Pellizotti been given a 2 year ban [was - prematurely- Pellizotti acquitted !]

[Polish]

Good news. BP passes muster and is here to stay.

An interview with Ashenden would be icing on the cake.

cheers for cycling

+1

Other Pro Sports are contemplating Bio-Passports.
They have been watching this case I would bet.

Not a good day for the dopers.

 

[thehog]

i would like to see on what numbers this 2 year ban was based and was anyone else (HWSNBN and others) close to them.

CAS & the UCI used the following criteria for the 2 year ban:

1. The rider was not Spanish
2. The rider was not Lance
3. The rider made some vailed insinuations about the UCI being corrupt
4. The rider didn't say sorry and he doped alone
5. The rider threatened to sue the UCI
6. The rider had way too much hair

 

[Benotti69]

CAS & the UCI used the following criteria for the 2 year ban:

1. The rider was not Spanish
2. The rider was not Lance
3. The rider made some vailed insinuations about the UCI being corrupt
4. The rider didn't say sorry and he doped alone
5. The rider threatened to sue the UCI
6. The rider had way too much hair

7. Didn't provide the money to buy a blood testing machine for UCI

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

7. The rider is Italian.

 

[Polish]

CAS & the UCI used the following criteria for the 2 year ban:

1. The rider was not Spanish
2. The rider was not Lance
3. The rider made some vailed insinuations about the UCI being corrupt
4. The rider didn't say sorry and he doped alone
5. The rider threatened to sue the UCI
6. The rider had way too much hair

What a coincidence - those are the VERY same reasons many haterz felt Pellizzotti should have been found NOT guilty

 

[hfer07]

CAS & the UCI used the following criteria for the 2 year ban:

1. The rider was not Spanish
2. The rider was not Lance
3. The rider made some vailed insinuations about the UCI being corrupt
4. The rider didn't say sorry and he doped alone
5. The rider threatened to sue the UCI
6. The rider had way too much hair

+1
at this point I see no return to Pelli to the peloton at all-he'll reach 39 by the time they get this mess settled- and UCI/WADA needed to make an strong statement to "protect" their cash cow called Bio passport...

 

[D-Queued]

7. The rider is Italian.

9. The Rider said that Ferrari had helped him

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The end result is that he gets three years of no race results instead of two.

Landis got two and a half years. He stopped racing as soon as he was notified, and he still got an extra six months. Other riders have their bans start from the last time they raced. There is no consistency.

Pellizotti was doping during those results - therefore they have to be taken from him.

Landis got the added 6 months because he rode a race (IIRC Leadville) during his period of ineligibility.

 

[MajorTom]

Wow, wasn't expecting that, if only DAOTEC was here... So Valjavec is going down too? Will the UCI start handing out "passport sanctions" more often now?

Valjavec has signed for Manisaspor Cycling Team and will probably be racing on Sunday in Porec, Croatia.

CAS decision on his case is expected on March 24th.

 

[MarkvW]

If you're going to do it, do it.

It is hardly a perfect solution. Removing the results of a dirty rider may well see a highly-suspected-as-dirty rider add a GT podium to his palmares. But consider the alternatives, allowing a proven doper to keep his ill-gotten gains is unacceptable. Failing to award a podium spot (leaving it blank) would punish a rider who has not been proven dirty. If we are going to have credible anti-doping measures we have to be fair to those who are not caught in the controls.

Bike racing treats doping like basketball treats technical fouls. If fairness were a paramount concern, the whole team would be penalized when it benefits from the efforts of a doper in its ranks. But that is never going to happen. Sit the doper in the penalty box and the game goes on (excuse the mixed metaphors).

Does it really matter to a pro racer that he moved up x places in the standings because of a doper disqualification that happened months before?

Sports is all about the moment for all but the most devoted fan. I can't remember (or care) who won LBL or Paris-Roubaix three years ago.

I'd just put an asterisk on the whole darn race and say all the results are tainted.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Bike racing treats doping like basketball treats technical fouls. If fairness were a paramount concern, the whole team would be penalized when it benefits from the efforts of a doper in its ranks. But that is never going to happen. Sit the doper in the penalty box and the game goes on (excuse the mixed metaphors).

Does it really matter to a pro racer that he moved up x places in the standings because of a doper disqualification that happened months before?

Sports is all about the moment for all but the most devoted fan. I can't remember (or care) who won LBL or Paris-Roubaix three years ago.

I'd just put an asterisk on the whole darn race and say all the results are tainted.

I am sure Sastre is happier that he will be moved up to the podium.

And in cycling the whole team are punished - all prizemoney earned is put back in to the team and shared evenly.
So Pellizottis teammates helped defend his position and jersey and have suffered a financial penalty.

 

[Merckx index]

As DQ noted, this is the key passage (for Caucchioli; nothing this specific provided for Pelli):

In particular, variations in hemoglobin values in the period from April to October 2008 could not be regarded as physiological, but are characteristic of blood withdrawal, thus indicating blood manipulations as a means of doping.

I would like to see numbers, too, but we can infer from this that there were larger variations in hemoglobin values than normal. Viz., large decreases that were taken as indicative of withdrawal. Probably infusions did not raise a flag, because it’s easier to hide an increase in hemoglobin, by diluting the blood (there are tests for total amount of Hb, as opposed to concentration per ml, but I believe these tests are not commonly used). Remember, Floyd said passport tests could often be beaten by using EPO to bring up red blood cell (and Hb) levels quickly following withdrawal, but obviously it depends on timing. EPO does not work instantaneously, and of course, a rider has to avoid using too much of it at one time, or run the risk of testing positive for it. In addition, EPO results in an increase in reticulocytes, newly synthesized red blood cells, as does withdrawal, so using EPO following withdrawal is particularly likely to trigger problems with the off-score. (For the same reason, Floyd said EPO was often used after an infusion, because it would counteract the suppressive effect on reticulocytes of adding more blood).

One of the best ways to track infusions (or EPO use) is by showing that Hb and other values do not decrease over a GT, when they are expected to. It would be interesting to see if any of the passport data for either of these two racers were obtained right after a GT. IIRC, when LA made his comeback, he posted some Hb data over a GT (the Giro??) that looked suspicious in this regard, but later removed it. Or was it just large variations over time? Someone here may remember the details better than I do.

As Python notes, this could have relevance to Bert’s case, since a point made by his team in the RFEC report was that his passport values were clean. These values would be relevant to the question of whether CB got into his system from transfusion of blood that had been withdrawn while taking the drug. As LMG pointed out, a clean CB test during the period of likely withdrawal (June 2010) would constitute much better evidence, just because passport tests can be beaten. But I would not be surprised if Bert’s team will trumpet this as “proof” that if he had withdrawn blood it would have been flagged. In any case, they are for sure paying a lot of attention to these two cases.

 

[D-Queued]

As DQ noted, this is the key passage (for Caucchioli; nothing this specific provided for Pelli):



I would like to see numbers, too, but we can infer from this that there were larger variations in hemoglobin values than normal. Viz., large decreases that were taken as indicative of withdrawal. Probably infusions did not raise a flag, because it’s easier to hide an increase in hemoglobin, by diluting the blood (there are tests for total amount of Hb, as opposed to concentration per ml, but I believe these tests are not commonly used). Remember, Floyd said passport tests could often be beaten by using EPO to bring up red blood cell (and Hb) levels quickly following withdrawal, but obviously it depends on timing. EPO does not work instantaneously, and of course, a rider has to avoid using too much of it at one time, or run the risk of testing positive for it. In addition, EPO results in an increase in reticulocytes, newly synthesized red blood cells, as does withdrawal, so using EPO following withdrawal is particularly likely to trigger problems with the off-score. (For the same reason, Floyd said EPO was often used after an infusion, because it would counteract the suppressive effect on reticulocytes of adding more blood).

One of the best ways to track infusions (or EPO use) is by showing that Hb and other values do not decrease over a GT, when they are expected to. It would be interesting to see if any of the passport data for either of these two racers were obtained right after a GT. IIRC, when LA made his comeback, he posted some Hb data over a GT (the Giro??) that looked suspicious in this regard, but later removed it. Or was it just large variations over time? Someone here may remember the details better than I do.

As Python notes, this could have relevance to Bert’s case, since a point made by his team in the RFEC report was that his passport values were clean. These values would be relevant to the question of whether CB got into his system from transfusion of blood that had been withdrawn while taking the drug. As LMG pointed out, a clean CB test during the period of likely withdrawal (June 2010) would constitute much better evidence, just because passport tests can be beaten. But I would not be surprised if Bert’s team will trumpet this as “proof” that if he had withdrawn blood it would have been flagged. In any case, they are for sure paying a lot of attention to these two cases.

It would be nice to be able to do some comparisons with other cyclists.

Dave.

 

[theswordsman]

The logical part of my brain can't figure out how you take away three years of someone's career, but claim it's a two year sanction. The sanction was announced in May 2010. If he accepted it at the time, wouldn't it have covered the two years starting on that date, and not affected the past? Or else the sanction would be back-dated to May 2009, stripping results, and end in May 2011?

 

[c&cfan]

The logical part of my brain can't figure out how you take away three years of someone's career, but claim it's a two year sanction. The sanction was announced in May 2010. If he accepted it at the time, wouldn't it have covered the two years starting on that date, and not affected the past? Or else the sanction would be back-dated to May 2009, stripping results, and end in May 2011?

this.

and taking one year just because you think someone doped.

 

[hrotha]

The logical part of my brain can't figure out how you take away three years of someone's career, but claim it's a two year sanction. The sanction was announced in May 2010. If he accepted it at the time, wouldn't it have covered the two years starting on that date, and not affected the past? Or else the sanction would be back-dated to May 2009, stripping results, and end in May 2011?

Imagine a case where a rider's blood values from March 2009 onwards caused him to be suspended on March 2011. For whatever reason, he wasn't suspended before - maybe the committee wasn't completely sure, or whatever. Do we take away his results from March 2009 to March 2011 but allow him to keep riding?

 

[BroDeal]

Imagine a case where a rider's blood values from March 2009 onwards caused him to be suspended on March 2011. For whatever reason, he wasn't suspended before - maybe the committee wasn't completely sure, or whatever. Do we take away his results from March 2009 to March 2011 but allow him to keep riding?

How about this example. We go back, look at a rider's blood profile, and find shady values in January 2007. Do we wipe out all his results from 2007 to 2011 and ban him from 2011 to 2013, effectively giving him a six year sanction?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

How about this example. We go back, look at a rider's blood profile, and find shady values in January 2007. Do we wipe out all his results from 2007 to 2011 and ban him from 2011 to 2013, effectively giving him a six year sanction?

Sadly 'we' don't get to decide.

But - to answer your post - yes, if its proven that they were doping throughout that time then all their results should be taken.
Joe Papps results from 2001 were taken away even though he wasn't caught until 2006.

 

[D-Queued]

How about this example. We go back, look at a rider's blood profile, and find shady values in January 2007. Do we wipe out all his results from 2007 to 2011 and ban him from 2011 to 2013, effectively giving him a six year sanction?

Eight years retroactive, right?

If the Passport holds - which so far it has.
If we get into a prolonged timeframe - which we are verging on.
If CAS provides judgement history - which it now has

Then multiple Passport deviations would suggest more than one separate doping instance.

In that case, why stop at three years? Why not just go for Lifetime?

Dave.

 

[Highlander]

Imagine a case where a rider's blood values from March 2009 onwards caused him to be suspended on March 2011. For whatever reason, he wasn't suspended before - maybe the committee wasn't completely sure, or whatever. Do we take away his results from March 2009 to March 2011 but allow him to keep riding?

Not if you are Valverde. I don't remember all the details, but he was allowed to keep his Vuelta win. I know that it was different circumstances, but it does explain why riders complain that there is no uniformity in the rules and who knows what penalty you will get.

My own take on stripping Pellizotti of his past results -- the UCI wants to send a message to anyone who dares to challenge the sanctity of the biological passport.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Not if you are Valverde. I don't remember all the details, but he was allowed to keep his Vuelta win. I know that it was different circumstances, but it does explain why riders complain that there is no uniformity in the rules and who knows what penalty you will get.

My own take on stripping Pellizotti of his past results -- the UCI wants to send a message to anyone who dares to challenge the sanctity of the biological passport.

As little time as I have for the UCI they had nothing to do with todays ruling which is independently taken by CAS.

 

[The Hitch]

Not if you are Valverde. I don't remember all the details, but he was allowed to keep his Vuelta win. I know that it was different circumstances, but it does explain why riders complain that there is no uniformity in the rules and who knows what penalty you will get.

My own take on stripping Pellizotti of his past results -- the UCI wants to send a message to anyone who dares to challenge the sanctity of the biological passport.

They cant prove that Valverde doped during the Vuelta. Had Valverde had suspicious blood values or tested positive for that race than it would have been.

But as far as the powers that be are concerned, Valverde doped (or was about to dope) at some point in 2006, he was clean 2007-10 but he needs a suspension for the 2006 offense hence the suspension starts now (2010). They wont take away results between that time because they dont think (or at least have no case) that he doped then.

 

[Highlander]

As little time as I have for the UCI they had nothing to do with todays ruling which is independently taken by CAS.

It's probably because I love conspiracy theories, but I think that there is very little difference between the UCI and the CAS. The CAS rarely disagrees with them.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It's probably because I love conspiracy theories, but I think that there is very little difference between the UCI and the CAS. The CAS rarely disagrees with them.

I like conspiracy's too - but the UCI don't actually sanction riders. Thats up to their National Federation (or anti doping authority) so the UCI only get to appeal cases, which go to CAS.

There have been more than a few cases which the UCI have lost out at CAS, the most reason off the top of my head was the 'fines' imposed on Rasmussen & Vino.

 

[BroDeal]

...it does explain why riders complain that there is no uniformity in the rules and who knows what penalty you will get.

This. Eventually someone will sue.

My own take on stripping Pellizotti of his past results -- the UCI wants to send a message to anyone who dares to challenge the sanctity of the biological passport.

Over the last few years CAS has apparently added to riders' penalties out of spite. Riders get extra penalties and fines for daring to exercise their rights. FLandis was given an extra six months for the dubious reason of not officially accepting his provisional suspension even though he stopped racing. Other riders have their suspensions backdated to the date of the positive test.