Dr Mario Zorzoli

[sniper]

to briefly get back to Zorzoli's business card found in Fuentes' wallet.
It really doesn't look like an accident. Fuentes only had business cards in there from people he, well, was in business with...

According to the paper ABC, when Fuentes was arrested in Madrid last May 23rd he had in his possession a black wallet which contained one clearly identifiable name; that of Valverde. When police searched it they found nine credit cards, a card from 2004 bearing the names and numbers of the Liberty Seguros team, business cards belonging to Mario Zorzoli (medical chief of the UCI) and Emilio Lamparero, who the paper reported has worked as a psychologist with football club Real Madrid.
http://www.feltet.dk/forum/read.php?2,145296,145376

put that together with Zorzoli's 1999 documented meeting with Fuentes about Kelme's 50+ hematocrit values, and you get a compelling picture...Zorzoli knew all that time that Fuentes was blooddoping his riders, continues to be in close contact with him throughout a 5-6 year period in which Fuentes sets up one of the biggest blooddoping schemes the world of sport has ever seen.

*insert Jan Ulrich mathematics quote here*

 

[D-Queued]

Hi Sniper,

I don't know why Cookson didn't fire Zorzoli. Maybe there is some Swiss employment law issue. Maybe it really isn't conclusive, and we just need to wait until we get some clarity.

I am glad Hein didn't fire him, though, because even his suspension for releasing the doping forms didn't seem right.

I don't know if Zorzoli is dim-witted, an order taker/follower, a henchman doing the dirty work, or a mad genius that was promoting a doping peloton. Or, if we was just trying to do his job as best he could in an environment where that job was next to impossible.

There have been some intriguing instances that have come to light where he was the central guy undermining Hein's mission. It is hard to not cheer when you hear of stuff like that.

At the same time, there are mitigating circumstances that would have inhibited a black or white, good or bad, doper or not, the rule is the rule approach with respect to the (insanely stupid) 50% HCT safety rule as well as altitude impacts on the ABP.

Thus, there appears to be a reasonable possibility that Zorzoli has been, on balance or perhaps only occasionally, an actual ally in the fight against doping.

For what it is worth, that is vastly different and distinct from Hein or Pat. And that makes the case of Dr. Zorzoli very curious.

So, I just hope we actually get further insight on this.

Dave.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Zorzolli is the one who leaked Lance's 1999 results to that journalist yeah? Did we ever get to the bottom of his motivation for that?

according to one source:

The UCI's medical chief, Mario Zorzoli, provided the documents L'Equipe used, apparently in the mistaken belief that there was no way to trace the results to any particular rider.

http://www.tdfblog.com/2006/05/
that sounds reasonable to me. As i said earlier, if Mario was really out to damage Lance, i don't see how Verdruggem and Pat would've subsequently let him back in.
And Zorzoli was there when Lance's BP values were shoved under the carpet in 2008/9/10.

Thanks!

However. I am struggling to believe someone as intimate with the AD process as Zorzolli did not realise you could link an ID back to other documents and thus a rider.

 

[thehook]

Zorzoli has not been fired. IMHO because he could be the one that ties it all together. Dude has been on the inside of doping for so long. He has to know where all the bodies are buried.

 

[sniper]

Re:

There have been some intriguing instances that have come to light where he was the central guy undermining Hein's mission. It is hard to not cheer when you hear of stuff like that.

At the same time, there are mitigating circumstances that would have inhibited a black or white, good or bad, doper or not, the rule is the rule approach with respect to the (insanely stupid) 50% HCT safety rule as well as altitude impacts on the ABP.

Thus, there appears to be a reasonable possibility that Zorzoli has been, on balance or perhaps only occasionally, an actual ally in the fight against doping.
Dave.

Martial Saugy has also, occasionally, actually been an ally in antidoping. It's his job. You can only be corrupt that much. If you're corrupt, doesn't mean you should completely fall out of character.
A corrupt cop will also catch some criminals from time to time.

Zorzoli's currently in on the Sky scam, and he was in on the Lance scam (at the very least in 2008-10), the Fuentes scam (1999-2006), Leinders/Rabo/Sky scam (199?-20??). Hasn't done *** against three of the most renowned doping docs of the peloton (Leinders, Ferrari, Fuentes). None of those three got exposed thanks to Zorzoli, even though he knew from at least the late nineties onwards that all three were blooddoping the peloton.
Previously we could only suspect his corruptness, but with Rasmussen's confession, the Froome TUE, and Fuentes 1999 meeting, we have it pretty much black on white.
I don't know how much more evidence you need to make up your mind about Zorzoli.
Please recall the Schenk quote you yourself posted: you have to have a zero tolerance policy in the fight against doping. Zorzoli at best seems to have had an "everything goes as long as you don't make it too ff-ing obvious" policy.
as TheHook says, this dude definitely knows where all the bodies are burried, and clearly burried a few himself.

 

[sniper]

"“The accusations against Zorzoli only go to show that the UCI still has questions to answer over his behavior as what Zorzoli is alleged to have done just is plain corruption. Writing a fast-tracked TUE for a Tour winner last year sounds suspiciously like what happened in 1999 as well,” Landis said, likening the Froome episode to Armstrong’s cortisone case from 1999."

Good luck arguing with that statement without using the words "bitter", "liar", and "axe to grind".
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/landis- ... onsistency

 

[sniper]

Re:

I don't know why Cookson didn't fire Zorzoli. Maybe there is some Swiss employment law issue. Maybe it really isn't conclusive, and we just need to wait until we get some clarity.

but we can make a pretty educated guess based on the Leinders-Zorzoli evidence, right?
Again, you seem to give precious little value to the Rasmussen-Leinders-FroomeTUE evidence. Why? What's ambiguous about that evidence?

 

[DirtyWorks]

IMO, Dave is keeping open the possibility he's the Hollywood character summarized as 'Hooker with a heart of gold.'

It's possible, but I'm not confident it's like that.

Let me know if I'm reading you right.

 

[Nicko.]

Re: Re:

There have been some intriguing instances that have come to light where he was the central guy undermining Hein's mission. It is hard to not cheer when you hear of stuff like that.

At the same time, there are mitigating circumstances that would have inhibited a black or white, good or bad, doper or not, the rule is the rule approach with respect to the (insanely stupid) 50% HCT safety rule as well as altitude impacts on the ABP.

Thus, there appears to be a reasonable possibility that Zorzoli has been, on balance or perhaps only occasionally, an actual ally in the fight against doping.
Dave.

Martial Saugy has also, occasionally, actually been an ally in antidoping. It's his job. You can only be corrupt that much. If you're corrupt, doesn't mean you should completely fall out of character.
A corrupt cop will also catch some criminals from time to time.

Zorzoli's currently in on the Sky scam, and he was in on the Lance scam (at the very least in 2008-10), the Fuentes scam (1999-2006), Leinders/Rabo/Sky scam (199?-20??). Hasn't done **** against three of the most renowned doping docs of the peloton (Leinders, Ferrari, Fuentes). None of those three got exposed thanks to Zorzoli, even though he knew from at least the late nineties onwards that all three were blooddoping the peloton.
Previously we could only suspect his corruptness, but with Rasmussen's confession, the Froome TUE, and Fuentes 1999 meeting, we have it pretty much black on white.
I don't know how much more evidence you need to make up your mind about Zorzoli.
Please recall the Schenk quote you yourself posted: you have to have a zero tolerance policy in the fight against doping. Zorzoli at best seems to have had an "everything goes as long as you don't make it too ff-ing obvious" policy.
as TheHook says, this dude definitely knows where all the bodies are burried, and clearly burried a few himself.

Dave's reasoning is a credit to this forum.

Given the info available, it is not unreasonable to picture Zorzoli as:

1. in the know
2. without official/public power while under Hein/McPawn
3. a doctor of health with true Hippocratic intentions (by personality or whispering inner voice)
4. an insider that has seen and experienced death as consequence of ungoverned, greed driven, maffia-like professional cycling
5. knowing that the young, aspiring cyclist is of least guilt and most pain of all actors in this charade
6. realising that without him (or someone like him) between Heins and Hogs, young men will die
7a. smart enough to find a way to stay employed
7b. ... and put a cap on lethal drug abuse

Are there facts refuting this scenario?

Rasmussen testifying that Leinders said something is not proof or even evidence here...
It was Leinders job to do and say things that made Rasmussen think he could do outride Lance and Alberto...

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Dave's reasoning is a credit to this forum.

Given the info available, it is not unreasonable to picture Zorzoli as:

1. in the know
2. without official/public power while under Hein/McPawn
3. a doctor of health with true Hippocratic intentions (by personality or whispering inner voice)
4. an insider that has seen and experienced death as consequence of ungoverned, greed driven, maffia-like professional cycling
5. knowing that the young, aspiring cyclist is of least guilt and most pain of all actors in this charade
6. realising that without him (or someone like him) between Heins and Hogs, young men will die
7a. smart enough to find a way to stay employed
7b. ... and put a cap on lethal drug abuse

Are there facts refuting this scenario?

Rasmussen testifying that Leinders said something is not proof or even evidence here...
It was Leinders job to do and say things that made Rasmussen think he could do outride Lance and Alberto...

good post except where you dismiss Rasmussen's testimony as evidence. I think it's not proof, but definitely evidence. It's not the kind of stuff anybody would make up. Why would Leinders make up that part about Zorzoli recommending DHEA? Just doesn't cut it.

you give a good summary of the "Hooker with a heart of gold" account. But like Dirtyworks, i too find it unlikely.
Mind that this is also the type of defense used by both Fuentes and Ferrari: "i doped those riders so that they wouldn't get sick". And to be sure, I think neither Fuentes nor Ferrari has ever wanted any of their riders to die or even get sick. It's bad for business. A case like Jesus Manzano, very bad for business. So of course Zorzoli tried to moderate EPO abuse. Even Hein must have been in favor of that.

Are there facts refuting your and D-Queued's scenario?
only the ones i and Bronstein have already presented in the last coupla pages of this thread (as well as in the Cookson sucks thread). Zorzoli recommending Rabo to take DHEA, Zorzoli in business with Fuentes, Zorzoli in bed with Sky/Leinders, Zorzoli "good friends" with Gianetti, Zorzoli not doing *** against Lance 2.0, probably responsible for Lance 1999 backdated TUE, Zorzoli not helping USADA, Teitler's testimony. The list goes on.

He may have done some good things, just like Bermon, Catlin, Damsgaard, Saugy, and all those Russian antidoping officers have done some good things. It's what they get paid for. Like a corrupt cop, you do have to show you're actually fighting crime from time to time.
Regardless, in the face of the evidence, good luck arguing that Zorzoli isn't corrupt and hasn't been in bed with the dirtiest docs and DSs.
And that's how we get back to the issue at hand: why did Cookson, ex-boardmember of Team Sky, ignore plausible rumors and keep a corrupt antidoping officer in place with close ties to Leinders?
It's a nobrainer.

 

[sniper]

btw, if i'm not mistaken, Zorzoli is also responsible for choosing in which laboratory TdF samples get tested.
In 2013 and 2014 UCI have ignored the Cologne lab, the only place that can test for AICAR.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

However. I am struggling to believe someone as intimate with the AD process as Zorzolli did not realise you could link an ID back to other documents and thus a rider.

"Dr Mario Zorzoli, a manager at the International Cycling Union's medical service, was suspended at the end of February after admitting he had unwittingly given the doping control forms to a journalist from the French sports daily L'Equipe.
...
"We've received a lot of letters from people and institutions involved at various levels who did not want Dr Zorzoli to become a scapegoat because they know he is valued by the UCI.
...
Zorzoli said he must have provided all the forms but only so the journalist could write an article "proving that Mr Armstrong never asked for an authorisation to use any drugs after he successfully fought his cancer"."

http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Mario-Zorzoli/210503796

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

btw, if i'm not mistaken, Zorzoli is also responsible for choosing in which laboratory TdF samples get tested.
In 2013 and 2014 UCI have ignored the Cologne lab, the only place that can test for AICAR.

WOW, just F**King WOW and people still think clean riders can win when the testing is being ignored by the UCI and that are trying not to catch riders doping.

 

[D-Queued]

Re:

Thanks Nicko and Dirtyworks.

Bottom line, nobody is fully evil. Though Lance does aspire to be.

In each case with Zorzoli there appears, however remote, a possible explanation.

In no case could we have said that about Lance. Six EPO samples, doctoring the Vrijman report, backdating a TUE, etc.

"“The accusations against Zorzoli only go to show that the UCI still has questions to answer over his behavior as what Zorzoli is alleged to have done just is plain corruption. Writing a fast-tracked TUE for a Tour winner last year sounds suspiciously like what happened in 1999 as well,” Landis said, likening the Froome episode to Armstrong’s cortisone case from 1999."

Good luck arguing with that statement without using the words "bitter", "liar", and "axe to grind".
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/landis- ... onsistency

Unfortunately, this is purely opinion that is motivated in part by an opportunity to further impugn Lance - for which Landis has a very well known agenda. For some of us, Landis has credibility issues and this particular quote reads as overstatement.

TUE's are, by definition, an "exemption".

Are we going to find that they appear to be in a grey area? Obviously.

WADA created the TUE. They need to fix it.

WADA was created as an independent body to, among other things, avoid inherent conflict of interests within sporting bodies.

We should expect a drift, over time, of any policy that is implemented and/or controlled by any ISO. WADA should be paying attention to that as well. The ISO's are not going to police themselves, nor observe any drift.

With respect to the AICAR test, I'd be interested in learning more about that particular decision. And, why aren't the other WADA accredited labs able to test for it? Also, would the UCI have to specify the use of the AICAR test, or would it be included in the standard screenings? Thus, is it something that could be covered by the testing budget?

On that note, forget about AICAR.

What would be more important is why weren't they testing for EPO - as pointed out by the WADA observers - particularly for riders high on the suspicion index.

Who gave that order to the WADA lab?

If you can show me that was Zorzoli, and that he was not instructed to do so by Pat directly or indirectly, then you will see a very quick change in my current posting pattern.

Dave.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

What would be more important is why weren't they testing for EPO - as pointed out by the WADA observers - particularly for riders high on the suspicion index.

Who gave that order to the WADA lab?

If you can show me that was Zorzoli, and that he was not instructed to do so by Pat directly or indirectly, then you will see a very quick change in my current posting pattern.

Dave.

If the WADA standard is followed, it is the anti-doping authority that requests the tests. It's entirely up to the anti-doping authority to choose tests and pre-competition individuals to test. Anything from WADA is only a recommendation.

The anti-doping authority has all authority in choosing tests to order, the lab can only fulfill the request as anyone who is familiar with commercial services relationship. The customer asks for tests to be run, the lab provides the services and bills accordingly.

A smart person should notice the opportunities to hide doping that arise in this situation.
-They aren't going to order the fancy exogenous Testosterone test, that's too expensive and go positive.
-They aren't going to order tests for things that would be useful to cyclists.
-They can profit on anti-doping fees collected by not fully consuming the race's anti-doping budget. Basically "going cheap."

An opportunistic person now hits the "reply" button... DW how did they get Astana's low-ranked EPO positives then? The UCI isn't the anti-doping authority at every race everywhere, but they are the administrator of all results everywhere. A smart person should see some more opportunities to hide positives.

This is clearly explained in the WADA standards. Which is why, from the start, the system is designed to permit doping. It's also why NADOs should be granted the authority to open positives on tests in the system.

 

[Catwhoorg]

There are a bunch of tests that can be run, and only so much sample.

So yes, you can exhaust the sample looking for X and Y, when Z would be more likely to occur.

I concur with DW, NADOs and ultimately WADA should have the ability to order tests and open sanctions in addition to the ISO. Basically have them cross checking and keeping each other honest.

 

[D-Queued]

Re:

Thanks DirtyWorks.

There are a bunch of tests that can be run, and only so much sample.

So yes, you can exhaust the sample looking for X and Y, when Z would be more likely to occur.

I concur with DW, NADOs and ultimately WADA should have the ability to order tests and open sanctions in addition to the ISO. Basically have them cross checking and keeping each other honest.

Yes, I know that.

(Don't take this the wrong way), but I was not asking a dumb or naive question. Of course the UCI is the one that established what would and would not be tested.

Let's get into some specifics. And, let's compare what happened in 2003 with what happened in 2010

Some lengthy quotes follow - but to get the point, here is a summary:

Dr. Zorzoli was specifically cited in both reports for his efforts.

From the 2003 report, it is clear that Zorzoli had initiated a program that started to use the health checks as an indicator for abnormal profiles - well ahead of the ABP. The WADA observers specifically congratulates the UCI/Zorzoli for "implementing this strategy".

From the 2010 report there are concerns about a lack of testing for EPO in urine samples, and about tying targeted testing to the Suspicion Index. While Zorzoli is thanked and commended for his efforts, the lack of EPO testing is determined to be as a result of budgetary constraints. Zorzoli, in fact, was cited for being

"tireless in (his) efforts to both deliver and improve the programme."

With respect to the budgetary constraint, it is relevant to observe that McQuaid had predicted no positives would be obtained at the 2010 Tour.

A further and very important note from the 2010 Tour was how a "limited number of teams" themselves were cited on multiple occasions as being obstructionist and non-cooperative. Moreover, that they had abandoned their commitment to a Code of Conduct.

Though the teams of concern were not specified it is likely easy to guess who these were - as a refresher Contador (Astana) and Menchov (Rabo) were disqualified, while Radioshack riders included Lance and Horner.

Thus as much discussed above, there is precious little evidence of Zorzoli somehow masterminding or openly facilitating doping within cycling. In fact, there is solid evidence of progressive efforts as well as of being handcuffed by either his boss - through a restricted budget - or from the 'omerta- actions of the teams and athletes.

Yes, Zorzoli could still be Dr. Evil. But it just isn't clear cut when you look at evidence from objective and "independent observers".

Dave.



----

IO Report Excerpts:

INDEPENDENT OBSERVER REPORT TOUR DE FRANCE 2003
https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com ... 003_EN.pdf

All 198 riders officially registered for the 2003 Tour de France underwent a blood test the day before the race…

Since this year, the UCI has been using a new protocol for identifying riders with an abnormal blood profile. If, for instance, a rider has a haemotocrit value of 48% (below 50%), but if the average value of the four previous samples taken was 43%, the Anti-doping Commission will automatically make this rider provide a urine sample to be screened for EPO.

The two doctors included in the IO team were able to view the UCI’s blood parameters database and listen to the explanations from Mario Zorzoli, the UCI doctor, about the strategy linked to the health checks.

…This strategy paid off with a (sic) out-of-competition control during the Tour, which showed a positive result for erythropoietin (EPO)…


The observers would like to congratulation the UCI for implementing this strategy involving health checks, which is still at the moment and was in the past a very important measure for protecting the riders’ health. The introduction of testing for abnormal biological profiles and the evaluation of free plasma haemoglobin demonstrate that the UCI strives to improve its health check procedures.

Based on the analysis of the individual assessments, it is possible to divide the riders into three categories:

- Those who will be banned from starting due to a haemotocrit level above 50% and a haemoglobin level higher than 17 g/dl;
- Those with no biological anomalies;
- Those who will be authorized to start, but due to a biological profile regarded as “suspect”, will have to be included in the group of riders obliged to take a urine test to be screened for EPO at the end of the prologue.

…The day before the start, the UCI decided to control at random two cyclists who had “suspect” biological profiles. … urine samples were screened for erythropoietin…

The observers agree with the UCI’s strategy of testing at random cyclists with “suspect” results from the health checks.

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT OBSERVERS Tour de France 2010
https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com ... 010_EN.pdf

It would be easy to say that the IO Team was well received by everyone on the Tour. However, initially this was not universally the case and while the IO Team received excellent cooperation from the many parties involved in this event, it was clear from the start that there was a certain unease about the IO Team’s presence, particularly from a limited number of teams.

…mention must go to Ms. Magali Louis, Ms. Francesca Rossi, Dr. Mario Zorzoli, Mr. Enrique González Martínez and Mr. JeanClaude Witkowski who were tireless in their efforts to both deliver and improve the programme.

… the IO Team discussed the Code of Conduct which the ProTeams signed up to in 2004, but which seems to have been disregarded by both the ProTeams and the UCI. The IO Team is of the view that the UCI is highly unlikely to be successful in tackling doping in the sport of cycling without the active and committed involvement of the ProTeams and the value of reinvigorating the Code would have substantial benefits to the UCI, ASO, participating teams and clean riders …

Athlete Biological Passport Programme

From what the IO Team observed on the Tour, the ABP could have an even more significant impact on the execution of the UCI’s anti-doping programme, if used to greater effect.

…

Testing Strategy

In the IO Team’s opinion, given that it is believed that some riders are transfusing blood and micro dosing erythropoietin (EPO) in an effort to maintain consistent blood parameters for their profiles, the greatest chance of detecting doping through analytical methods during the Tour would be by conducting EPO analysis on urine.

(NOTE: only 22% of the tests conducted at the Tour were for EPO)

…

it is the IO Team’s impression that the UCI could and should have executed a more targeted and aggressive testing strategy …

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. …

Analysis Type

It is noted however that only 70% of the UCI’s analysis were for EPO, and it was outlined that the budget was the main constraint for not doing more EPO testing. Moreover, only a reasonably small number of blood samples were collected for analysis for CERA, HBOC or HBT and it is unknown to the IO Team how many (if any) blood passport samples were later analysed for any of these substances

 

[Bronstein]

Even Ferrari has a laugh at the CIRC report's findings with respect to Zorzoli:

On page 122, when it came to the accusations made by Rasmussen with regards to UCI's anti-doping official Dr. Mario Zorzoli, the Commission considered "unacceptable" the leak of such serious allegations before they had been fully investigated (by them, obviously): a proper affirmation of protection of civil liberties that apparently seems to apply only to Dr. Zorzoli, a "honest expert scientist".

(http://53x12.com/do/show?page=indepth.view&id=156)


Further detail on the incovenient ABP data:

I do not personally know Dr. Zorzoli, but I already mentioned on another article how he made some Biological Passport blood tests of three Liquigas athletes training on Teide in 2010 "disappear", since the Team Doctor (a friend of his) deemed them as "unreliable" and insidious for the ABP profile of the riders.

Thankfully Liquigas were clean in 2010, so it doesn't really matter if a bit of data went missing. Nibali, Basso, Pellizotti, Kreuziger, etc. All cleans of course.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Even Ferrari has a laugh at the CIRC report's findings with respect to Zorzoli:
Further detail on the incovenient ABP data:

I do not personally know Dr. Zorzoli, but I already mentioned on another article how he made some Biological Passport blood tests of three Liquigas athletes training on Teide in 2010 "disappear", since the Team Doctor (a friend of his) deemed them as "unreliable" and insidious for the ABP profile of the riders.

Thankfully Liquigas were clean in 2010, so it doesn't really matter if a bit of data went missing. Nibali, Basso, Pellizotti, Kreuziger, etc. All cleans of course.

Interesting that he now outs the team. I do not think on his site he does so.

 

[D-Queued]

Even Ferrari has a laugh at the CIRC report's findings with respect to Zorzoli:

On page 122, when it came to the accusations made by Rasmussen with regards to UCI's anti-doping official Dr. Mario Zorzoli, the Commission considered "unacceptable" the leak of such serious allegations before they had been fully investigated (by them, obviously): a proper affirmation of protection of civil liberties that apparently seems to apply only to Dr. Zorzoli, a "honest expert scientist".

(http://53x12.com/do/show?page=indepth.view&id=156)


Further detail on the incovenient ABP data:

I do not personally know Dr. Zorzoli, but I already mentioned on another article how he made some Biological Passport blood tests of three Liquigas athletes training on Teide in 2010 "disappear", since the Team Doctor (a friend of his) deemed them as "unreliable" and insidious for the ABP profile of the riders.

Thankfully Liquigas were clean in 2010, so it doesn't really matter if a bit of data went missing. Nibali, Basso, Pellizotti, Kreuziger, etc. All cleans of course.

I am laughing, in pain, about the 'altitude training back door' that we are now privy to.

The system remains laughable.

The Teide tests are, apparently, inadmissable/unusable/unreliable for ABP purposes. It doesn't matter who within the UCI threw them out. Whoever it was, they were just doing their job in a system that remains imperfect.

In fact, given that inclusion of this data would have provided a convenient 'get-out-of-jail' card for any positive based on the ABP data and strong grounds for an appeal of any AAF, it is actually a good thing that these test results were tossed. It maintains some degree of integrity in the overall system, even though it is very clear that the teams and athletes are laughing themselves silly over how easy it was to create an ABP gap.

And, while it may not be in the spirit of this thread, and while it may sound completely crazy, we should actually thank Zorzoli for doing just that.

So was Ferrari laughing at Zorzoli, or at how easy it is to compromise the ABP?



Dave.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I'm actually supporting Dave's strategy on Zorzoli.

You all produced an impressive amount of published data I always summarized as just 'dirty.'

One of the things that I get out of the strategy is the UCI's process is treated like the 'black box' it really is.

Dave's resistance reminds me we just don't know and should not rush to assume.

 

[D-Queued]

Re:

I'm actually supporting Dave's strategy on Zorzoli.

You all produced an impressive amount of published data I always summarized as just 'dirty.'

One of the things that I get out of the strategy is the UCI's process is treated like the 'black box' it really is.

Dave's resistance reminds me we just don't know and should not rush to assume.

Thanks.

FWIW - I would much rather Zorzoli conclusively be facilitator #1. It doesn't bring much pleasure to challenge the arguments. Especially when I am reminded every time I look at my wheel or bike collection, line up for a bike check, watch a junior roll-out, or see another of the new frame stickers, of just how stupid UCI policies can be.

Let's all hope for a happy ending!

Dave.

 

[sniper]

"facilitator 1"
"Dr. Evil"
those are strawmen, Dave, nobody has said or claimed that.
Martial Saugy isn't Dr. Evil or facilitator 1 either. Still, we all (including Cookson) know he's corrupt, so in the world Cookson 'promised' us in his campaign, Saugy should not be head of the Lausanne department, or, alternatively, UCI should not be using the Lausanne lab.
For Zorzoli, too, the point has been, and remains, that he's corrupt(able), and there's plenty to show that, most notably his TUE for Froome and his connections with Leinders, which is why we're here discussing him.
Why did Cookson keep him? Why is he now being protected? Don't you agree the specific choice of words in the CIRC report suggests an unacceptable bias? The part Ferrari singled out is laughable. CIRC shooting the messenger (calling "unacceptable" Rasmussen's statements) and subjectively commenting on Zorzoli's qualities ("an honest scientist", ffs). My guess is Team Cookson added it to the report.

And nobody's said that the single fact of throwing out those Teide samples is suspicious. Another strawman.
The fact that that trainer had Zorzoli on speed dial, otoh, is suspicious, though again not in isolation. It is suspicous in light of a whole number of independent accounts (Millar, Rasmussen, Teitler, Ferrari, Spanish police) of insiders who have noticed or given evidence that Zorzoli is waaay too friendly with the DSs and doctors he's supposed to police.

I also asked you, Dave, to try and argue against Landis' point that the Froome TUE looks alot like what happened in 1999, and i asked you to do that without taking into account the person who said it. Your response? You focused on the person who said it. Also with Millar's claim (Zorzoli friends with Gianetti), you suggested he'd somehow put it in his biography to discredit UCI. And you even put in doubt Rasmussen's claims, suggesting Leinders just made it up. Armstrong would have been wise to hire you in 2012!

 

[Nicko.]

Would you agree that "corrupt" in relation to "UCI" means transfer of money hidden from the tax authorities?
I.e. did Zorzoli get rich holding a position of "medical officer" at an international, non-profit sports federation?

There's your litmus test.

I mean, Zorzoli wouldn't act like a greedy, dirty, corruptable , "anti-doping" doping-enabler for free, would he?

 

[Bronstein]

Would you agree that "corrupt" in relation to "UCI" means transfer of money hidden from the tax authorities?
I.e. did Zorzoli get rich holding a position of "medical officer" at an international, non-profit sports federation?

Corruption isn't limited to financial gain. 'Abuse of discretion' would be applicable to Zorzoli:

Abuse of discretion refers to the misuse of one's powers and decision-making facilities. Examples include a judge improperly dismissing a criminal case or a customs official using their discretion to allow a banned substance through a port.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption ... rupt_gains)