Cookson is worse for cycling than McQuaid

[del1962]

So An Post are also more equal than others then

Or is it more some are mored hated by the twitter twerps than others

 

[D-Queued]

Re: Re:

Zorzoli is one very curious situation. He could still turn out to be a hero or a demon.

How could Zorzoli be a hero given the following:

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://cyclingquotes.net/news/rasmussen_accuses_uci_of_cover-up/?urlPath=news/rasmussen_accuses_uci_of_cover-up/?acceptCookie=1)

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.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=115)

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,”

(http://www.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/AAA_decision_Leinders_December_2014.pdf)

Thanks Bronstein.

Please note that I suggested Zorzoli could be hero or demon. Or both.

With respect to the above, I remain curious and hope we get further insight. 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?

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 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.

Unfortunately, whether hero or demon or some mixture of the two, we probably still need to know more about these stories to come to a conclusion. Hopefully CIRC, or somebody (???), will actually get to the bottom of this.

Dave.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Zorzoli has been the subject of at least one thread that did not make the transition to the new version of the forum software.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:U5MW8bXKuaUJ:forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php%3Fp%3D1493011+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I'm not pointing fingers. Maybe the thread has a new ID so Google can't point to the right URL. Plenty of opportunity for all this tech to cause problems.

Dave,

Training at altitude gives the doper an opportunity to dope because altitude would throw them off anyway. A legitimate bio-passport anomaly would appear after training at altitude even if the athlete was clean. The doper just refers to his ADAMS whereabouts if sent a secret UCI letter.

How exactly Zorzoli fixed things at the UCI is not known. He definitely was part of "never testing positive" over and over again. He also publishes lots of "Cycling is at the forefront of anti-doping" PR in scientific journals. Given how long he worked at the UCI it seems like the guy would, at minimum, know a whole bunch of dirt. You have to wonder how much he got paid for keeping all that dirt quiet.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re:

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?

#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.
#2 CIRC was supposed to be concluded with the delivery of the report. Now they are not? This is not a criticism directed at you. I'm just trying to get some clarity.
#3 The UCI is infamous for its investigations.
-How about that Tenerife "investigation" Froome inspired the UCI to undertake? Because athletes criticize the UCI all the time and the UCI responds so quickly to all equally.....
-Vrijman report
-Sysmex machine
-Floyd Landis
-McQuaid spends millions of Euros in something like two weeks on an "investigation."

The only purpose of these "investigations" was to publicly acknowledge something then bury it.

 

[Bronstein]

Re: Re:

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?

The Rasmussen and Teitler allegations were part of witness statements in the Leinders case. Therefore they are evidence.

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'?

What 'grey areas'? Zorzoli was protecting Rasmussen/Rabobank whilst giving out doping advice. There is nothing grey about that. It is obvious corruption.

'Rabo/Leinders looking to smear Zorzoli'? Rasmussen made the allegations against Zorzoli, not Leinders or any of the Rabobank management. I don't know of any reason why Rasmussen would want to smear Zorzoli. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

'Did Leinders merely find a way to take advantage of Zorzoli?' I don't know of any evidence to support this theory. I would have thought that it was a mutually beneficial relationship for the UCI and Rabobank. No one was leading anyone anywhere.

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.

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.

 

[sniper]

excellent points, bronstein.

remind Zorzoli was there at the head of antidoping straight through the Armstrong period.
the 1999 TUE.
2001 Lausanne 'positive'.
there's the TUE for Froome, not really according to the rules either.
so, it's not as if the Rasmussen evidence is all we have.

 

[D-Queued]

Hi Bronstein,

IIRC, I was one of the biggest contributors to the Another thing about McQuaid and Verbruggen threads.

I would LOVE to have any OBVIOUS examples of corruption.

But, that is an overstatement on your part, no? (This is not focusing on you, the poster, but on the statement in your post).

I wish it were not.

However, is it possible to do a bit more research before condemning me?

Neither of us, obviously, has access to the "ABP Operating Guidelines" and/or any "provision(s) for such a scenario".

But, we both have access to Google. And, we can both look for any research in this area.

Turns out that there has been a reasonable amount. And, that research would apparently explain why someone like Zorzoli might eliminate sample results that were obtained following extensive periods of training at altitude. Anecdotally, this is intuitively obvious (emphasis intended) and makes good practical sense - which is why I felt confident making the statements above - even if, unfortunately, it could also provide a back door for cheaters like Rabo, Rasmussen and Leinders.

Having consulted Google, ("athlete biopassport altitude effect") here are some research papers on the topic:

Bonne et al. Altitude training causes haematological fluctuations with relevance for the Athlete Biological Passport. 2014.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dta.1757/abstract

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

Schumacher et al. High altitude, prolonged exercise, and the athlete biological passport. 2014.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25252093

"...three results from three samples of three different athletes were beyond the individual limits at 99%, one at 99.9% ..."

Sanchis-Gomar et al. Altitude exposure in sports: the Athlete Biological Passport standpoint. 2013.
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Helios_Pareja-Galeano/publication/257649567_Altitude_exposure_in_sports_the_Athlete_Biological_Passport_standpoint/links/54af927c0cf29661a3d5bc24.pdf

"...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 ..."

Saugy et al. Monitoring of biological markers indicative of doping: the athlete biological passport. 2014
http://inado.org/uploads/3/1/2/9/3129436/monitoring_of_biological_markers_indicative_of_doping_-_the_athlete_biological_passport.pdf

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?
...

Finally, from WADA's website, authored by non other than Ashenden:

Gore et al (including Ashenden). The effect of training, altitude exposure and an athlete’s sex on expression of genes known to change following autologous blood transfusion. 2012

"...We also showed that altitude training affected expression levels of some of the markers to the same extent as transfusion..."

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).

BUT, that would be quite a number of years since the Rasmussen example that you believe to be the 'obvious example of corruption' that you are proposing.

However, the only corruption here appears to be one of logic and a lack of rigor in supporting ones assertions.

Dave.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

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.

Yes, yes. It was better than the days of Conconi being directly involved with medical affairs at the UCI while creating legends.
http://www.theouterline.com/nineteen-eighty-three/
http://www.podiumcafe.com/2011/2/16/1997823/tough-on-doping-tough-on-the-causes-of-doping-francesco-conconi-and (excellent work here by fmk_RoI.)

Zorzoli wasn't doping athletes while leading the medical commission. That is SO much better. I have my arms all the way apart it's that much better!!!

Even if the UCI actually switches to a WADA compliant method, my reading of the rules is it is still secret, and still controlled by the UCI. Favored riders get favors.

 

[Bronstein]

Re:

Neither of us, obviously, has access to the "ABP Operating Guidelines" and/or any "provision(s) for such a scenario".

APB Operating Guidleines - http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/CleanSport/16/55/32/WADAAthletePassportOperatingGuideline-NEUTRAL_Neutral.PDF.

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.

 

[Netserk]

DQ, how can he possibly be a hero considering this?:

http://www.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/AAA_decision_Leinders_December_2014.pdf

 

[D-Queued]

Re:

DQ, how can he possibly be a hero considering this?:

http://www.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/AAA_decision_Leinders_December_2014.pdf

First, please note that if the guy is a turkey I would love to fry him.

Now, having hung out here for a long time, I know that such a statement sounds like I am some sort of doping apologist. Thus, I beseech your patience in my response.

When I read that, and some of the other stuff, the first question I asked was 'could there be a rational explanation'.

As an aside, this is also (could there be a rational explanation) typically the first question I ask when I read posts that seem really odd at first blush. As a further aside, this has been a personally beneficial exercise to try and 'listen better'. Arguably, I still make mistakes, though.

So here is what I considered:

1. Is DHEA a banned substance

Yes.

2. Did Zorzoli really say that?

Don't know. Rasmussen didn't speak with him directly.

3. If he said it, did he mean it?

Don't know. He could have been lamenting to a friend that DHEA use appears to be widespread.

4. If he said it, and he meant it, was there another message?

Possibly. It could have been a warning that DHEA has been observed and that the anti-doping folks have a heightened awareness.

This would be similar to giving Tyler a warning when he had some questionable blood values that were suggestive, but not conclusive. We all know what happened when Tyler did provide actual questionable results.


On balance, since it is hard to know what the context of the alleged discussion was, what the specific meaning might have been, and whether or not the conversation took place, it is difficult to castigate Zorzoli based on this.

Would I be interested in hearing more? Yes, absolutely. I'd love to hear what Leinders had to say as well as Zorzoli. Also, whether or not any other teams had received any direct encouragement to dope from Zorzoli or anyone else at the UCI, for that matter.

In other words, is there any direct evidence? Is there any corroborating evidence? Is there any sort of a pattern?

Dave.

 

[D-Queued]

Re: Re:

Neither of us, obviously, has access to the "ABP Operating Guidelines" and/or any "provision(s) for such a scenario".

APB Operating Guidleines - http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/CleanSport/16/55/32/WADAAthletePassportOperatingGuideline-NEUTRAL_Neutral.PDF.

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 have provided two instances of why I think that Zorzoli could be a hero.

Or, if you like, why he could be a puzzle.

The first, cited previously numerous times in at least one other thread, is that he was key to Ressiot getting Lance's doping forms. Some have dismissed that example, but Zorzoli provided them and did not advise Hein. That is pretty impressive in any organization to do something of that magnitude that goes against the explicit wishes of the boss.

The second, cited just above, is the reference by Sylvia Schenk. Schenk was one of the first to call a spade a spade, and did point out that McQuaid had violated at least one conflict of interest parameter within the UCI constitution in accepting candidacy for UCI president.

In that example from Schenk, Zorzoli has highlighted what is now a commonly voiced concern - that the 50% HCT limit was a backdoor to legalized doping.

Again, Zorzoli was going against his boss on that one because it was Hein who came up with the stupid 50% limit in the first place, that coming in the aftermath of Festina.

Finally, with respect to the ABP Operating Guidelines, please refer to the multiple citations above - including the one about ignoring and/or discarding any test data from athletes who have been training at altitude.

Dave.

 

[D-Queued]

I am adding this as a separate post to highlight an important and specific concern regarding the ABP that has been illuminated through the research above.

We have an entire thread on "Why Tenerife". Many of us have been and continue to be puzzled about this off-season training location.

Similarly, many of us voiced concern and cynicism in the past about the use of 'altitude tents'.

The research located and cited above underscores that ABP test results from athletes who have been training at altitude and/or who have been using altitude tents to simulate altitude training should be ignored.

Thus, please allow me to offer the following speculation:

Knowing that altitude and altitude tents provide a reason to discard ABP tests, then wouldn't an enterprising team or cyclist employ altitude training and dope like crazy while doing so?

Isn't that an even bigger loophole than the 50% HCT limit?

It appears that Jan Ullrich's 1 + 1 equation ought to be employed here.

Why Tenerife?

Because, apparently, you can dope your ass off with impunity.

Oh, and don't forget to buy an altitude tent. You needn't open the box, though.

Dave.

 

[sniper]

"In 2004, while a newly developed test for homologous blood transfusions was being validated, the IUML were brought in. WADA at this stage were eager not to publicise the existence of such a test. The IUML applied the test to samples collected from cyclists, including some from the Tour de Romandie. The results were communicated to the UCI. For some reason, never satisfactorily explained, the UCI's Chief Medical Officer, Mario Zorzoli, discussed the results of those tests with at least one rider, effectively telling him to get his act together before the new test was introduced officially. Michael Ashenden, one of the developers of the new test, was particularly unhappy"

http://www.podiumcafe.com/2011/6/6/2209300/the-curious-case-of-the-iuml-and-the-epo-positive-that-wasnt

 

[D-Queued]

That would coincide with Tyler. Is this one and the same story?

Dave.

 

[sniper]

"A 2007 article in Spanish newspaper ABC detailed what infamous doctor Eufemiano Fuentes had in his possession at the time of his arrest. Along with a hotel card with rider nicknames, multiple phones and credit cards and some swiss francs (the UCI is based there) was Mario Zorzoli’s business card. Quite why one of the most notorious doping doctors in the sport would have the phone number of the UCI’s Chief Medical Officer is anybody’s guess, and seems to have been largely forgotten."
http://inthedrops.net/2015/01/27/on-zorzoli/

 

[sniper]

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.
http://inthedrops.net/2015/01/27/on-zorzoli/

 

[sniper]

"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."
http://inthedrops.net/2015/01/27/on-zorzoli/

 

[D-Queued]

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.

Dave.

 

[D-Queued]

Re:

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.
http://inthedrops.net/2015/01/27/on-zorzoli/

I thought we had confirmed that David Millar is an idiot?

Dave.

 

[D-Queued]

Re:

"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."
http://inthedrops.net/2015/01/27/on-zorzoli/

Sigh.

Please see references supplied above from multiple research papers.

Please also note specifically the concern voiced about Tenerife training camps and altitude tents as a loophole for the ABP.

Dave.

 

[sniper]

Re:

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.

Dave.

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.
doesn't prove ***, but is nonetheless unsurprising in light of Rasmussen's claims.

many DSs including the dirtiest ones seem to have (had) zorzoli on speed dial.
it clearly made/makes him susceptible to corruption.
again, it doesn't prove him to be corrupt of course, but don't you think this, too, at least lends some cred to the already rather credible testimonies from Rasmussen and that other dude (Teitler something?)?

Why do you think Pat and Hein kept him in the first place, even after the Lance *** up?
If he was honestly out to frame Lance, as your 'hero' scenario suggests, you think Hein wouldn't have done anything to get rid of Zorzoli?
Then there's the Froome TUE. How does that fit into your hero scenario?
You're also forgetting the whole EPO 'warning' system set up in the early 2000s from which a certain Lance and USPS benefitted immensely was set up and supervised by Zorzoli.

the only thing you have is Zorzoli accidentally leaking those Lance data, but at the very best that suggests he was playing both sides.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

I thought we had confirmed that David Millar is an idiot?

Dave.

indeed he is. but why would he lie about the Zorzoli-Gianetti friendship?
please don't go down that "he lied before so he's probably lying again" road.
that's so 2010.
you wanna change it into "he's an idiot so don't trust whatever he's saying about doping"?
Just doesn't cut it.

 

[sniper]

Re:

he could and did claim to be providing medical advice and services.

but was instead running a doping scheme.
sounds rather familiar doesn't it? goes for practically all docs involved in cycling.

but of course Zorzoli - who went side by side with Hein and Pat through the Lance/Contador era, is now giving dodgy TUEs to 90% of the peloton including fasttracking TUEs for Froome and got seriously accused of enabling ped-abuse by whistleblower Rasmussen - is an excepcion...#smiley looking northeast.

 

[sniper]

Here's a nice one, from the Giro 1999, confirming the cosy ties between Fuentes and Zorzoli go back to 1999 when Fuentes was bloodoping Kelme riders:

El médico del Kelme sabía que Ochoa podría tener problemas
El médico del G.D. Kelme, Eufeminiano Fuentes, conocía que Javier Ocha podría tener problemas con el control de hematocrito (volumen global de glóbulos rojos en la sangre). "Javier Ochoa tiene un alto valor de hematocrito; ayer -por el viernes- por ejemplo por la noche tenía 48. Este valor a lo largo del día oscila y hoy -sábado- Javier tuvo 51", explicó Fuentes.
El médico del Kelme era consciente del problema y por eso el pasado lunes se puso en contacto con uno de los médicos de la Unión Ciclista Internacional (UCI), Zorzoli: "Hay cuatro corredores en el equipo, entre ellos Ochoa, con un alto nivel de hematocrito, cerca del límite permitido. Son casos desamparados, ya que no tienen un valor tan elevado como para solicitar un certificado. Pedí a Zorzoli que revisará estos casos, pero me emplazó a finales de mes para reunirnos y estudiar el tema".

link: http://archivo.marca.com/ciclismo/giro99/hematocrito.html

so, four Kelme riders with hematocrit close to, and at least one (Ochoa) over, 50.
Fuentes then arranges a meeting with Zorzoli et voila.
did any Kelme rider test positive in 1999?