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

[Merckx index]

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?

Imagine a case where a rider tested positive in July of 2010, was notified in August, his suspension announced in September, then the suspension was lifted in Feb. 2011. Then he was suspended again sometime in 2011, after participating in several races, including at least one GT.

 

[TheMaverick]

I see Pellizotti has said he is quitting the sport. Sad to see him go.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This. Eventually someone will sue.



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.

What rights do you have to enter competitions when you are suspended?
Also - it was the American Arbitration Association who added on the 6 months to Landis.

 

[BroDeal]

What rights do you have to enter competitions when you are suspended?
Also - it was the American Arbitration Association who added on the 6 months to Landis.

CAS is a new trial. It gave him an extra six months despite having a history of adjusting the start of suspensions. No one knows when a ban will start. There is no consistency.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I see Pellizotti has said he is quitting the sport. Sad to see him go.

He's "quitting" like Vino "quit" after he got popped.

 

[TheMaverick]

He's "quitting" like Vino "quit" after he got popped.

He doesn't have a team set up for him waiting for his return like Vino. At 35 it will be a struggle. I tend to believe him.

I could only see him coming back if he decides to bust some doping rings and get his ban reduced like Di luca.

 

[BroDeal]

The whole CAS concept from the point of view of the prosecution seems a bit iffy. If the prosecution does not get the result they want in the first "trial" then they get a do-over at CAS. It's double jeopardy. What's more, even if the athlete prevails in the end, so much time has passed that half or more of the sentence has already been carried out.

 

[webvan]

The question now is whether Pelizzotti will fess up "Landis style"...ot take it to the grave. I'm guessing he'll deny the blood doping that brought him down but will admit to all the other doping he did since he started racing.

 

[D-Queued]

The whole CAS concept from the point of view of the prosecution seems a bit iffy. If the prosecution does not get the result they want in the first "trial" then they get a do-over at CAS. It's double jeopardy. What's more, even if the athlete prevails in the end, so much time has passed that half or more of the sentence has already been carried out.

The cyclist - knowing full well that they doped, that the evidence is strong and that the nature of the anti-doping rulebook is straightforward - can always try and negotiate a reduced suspension for cooperation.

When you make your bed, sometimes you have to sleep in it.

Pelizotti has likely got a career's full of insight on doping - especially when you consider the sophistication requires a passport to spot what he is up to. He could do everyone a favor and come clean.

Or, he can waste his money and play the role of a criminal.

Dave.

 

[Ferminal]

The whole CAS concept from the point of view of the prosecution seems a bit iffy. If the prosecution does not get the result they want in the first "trial" then they get a do-over at CAS. It's double jeopardy. What's more, even if the athlete prevails in the end, so much time has passed that half or more of the sentence has already been carried out.

Was Franco actually suspending pending the CAS hearing, or was it just that no team was going to touch him at that stage? Which is more or less as good as a suspension. If the case went in his favour he would be entitled to some compensation.

Gusev had to trade his claim for financial compensation for a spot on a team.

Would it be better for all doping cases to be heard first off in a centralised and "neutral" court? There is never going to be complete cohesion between all the federations, WADA, UCI and CAS. Maybe one or two of those layers need to be removed.

 

[BroDeal]

The cyclist - knowing full well that they doped, that the evidence is strong and that the nature of the anti-doping rulebook is straightforward - can always try and negotiate a reduced suspension for cooperation.

Who says the evidence is strong? CONI did not seem to think so. Where are the peer reviewed scientific studies about detecting blood transufions using sporadically taken blood tests? Where are the false positive studies? Where is the data from other riders that shows that Pellizotti's numbers are significantly different? For all we know there are two dozen riders with profiles that are just as suggestive of doping as Pellizotti's. Why was Pellizotti singled out and not Armstrong? Why did the BP not detect Mosquera?

 

[D-Queued]

Who says the evidence is strong? CONI did not seem to think so. Where are the peer reviewed scientific studies about detecting blood transufions using sporadically taken blood tests? Where are the false positive studies? Where is the data from other riders that shows that Pellizotti's numbers are significantly different? For all we know there are two dozen riders with profiles that are just as suggestive of doping as Pellizotti's. Why was Pellizotti singled out and not Armstrong? Why did the BP not detect Mosquera?

On the Armstrong question, I have already had a warning about thread diversion. Doesn't mean I don't agree.

As for the evidence not being strong, are you suggesting the CAS is rigged?

There is a lot more evidence to look at than a positive AAF. This was also the test case for the UCI. If they were smart (I know, I am pushing it) they would have been careful about which cases to push forward knowing full well (again suggesting that there is intelligence at the UCI) that it would be challenged.

Alternately, we can just make the safe assumption that anyone who can ride into the polka dot (Pantani, Ricco, Virenque, The chicken...) is a doper. He had the polka dot? Pretty strong evidence.

Dave.

 

[flicker]

Who says the evidence is strong? CONI did not seem to think so. Where are the peer reviewed scientific studies about detecting blood transufions using sporadically taken blood tests? Where are the false positive studies? Where is the data from other riders that shows that Pellizotti's numbers are significantly different? For all we know there are two dozen riders with profiles that are just as suggestive of doping as Pellizotti's. Why was Pellizotti singled out and not Armstrong? Why did the BP not detect Mosquera?

I guess you did not see Harpo Marx fly up that dirt road to the ski resort in the 09 Giro. You did not see how Merckx was blown off at the awards ceremony.
You did not hear how Jens Voight or Cadel Evans complain that they understood why people doped with stages like the ski resort. that backed up with insane uphill finishes and stupid air and rail transfers in between?
I guess you did not see how Pelozzoti targetted that stage and spit on every rider and the Giro itself.
I did not need to check a bio passport with that action.

 

[BroDeal]

As for the evidence not being strong, are you suggesting the CAS is rigged?

It is rigged in a way. The decision is made with limited data, and those who have access to the full data set all work for the prosecution. What if Pellizotti's side was given the full data set and could show forty other instances of riders with profiles just as dodgy as his? What if under cross examination prosecution scientific witness could be forced to explain why Pellizotti's profile warranted a sanction while a similar profile did not? What if Pellizotti's side could take his profile along with the profiles of nine other top ten GT riders, anonomize them, and ask third parties to pick out the one that showed doping?

 

[draussen]

Wow the crooked cop doesn't even need to plant the cocaine anymore, he just has a black box spit out the fact there was cocaine there!

Funtastic.

 

[D-Queued]

It is rigged in a way. The decision is made with limited data, and those who have access to the full data set all work for the prosecution. What if Pellizotti's side was given the full data set and could show forty other instances of riders with profiles just as dodgy as his? What if under cross examination prosecution scientific witness could be forced to explain why Pellizotti's profile warranted a sanction while a similar profile did not? What if Pellizotti's side could take his profile along with the profiles of nine other top ten GT riders, anonomize them, and ask third parties to pick out the one that showed doping?

These are good questions.

And I would love to have them asked.

In that case, wouldn't it be the UCI that was fundamentally being judged?

(And I agree that going after Pellizotti is still chasing small fry when the big fish are still swimming happily while they drink all the water in Texas and build their own Neverland theme parks)

I am not a lawyer, but I think that would potentially be inadmissable evidence in a case like this. Moreover, if you demonstrated that someone had a more questionable profilt how would that clear Pellizotti? He could just not have been on the best program.

I think it is a reasonable guess that someone out there has a profile that makes Pellizotti look like he took aspirin by comparison. But, he could still have the profile of a doper.

The case either stands on its merits, or it does not.

And, I have no idea how it would stack up against 'reasonable doubt'. Not that I have any doubt at all here, where we may or may not differ, but I am not an arbitrator.

Dave.

 

[Rip:30]

It is rigged in a way. The decision is made with limited data, and those who have access to the full data set all work for the prosecution.

This is the most ridiculous aspect of the BP. No peer review, just a bunch of in house "experts". Real science never works that way, when you make a new claim (ig we can detect any blood altering vector indirectly), you have to make every aspect of how you arrived at that conclusion open to scrutiny from reviewer, editors, and the general scientific community. The riders' names should be kept anonymous (just like in any medical study), but I think without evaluation of the distributions and trends in parameters by the wider scientific community, the BP program really comes off as being a farce--even if that's not the intention.

If they're so confident in the BP why not open up the process?

 

[Merckx index]

This is the most ridiculous aspect of the BP. No peer review, just a bunch of in house "experts". Real science never works that way, when you make a new claim (ig we can detect any blood altering vector indirectly), you have to make every aspect of how you arrived at that conclusion open to scrutiny from reviewer, editors, and the general scientific community. The riders' names should be kept anonymous (just like in any medical study), but I think without evaluation of the distributions and trends in parameters by the wider scientific community, the BP program really comes off as being a farce--even if that's not the intention.

The same criticism has been made of the doping tests themselves. Though they are generally based on peer-reviewed publications accessible to anyone, these papers don't always translate to the tests in specifics. A good example emerged in Floyd's case, where Catlin's 2001 paper on using IRMS to detect synthetic testosterone was widely cited. Yet the data in that paper did not really support the three standard deviation criterion used in many labs. Another study suggested four SDs. Also, not all of Floyd's metabolites met even the three SD standard, rasing further questions about how many metabolites should be needed to meet the criteria.

The response has generally been that if you make the details of doping tests widely available, you're just helping dopers redesign their programs. In the end, it comes back to the same issue as false positives vs. false negatives. The interests of an individual who may be wrongly accused of doping vs. the interests of the sport, where athletes may miss out on races and income because of cheaters. No simple solutions.

 

[BroDeal]

These are good questions.

And I would love to have them asked.

In that case, wouldn't it be the UCI that was fundamentally being judged?

(And I agree that going after Pellizotti is still chasing small fry when the big fish are still swimming happily while they drink all the water in Texas and build their own Neverland theme parks)

I am not a lawyer, but I think that would potentially be inadmissable evidence in a case like this. Moreover, if you demonstrated that someone had a more questionable profilt how would that clear Pellizotti? He could just not have been on the best program.

I think it is a reasonable guess that someone out there has a profile that makes Pellizotti look like he took aspirin by comparison. But, he could still have the profile of a doper.

The case either stands on its merits, or it does not.

And, I have no idea how it would stack up against 'reasonable doubt'. Not that I have any doubt at all here, where we may or may not differ, but I am not an arbitrator.

Such questions could be used to attack the scientific legitimacy of the bio passport and the fairness of the system. In blind testing if independent experts could not consistently pick out the profile that the UCI says shows doping then how valid would the BP be? Right now all we have is the word of the prosecution that a few profiles prove doping. There has been no rigorous comparison with the profiles that are purported to not show doping done in an open manner such that an athlete's defense has the means to show that the athlete's profile is not out of the ordinary.

I will put it this way. If you are a rider accused of a bio passport infraction then how do you go about defending yourself? How do you show that your profile is not different than other elite riders who compete at the same level?

The UCI does not want to release the date because they know that the entire top ten of GTs are all doped. All the profiles would raise questions.

 

[Galic Ho]

its not as simple as awarding it to Martinez though. Youd have to work back and see who was directly behind Pellizotti on each climb he picked up points on and reallocated points. Could be that any one of the riders 3rd to 5th won it effectively.

They will just award no jersey.

You cannot do that. You have to take the points as they are and discard the points Pellizotti won entirely. Why? Because every minute, every stage is raced on instinct. Martinez had 2, even 3 team mates with him and they couldn't stop Franco who was alone during the final week. They gave up after Franco beat them over two consecutive days in the Alps. If you realocate Franco's points you are effectively saying he did not race any stage and his actions had no direct effect on anyone else's position and ultimately their fatigue and overall performance. That is rubbish, nothing short of insanity, because Franco did in fact race and he had a huge impact. Too many variables to cover...so take it as it was and simply remove Franco all round. Just like what happened with Floyd in 06. The guy below him gets his OVERALL ranking for KOM, first place...which was Egoi Martinez.

This is a great finding. I'd like to know how in the hell CONI acquitted this. When the announcement was made last year before the Giro and one Italian who had strong 2009 results was said to have suspect values I immediately thought Franco. I hope they get Valjavec too. His performances were suspect as well. Guys punching well above their natural weight. For what it is worth if Franco had of raced last years Giro, he'd have won. UCI get the win on the BioPassport, which is fantastic news, but the subsequent removal of all Franco's results is ludicrous. No consistency at all. He gets a 3 year ban! Ridiculous. They should have done what they did with Valverde, removed his results back to the start of 2010 and let him race from the start of 2011. Idiots making scapegoats.

I know a way out of a lengthy ban for Franco. Just talk to the press and WADA...dob in your training buddy. You know, the guy Ferrari was spotted trailing before the 2010 Giro on a moped. He was with Franco as well at the time. Guy won a GT in 2010. Nibali. Name him as well. Di Luca has effectively had 3 strikes and he gets leniency every time. Franco should have the same chance...if they won't play ball then squeal like a pig.

 

[rhubroma]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the 150,000 euro fine Peli received in addition to the sanction.

A victory for anti-doping and the bio-passport? Technically yes, I suppose. But I wonder.

That this partially "corrects" the final standings I am even more skeptical, if only because probably you'd have to go down to the 34th placing or something like that to have a fair chance at finding a clean rider who is on "bread and water" alone.

I like the analysis of a 2 year ban to sitting in the penalty box, almost as if the UCI, while recognizing the need to demonstrate publicly that it is absolutely serious about the war against doping, admits to its widespread use in the peleton. Otherwise why not a life time ban after the first offense?

While in light of the financial interests in making sure certain Big Fish evade facing the same consequences for their doping makes the system a bit farcical.

 

[skidmark]

(And I agree that going after Pellizotti is still chasing small fry when the big fish are still swimming happily while they drink all the water in Texas and build their own Neverland theme parks)

Dave, I agree with your other points, but I'm not sure how you could classify Pelizotti as 'small fry', I mean he was 2nd in the Giro and won the Polka Dot Jersey in the biggest race in the world. There are about 4-5 riders that could make a claim as 'bigger' than that, really... he's only 'small' compared to the one person whose fame transcends the sport. But that person is also under federal investigation at the moment.

So other than as a criticism of the UCI, as they haven't personally prosecuted their ultra-famous cash cow, I don't see how the 'small fry' comment has any relevance.

Despite the fact that I agree with BroDeal that it's frustrating that suspension dates seem to be arbitrary, don't you think that this verdict is an important step forward in validating new anti-doping sanctions? Sure the UCI is a rotting cesspool of corruption and, among other things, needs to start having targeted testing based on the bio passport data, but don't you see anything positive out of this? I ask because your classifying it as 'small fry' seems to be writing it off entirely.

 

[Galic Ho]

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.

I think you'll find Valverde's BioPassport will be one of the stronger ones available in terms of consistency with official parameters amongst GC riders. The only proof CAS had of Valverde doing any wrong was the Puerto blood bag and his matching DNA that CONI had from a race in Italy. Take that away and every standard and measure the UCI/WADA has in terms of whether a rider is doping when applied to Valverde, showed one thing. The system says he is clean when tested officially. That may not be the case, but the system says every time he raced, he was clean. Take away the CONI DNA and their extraction of the evidence Serrano sealed (through Interpol was it?) and Valverde would be tearing up roads right now with Movistar. Valverde has never failed a test or shown inconsistencies in his BioPassport. I'd wager based on his career (he's always been very, very good) that compared to Pellizotti and Valvjavec, if they are all doping, Valverde's blood profile would be the last to set off alarm bells. That and he's loaded. If he cannot afford a decent doctor, only 1 or 2 other guys can.

 

[Galic Ho]

The whole CAS concept from the point of view of the prosecution seems a bit iffy. If the prosecution does not get the result they want in the first "trial" then they get a do-over at CAS. It's double jeopardy. What's more, even if the athlete prevails in the end, so much time has passed that half or more of the sentence has already been carried out.

I for one think Franco has been done over in terms of timing. CAS should have dealt with this rubbish in 2010. Taking forever and a day to deal with something as straight forward as blood parameters is not advantageous for cycling or doping. The whole deal leaves me thinking that one's perception of both perspectives regarding Pellizotti can be radically influenced, that CAS and the UCI were out to prove something beyond validating the BioPassport and Franco got someone's nose out of joint. Pellizotti has been screwed over on this, his punishment is far too harsh and inconsistent with other cases in cycling.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Big discussion on the TAS ruling from the Rai tv team in last night's pre-Tirreno show.
Not a happy bunch. Much of their venom was directed at Contador.
They talked about the "great injustice" that Pellizotti had got the boot without failing a test, while Bertie is riding around, winning races, probably doing the Giro, having failed a test.
Much of what Bro Deal has highlighted here, came up in the debate.
Spain also got a special mention, in comparison to Italian efforts.

Not surprised that Franco is walking away. What amounts to a 3 year ban, big fine etc. pointless to wait around to ride a season or two at a lower level. Better to find employment and start paying the bills.