Well if you're going to put it like that I guess they're also completely different and not comparable because one involved a cancer guy in 2009 while the other involves a mod in 2015 so it's all like apples and oranges.
hrotha just spelled it out pretty clearly. In both casesdel1962 said:Nah one is about Anti Doping Policy the other is about rider transfers and a rule to stop tranfers between WT teams not dropping down a couple of levels, no real comparison
some are more equal than others.rules were willingly bent in favour of one particular rider who was deemed "important".
Thanks Bronstein.Bronstein said:How could Zorzoli be a hero given the following:D-Queued said:Zorzoli is one very curious situation. He could still turn out to be a hero or a demon.
(http://cyclingquotes.net/news/rasmussen_accuses_uci_of_cover-up/?urlPath=news/rasmussen_accuses_uci_of_cover-up/?acceptCookie=1)Doctor Leinders and doctor Mario Zorzoli, chief of the UCI's medical department, had a meeting and talked about the situation. When it had finished, I was allowed to continue. No reason to be worried. Afterwards, doctor Leinders told me what had happened. He used a Dutch phrase "We have butter on our heads." Rabobank had a good relationship with the UCI.
(http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=115)In the spring of 2010, some riders of a Pro-Tour team that were training at altitude (on Teide, Tenerife) were subjected to the normal ABP samples. One they received the results of the analysis, considering them unreliable (the values were too high), all it took was a phone call from the team doctor to his friend Dr. Zorzoli, in charge of UCI's doping department, in order to get the results of those tests cleared from the profiles, as deemed inconvenient for the Team and for the sake of the Biological Passport system, which tends not to consider the effects of altitude.
(http://www.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/AAA_decision_Leinders_December_2014.pdf)Zorzoli confirmed that when a blood test reflected a suspicious result, UCI would contact a Rabobank team doctor, either Dr Leinders or another doctor, to discuss the potential cause of the result.
Zorzoli told Teitler that UCI kept in touch with team doctors so that “Riders and staff would have the idea that the UCI was basically on top of them and they had to be careful with what they would do in terms of doping,”
#1 There's nothing legal about the CIRC. It's not judicial anything and there's partiality built into the relationship between the CIRC members and the UCI.Joelsim said:He's under investigation Bronstein. Let's not jump the gun before everything is examined properly by legal people. Why is Kreuziger still racing? Why is Vino still in a job? Why is Rojas still riding? Why are passport readings flatter than they used to be? Why is Ferrari still involved? Why hasn't every single win been deleted from the record books from about 1990 onwards? Why are we judging Cookson right at the start of his tenure when he has to get processes into place for them to be effective?
The Rasmussen and Teitler allegations were part of witness statements in the Leinders case. Therefore they are evidence.D-Queued said:By themselves, these quotes do not appear to be enough to confirm Zorzoli was purposefully thwarting anti-doping efforts.
That may sound crazy, but how definitive are these quotes? Are they evidence or hearsay?
What 'grey areas'? Zorzoli was protecting Rasmussen/Rabobank whilst giving out doping advice. There is nothing grey about that. It is obvious corruption.D-Queued said:It isn't clear, for example, if Rabobank was doing everything it could to take advantage of any grey areas or if Zorzoli was either leading them there and possibly facilitating it. Are Rabo/Leinders et al looking to smear Zorzoli? Did Leinders and Zorzoli have a special relationship? Or did Leinders merely find a way to take advantage of Zorzoli and was Leinders the source of the 'butter'?
The relevant point is that the UCI's Chief Medical Officer shouldn't be expunging any data in the first place, let alone on the basis of a mere phone call from team doctor. This another obvious example of corruption, unless you can point out the relevant section in the ABP Operating Guidelines that makes provision for such a scenario.D-Queued said:The Tenerife insight, for example, could represent a legitimate concern and problem for the ABP, especially as the ABP was first being introduced.
Minimally, the altitude issue could have represented a back door for challenges to anti-doping actions based only on the ABP data. In that case, Zorzoli should have wanted to know about it if it was a potential problem, and could have wanted to expunge the data from the database so that the ABP data was not compromised and could hold up under appeal.
Schumacher et al. High altitude, prolonged exercise, and the athlete biological passport. 2014.After altitude training, six swimmers exceeded the 99% ABP thresholds: two swimmers exceeded the OFF score thresholds at day +7; one swimmer exceeded the OFF score threshold at day +28; one swimmer exceeded the threshold for RET% at day +14; and one swimmer surpassed the ABPS threshold at day +14. In the control group, no values exceeded the individual ABP reference range. In conclusion, LHTH induces haematological changes in Olympic-level elite athletes which can exceed the individually generated references in the ABP. Training at altitude should be considered a confounding factor for ABP interpretation for up to four weeks after altitude exposure
Sanchis-Gomar et al. Altitude exposure in sports: the Athlete Biological Passport standpoint. 2013."...three results from three samples of three different athletes were beyond the individual limits at 99%, one at 99.9% ..."
Saugy et al. Monitoring of biological markers indicative of doping: the athlete biological passport. 2014"...The Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) is principally founded on monitoring an athlete’s biological variables over time, to identify abnormal biases on a longitudinal basis. Several factors are known to influence the results of these markers. However, the manner in which the altitude factor is taken into account still needs to be standardized. Causal relationships between haematological variables should be correctly integrated into ABP software. In particular, modifications of haematological parameters during and after exposure to different altitudes/hypoxic protocols need to be properly included within detection models ..."
Finally, from WADA's website, authored by non other than Ashenden:The athlete biological passport (ABP) was recently implemented in anti-doping work and is based on the individual and longitudinal monitoring of haematological or urine markers
Among the key prerequisites for the implementation of the ABP is its prospect to resist to the legal and scientific challenges. The ABP should be implemented in the most transparent way and with the necessary independence between planning, interpretation and result management of the passport
Regarding the blood collection, beside the technical aspects of the blood draw (which must be performed after allowing a timeout period in a sitting position), the timing of the sample collection, the exercise and the exposure of the athlete to altitude (real or simulated) are regarded as very important for the stability of haematological markers. Then, the main points to be confirmed are the following:
▸ No training or competition before the last 2 h of the blood test.
▸ Did the athlete train, compete or reside at an altitude greater than 1000 m within the previous 2 weeks?
▸ Did the athlete use any form of altitude simulation (hypoxic tent, mask, etc) during the previous 2 weeks?
It now does appear, in fact, that these studies have helped refine expectations in ABP profiles such that altitude impacts/effects can be filtered by DISCARDING the results or by NOT COLLECTING the sample in the first place (emphasis intended)."...We also showed that altitude training affected expression levels of some of the markers to the same extent as transfusion..."
Yes, yes. It was better than the days of Conconi being directly involved with medical affairs at the UCI while creating legends.Bronstein said:The relevant point is that the UCI's Chief Medical Officer shouldn't be expunging any data in the first place, let alone on the basis of a mere phone call from team doctor. This another obvious example of corruption, unless you can point out the relevant section in the ABP Operating Guidelines that makes provision for such a scenario.
APB Operating Guidleines - http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/CleanSport/16/55/32/WADAAthletePassportOperatingGuideline-NEUTRAL_Neutral.PDF.D-Queued said:Neither of us, obviously, has access to the "ABP Operating Guidelines" and/or any "provision(s) for such a scenario".
First, please note that if the guy is a turkey I would love to fry him.Netserk said:DQ, how can he possibly be a hero considering this?:
I have provided two instances of why I think that Zorzoli could be a hero.Bronstein said:APB Operating Guidleines - http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/CleanSport/16/55/32/WADAAthletePassportOperatingGuideline-NEUTRAL_Neutral.PDF.D-Queued said:Neither of us, obviously, has access to the "ABP Operating Guidelines" and/or any "provision(s) for such a scenario".
Please point out the section/s that cover the expunging of data.
By the way, I am not condemning you. I am condemning Zorzoli and the Cookson's failure to remove him. I asked you a genuine question about why you think Zorzoli may be a hero. You haven't even addressed that.
I thought we had confirmed that David Millar is an idiot?sniper said:Even David Millar thinks Zorzoli stinks..
In Racing through the Dark he writes how Zorzoli was good friends with Saunier Duval's doping DS Mauro Gianetti causing an obvious conflict of interest.
Sigh.sniper said:"Further allegations of cosiness with team staff came from Michele Ferrari in 2012. He writes about an incident in 2010 at a Tenerife training camp in which a team doctor was able to phone Zorzoli to arrange the wiping of test results. The effects of altitude distorting blood values was thought to be too much of an inconvenience to the team, and so it was done."
thin? fuentes (i don't care what he claimed to do, i care what he was actually doing, as did zorzoli no doubt) was running a cycling-wide blooddoping scheme and had zorzoli's business card, not at home in some drawer, but in his f-ing pocket.D-Queued said:Hi Sniper,
Sorry, but that is pretty thin. He had someone's business card?
1. Fuentes was previously the doctor for Kelme, ONCE, etc. Why wouldn't the doctor of a cycling team have the business card of the UCI's chief medical officer?
2. Until it was clear to everyone, everywhere that Fuentes was running OP, he could and did claim to be providing medical advice and services. Why wouldn't he have the business card of the UCI's chief medical officer in that case? If Fuentes did, in fact, have a legitimate practice shouldn't he have the UCI's chief medical officer's card?
3. Do you know everyone that has your business card? I don't. Sometimes they are picked up at places like trade shows, conferences, meetings, etc.
4. Whose business cards are in your wallet? I just checked and threw all mine out.
Now, real evidence like wire taps and phone records might be more interesting.
Ooops, sorry. The Spanish have done nothing about the primary characters, or the football and tennis players, let alone any suggested relationships with Zorzoli.
Hey, I've got a poster signed by John Tomac. He must be a doper since I post here all the time.
indeed he is. but why would he lie about the Zorzoli-Gianetti friendship?D-Queued said:I thought we had confirmed that David Millar is an idiot?