions and break Omerat, but I never thought of the UCI angle on it, excellent observation.

But I will say this again though, since Jan 2009 there has been the opportunity to ban athletes for 4 years for 'willful cheating'.

Ultimately it is the Federations that decide the length of the ban - although both the UCI & WADA can take a case against a Fed if they feel a proper ban has not been made (Vino's initial ban was 1 year - for blood doping!!).

 

[roundabout]

I think when Kohl got his reduced life time ban from NADA the consensus was that it reduced the incentives to speak out,

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=8094&highlight=kohl

Let's be honest, after what happened to Jäksche it's not the ban lengths that matter.

 

[Mambo95]

I have mentioned before that the 4 year ban was a way to leverage confessions and break Omerat, but I never thought of the UCI angle on it, excellent observation.

But I will say this again though, since Jan 2009 there has been the opportunity to ban athletes for 4 years for 'willful cheating'.

Ultimately it is the Federations that decide the length of the ban - although both the UCI & WADA can take a case against a Fed if they feel a proper ban has not been made (Vino's initial ban was 1 year - for blood doping!!).

As I have previously pointed out, the 2 year ban is set by WADA, not the UCI. No UCI conspiracy, I'm afraid. If a rider got banned for more than 2 years, they could appeal to the CAS, quoting the World Anti-Doping Code, and they would win. If you want change, then it has to come from WADA.

So no excellent observation, just paranoid misunderstanding.

I'd like longer bans too, but there's no conspiracy stopping it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

As I have previously pointed out, the 2 year ban is set by WADA, not the UCI. No UCI conspiracy, I'm afraid. If a rider got banned for more than 2 years, they could appeal to the CAS, quoting the World Anti-Doping Code, and they would win. If you want change, then it has to come from WADA.

So no excellent observation, just paranoid misunderstanding.

I'd like longer bans too, but there's no conspiracy stopping it.

You quoted 10.2 of the WADA code - but missed 10.3.2.

World Anti-Doping Code • 2009 page 53

10.3.2 For violations of Articles 2.7 (Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking) or 2.8 (Administration or Attempted Administration of Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method), the period of Ineligibility imposed shall be a minimum of
four (4) years up to lifetime Ineligibility unless the conditions provided in Article 10.5 are met.

The UCI adopted the WADA code -and it is on page 56, 305 Aggravating Circumstances of the UCI Anti-Doping rules.

305. If in an individual case involving an anti-doping rule violation other than a violation under article 21.7 (Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking) or article 21.8 (Administration or Attempted Administration) it is established that aggravating circumstances are present which justify the imposition of a period of Ineligibility greater than the standard sanction, then the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable shall be increased up to a maximum of four (4) years unless the License-Holder can prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel that he did not knowingly commit the anti-doping rule violation.

Pat McQuaid acknowledged this in 2008: "UCI to introduce four-year ban in '09".

When I said earlier the 'Federations' impose the sanctions,I should have made it clearer that it is the National Feds of a licence holder who are the authority who issue the sanctions - subject to the UCI rules.