- Aug 13, 2009
Hopefully he fights it with tremendous energy. The harder the better.Race Radio said:Looks like he is going to fight his eventual sanction. He hired Rocco Taminelli, Pellizotti's lawyer
http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-Independent-Observer/WADA_IO_Report_TDF2010_EN.pdf• While recognising the high level of testing and a focus on targeting riders in the Pre-Tour period (i.e. April to June 2010) it was noted that there were a number of riders of significance who took part in the Tour who had either not been tested during the Pre-Tour period or who had only been tested once (with the majority of these for the ABP).
• During the Tour, a number of riders demonstrating suspicious profiles and/or showing significantly impressive performances at the Tour were tested on surprisingly few occasions and for three riders of interest did not provide a blood sample for the purposes of anti-doping in the whole Tour (instead each providing a single sample for the ABP). This was consistent with the IO Team’s view that at times more weight was given by the UCI to ABP samples than samples for the detection of the ‘presence’ of prohibited substances and/or methods.
• The IO Team was surprised to see that a random draw was conducted for Post-Finish testing on two stages. The IO Team did question the rationale of even conducting a random draw, and while recognising that the particular stage was a flat one (which usually finishes in a bunch sprint), it seemed a missed opportunity not to use the intelligence available to the UCI or even base the selections on the performance of the riders in the stage. This was considered by the UCI after the first random draw was conducted and the IO Team only observed one further random draw being conducted again on the Tour.
• A rider identified as having a priority index of eight (with ten being the highest and most at risk of doping) was tested only once (urine EPO) during the Pre-Tour period with no blood sample collected for the analysis of CERA, HBT, HBOC or other prohibited substances and/or methods. During the Tour recommendations from the Laboratory related to target testing for EPO did not seem to be conducted expediently or as appropriate (ie. the EPO test was conducted 6 days later while the blood sample was only analysed for hGH). Lastly, following a significant delay in providing an early morning sample and in conjunction with the intelligence already held on this rider, there seems no evidence of more intense target testing on this rider.
• For a rider identified as having a priority index of ten, no blood samples were collected following the Laboratory recommendations after interpretation of blood passport data from the first week of the Tour, with only urine being collected and no blood as recommended by the Laboratory. Further, a recommendation to target test the rider for EPO took seven days to be executed.
• A rider identified as having a priority index of ten was not tested for either urine or blood from 3 April to the start of the Tour. Recommendations made by the Laboratory following testing in the first three days of the Tour resulted in no further blood samples being collected but rather only urine and approximately ten days later. The IO Team became aware of the remarks made by the laboratory regarding the analysis of this rider’s specific sample that raised the suspicion of the use of proteases. No further information regarding any actions taken by the UCI for further analysis of that sample was made available.
• For a rider identified as having a priority index of eight, who was recommended to be target tested for EPO by the Laboratory, the UCI did not target test the rider and in addition a sample collected five days later was not analysed for EPO. Interestingly in this case collection of follow-up samples from this rider was initiated by the AFLD via the WADA Resolution
Was it a bit of a WADA scapegoat, or the UCI throwing a bit of a bone knowing the Spanish Federation would jump in to save him while protecting all of the other suspicious passport profiles?theswordsman said:
Valverde wants to win the Tour. Before Contadors thing he said he would like to help Contador win. He realised he couldnt beat Contador.auscyclefan94 said:Yeah, surely he and valverde share a lot so you would of thought that valverde would of lent contador a hand.
You always need to be careful when you read anything from a lawyer when they are representing someone in the case.Aguirre said:http://www.marca.com/2010/11/10/ciclismo/1289412835.html
basically this says, contador and his entourenment are happy with the dossier sent by UCI to RFEC, the dossier says pausible food contamination as the source as UCI/AMA both say, Then?
minor or no sanction and the UCI/AMA don't go to CAS
UCI doesn't want a war against contador, UCI doesnt want an exemplary sanction, the problem lays in UCI/AMA war. If AMA won't exist, UCI would have close the case allready...
Well, those things and his own ban which doesn't end until January 1st 2012...The Hitch said:Now if Contador gets 2 years, then in 2011 only Andy Schleck, and an ASO decision to reintroduce bonus seconds stands between Alejandro Valverde and cycling imortality.
woops. I meant 2012. Point being that he has 1 year without Contador.skidmark said:Well, those things and his own ban which doesn't end until January 1st 2012...
Thats what i meant.I'd also say that bonus seconds help Valverde because of his sprint.
what's your source on this? My perception was the Contador wants to get a decision asap - and not by dragging things out like Valverde's lawyer managed to do.Race Radio said:Contador's legal has made it clear, they are going to drag this out as long as they can and make it as expensive as possible.