Dr. Luis Garcia del Moral, Dr. Michele Ferrari and Jose “Pepe” Martí life bans

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/06/news/who-are-the-spaniards-under-the-usada-spotlight_223914

The third Spanish name is the more elusive Martí, a Spanish trainer who has also worked closely with several riders within Bruyneel’s teams, including Alberto Contador.

Little is known about Martí, who is not a licensed medical doctor. He rarely speaks to the media and refused a routine interview request from VeloNews three years ago during a race in Spain. According to the USADA documents, Martí started working at U.S. Postal Service in 1999, then the rebranded Discovery Channel team through 2007 and switched to Astana in 2008.

Floyd Landis, speaking in an interview with the German TV station ARD in 2011, accused Martí of supplying riders with drugs.

“Pepe was a supplier of drugs to U.S. Postal when I was on the team,” Landis was quoted on ARD. “I often used (Martí) to buy growth hormones, EPO and other doping products. He was not a coach. He was nothing more than a known drug dealer.”

There was never any public reaction from Martí, but Alberto Contador’s representatives acknowledged that he worked with Martí during his time at both Discovery Channel and Astana. Contador has not reportedly worked with Martí since 2010.
Whaddya suppose Marti was doing for Contador all those years?
 
(I asked this in the other thread but I'm probably more likely to get an answer here)

What I want to know is:

A) Does the ban formally apply to non-athlete roles in WADA code affiliated sports?

B) If it does apply to backroom roles, what enforcement powers are there? It doesn't seem to me that USADA (or WADA or the UCI) can do anything in particular to them if they breach such a ban. Can sanctions be applied to teams or athletes who engage them in backroom roles?
 
Jul 18, 2010
171
0
0
Zinoviev Letter said:
Does this mean that USADA have just banned three backroom people from competing as athletes?
No they have banned the doctors and coaches from acting as doctors and coaches or working in any other capacity in any WADA signatory sport. It also means there would be sanctions for any athlete that uses their services.

These doctors make millions developing doping programs so if it can be effectively enforced its a big monetary loss.
 
I tried to sort through WADA's definition of ineligibility a week or two ago (after a current 10-year-banned agent was spotted in the Nike suite at the US olympic trials...)

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-The-Code/WADA_Anti-Doping_CODE_2009_EN.pdf

"10.10.1 Prohibition Against Participation
During Ineligibility
No Athlete or other Person who has been
declared Ineligible may, during the period of
Ineligibility, participate in any capacity in a
Competition or activity (other than authorized
anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs)
authorized or organized by any Signatory,
Signatory's member organization, or a club or
other member organization of a Signatory’s
member organization, or in Competitions
authorized or organized by any professional
league or any international- or national-level
Event organization."
Theres more, but thats a good preview.

Participation is a dicey word. Pretty clearly, there can be no more training plans, health screenings (for athletes), paid consultations, or anything officially documented between athletes and the banned 3. But, of course, "family friend" is still an end around. Similarly, it isn't illegal (probably) for them to spectate at races, vacation in Girona, and so on.
 
henryg said:
No they have banned the doctors and coaches from acting as doctors and coaches or working in any other capacity in any WADA signatory sport. It also means there would be sanctions for any athlete that uses their services.
Thanks. Do you have a link where this gone into? Is there somewhere where this is explained officially?

(edit: I posted this before I saw More Strides than Rides post above)
 
More Strides than Rides said:
I tried to sort through WADA's definition of ineligibility a week or two ago (after a current 10-year-banned agent was spotted in the Nike suite at the US olympic trials...)

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-The-Code/WADA_Anti-Doping_CODE_2009_EN.pdf

Theres more, but thats a good preview.

Participation is a dicey word. Pretty clearly, there can be no more training plans, health screenings (for athletes), paid consultations, or anything officially documented between athletes and the banned 3. But, of course, "family friend" is still an end around. Similarly, it isn't illegal (probably) for them to spectate at races, vacation in Girona, and so on.
Someone might want to tell Matt White and GreenEdge about Del Moral... :rolleyes:
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
What I find remarkable is that the United States are now officially leading the global fight against doping, whereas they were endulging it in the eighties and nineties. They're now showing us Europeans how to clean the house.
 
How to save taxpayers' money:

USADA CEO Travis Tygart confirmed to Cyclingnews that Ferrari, Del Moral and Marti accepted their lifetime bans. "The respondents chose not to waste resources by moving forward with the arbitration process, which would only reveal what they already know to be the truth of their doping activity.
This is huge for Tygart/USADA, because whatever happens after this, they have justified all the resources spent. Going forward, the argument that this is a waste of taxpayers' money is already proven wrong. USADA has done a lot to restore the image of doping prosecution following the Bonds and Clemens fiascos. Even if LA walks, which looks increasingly unlikely, they can point to something very positive.

This is not totally bad news for LA, though. It means these guys won't be testifying. The conspiracy is down to three, which has to be easier to manage than six.

My question: was there ever a possibility of getting reduced sentences if they confessed? If there was, these guys threw away that chance. Why? Were they intimidated by the prospect of crossing LA? Surely they didn't take a fall just to make it possibly a little easier for him?
 
More Strides than Rides said:
Theres more, but thats a good preview.
Thanks for this.

Is there anything about sanctions applicable to teams/athletes who employ banned individuals? I'm assuming that there isn't anything that USADA/WADA/UCI have the power to do them beyond banning them - ie that effective enforcement would have to be about sanctioning other people.
 
Nov 20, 2010
786
0
0
Maxiton said:
Or he's waiting for the judge to rule on his refiling and thus requested an extension.
Armstrong's extension expires Saturday. I doubt USADA will grant another extension. It will all be in Sparks' ballpark before Saturday.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
More Strides than Rides said:
I tried to sort through WADA's definition of ineligibility a week or two ago (after a current 10-year-banned agent was spotted in the Nike suite at the US olympic trials...)

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-The-Code/WADA_Anti-Doping_CODE_2009_EN.pdf

Theres more, but thats a good preview.

Participation is a dicey word. Pretty clearly, there can be no more training plans, health screenings (for athletes), paid consultations, or anything officially documented between athletes and the banned 3. But, of course, "family friend" is still an end around. Similarly, it isn't illegal (probably) for them to spectate at races, vacation in Girona, and so on.
Right. What it really does is strip away any facade that these guy may try to create by providing "legitimate" services in order to conceal illegal practices.

While it does nothing to really prevent the doping services, they can't hide behind the BS "training programs" and "health screenings" as athletes can no longer use them for those services without facing sanctions themselves.
 
sniper said:
What I find remarkable is that the United States are now officially leading the global fight against doping, whereas they were endulging it in the eighties and nineties. They're now showing us Europeans how to clean the house.
Haha. I was just thinking about that: we have nothing left to protect! US road champ isn't even in the TDF, and 4 of those guys won't last through the Olympics. :rolleyes:
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
thehog said:
Someone might want to tell Matt White and GreenEdge about Del Moral... :rolleyes:
Yep, and it'll be interesting to see if the ATP/WTF takes any measurements against Del Moral and the entire Valencian tennis school. (remember Errani's recent success...)
Probably not.

If we're lucky, though, these developments might eventually also come to touch upon other dodgy sports, tennis and soccer in particular.
 
Nov 20, 2010
786
0
0
Merckx index said:
How to save taxpayers' money:



This is not totally bad news for LA, though. It means these guys won't be testifying. The conspiracy is down to three, which has to be easier to manage than six.

My question: was there ever a possibility of getting reduced sentences if they confessed? If there was, these guys threw away that chance. Why? Were they intimidated by the prospect of crossing LA? Surely they didn't take a fall just to make it possibly a little easier for him?
Ferrari was likely not one of the 10+ witnesses noted by USADA in their charging letter. Banking records showing that Armstrong used Ferrari's services while the doc was banned will be introduced at an arbitration hearing.
 
Merckx index said:
How to save taxpayers' money:



This is not totally bad news for LA, though. It means these guys won't be testifying. The conspiracy is down to three, which has to be easier to manage than six.

My question: was there ever a possibility of getting reduced sentences if they confessed? If there was, these guys threw away that chance. Why? Were they intimidated by the prospect of crossing LA? Surely they didn't take a fall just to make it possibly a little easier for him?
It really sounds to me like they are admitting their guilt. That is not good for Lance.
 
Mar 19, 2009
832
0
0
Merckx index said:
How to save taxpayers' money:



This is not totally bad news for LA, though. It means these guys won't be testifying. The conspiracy is down to three, which has to be easier to manage than six.

My question: was there ever a possibility of getting reduced sentences if they confessed? If there was, these guys threw away that chance. Why? Were they intimidated by the prospect of crossing LA? Surely they didn't take a fall just to make it possibly a little easier for him?
They weren't going to testify, they weren't going to set foot in the US. I'm sure this is more about them not being in the position to do anything about it than being worried about crossing Lance. Lance doesn't have any power anymore.
 
Oct 26, 2009
654
0
0
Don't be late Pedro said:
So with respect to Dr Ferrari and pro riders: They were not allowed to work with him before but now they are really not allowed to work with him?
I *believe* that cyclists were previously recommended to not work with Ferrari, but Lance and others did it even though Ferrari had a reputation for incorporating drugs into a cyclist's training regimen.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
ManInFull said:
I *believe* that cyclists were previously recommended to not work with Ferrari, but Lance and others did it even though Ferrari had a reputation for incorporating drugs into a cyclist's training regimen.
Correct, now a rider can't even say "Yes, I saw Ferrari, but it was only for training schedules" without being subject to sanction.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY