Pellizotti to sue the UCI over biological passport case

[Monte Zoncolon]

Tour de France's mountain man to ask for €200,000, and possibly more.



http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/6989/Pellizotti-to-sue-the-UCI-over-biological-passport-case.aspx

 

[FKLance]

From Cyclingnews

“Contrary to what some people want to believe, the Pellizotti case is still open. The UCI will decide in the next few days if to appeal to CAS. No decision has been made yet but understandably the idea is to go ahead with the case,” Carpani told Gazzetta dello Sport.

“If in the meantime if Pellizotti hasn’t got a team, it’s not because of the UCI, who hasn’t even suspended him as under the Biological Passport rules. If Liquigas did not renew his contract and other teams haven’t signed him, the only person responsible is probably Pellizotti. Bugno’s theory of threats to teams from the UCI is absurd.”

Carpani, how is it not because of the UCI?? Don't want to defend a doper, but it is quite obvious the blood passport is the reason Pellizotti does not have a team.. He lost his reputation completely! Why would anyone hire him now? If I were Pellizotti, I would have sued UCI for millions for destroying a (supposedly) clean riders career.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

For Pellizotti to win he's going have to prove he was wronged, meaning he's going to have to prove the "suspicious blood and urine readings" are invalid or bogus... something that casts serious doubt on the values OR that suspicious values in itself does not warrant what he's gotten. Not passing judgement, but it sounds like a real uphill battle.

 

[Highlander]

For Pellizotti to win he's going have to prove he was wronged, meaning he's going to have to prove the "suspicious blood and urine readings" are invalid or bogus... something that casts serious doubt on the values OR that suspicious values in itself does not warrant what he's gotten. Not passing judgement, but it sounds like a real uphill battle.

I think the decision by the TNA should definitely help him in any case. If the court ruled that the evidence against was insufficient, it makes the UCI look liable for not allowing him to race. I'm speaking from an American perspective here, so I don't really know how this would work in Europe, but then again Americans like to sue over everything

 

[hfer07]

I honestly foresee Pellizotti to become the next "Michael Rasmussen" whose career is going to be stopped by the UCI. There is no way his lawsuit is ever going to succeed at all, since Pat & Co. are eager to "protect" the Bio Passport farce by any means-so they only have to do is to drag his case for years & transform the situation into an unbearable & expensive procedure for Franco,to the point he would settle for almost nothing.
sad indeed.....

 

[BotanyBay]

For Pellizotti to win he's going have to prove he was wronged

Pellizotti is now without a team. Italy's top team, Liquigas did not renew his contract at the end of last year.

I think losing one's job over the case is a good place to start.

I think the UCI should be using the bio passport, but never to sanction. It should be used to identify those who need a more "targeted" approach. But all of this rinses out in the wash, as we know the UCI to be a corrupt organization to begin with.

Pellizoti's suitcase full of cash wasn't heavy enough.

 

[BotanyBay]

I honestly foresee Pellizotti to become the next "Michael Rasmussen" whose career is going to be stopped by the UCI. There is no way his lawsuit is ever going to succeed at all, since Pat & Co. are eager to "protect" the Bio Passport farce by any means-so they only have to do is to drag his case for years & transform the situation into an unbearable & expensive procedure for Franco,to the point he would settle for almost nothing.
sad indeed.....

The UCI is based in Switzerland, and thus immune from a whole host of different kinds of legal attack. Pellizotti would have a strong case anywhere OUTSIDE of Switzerland.

 

[D-Queued]

... since Pat & Co. are eager to "protect" the Bio Passport farce by any means-so they only have to do is to drag his case for years & transform the situation into an unbearable & expensive procedure for Franco,to the point he would settle for almost nothing.
sad indeed.....

Agreed. Best money maker the UCI has ever developed.

You will know that they are sincere about it as an anti-doping tool when they pass it over to WADA. Until then, suspicion is well founded.

Dave.

 

[la.margna]

If il delfino di bibbione will never get a contract with a Pro Tour team again, this will be a sad evidence of the corrupt McQuairupption UCI dirt.

 

[BotanyBay]

If il delfino di bibbione will never get a contract with a Pro Tour team again, this will be a sad evidence of the corrupt McQuairupption UCI dirt.

True. Other riders are taking 2-year suspensions (AKA "Taking the pinch") and not only being welcomed back, but going straight to ProTour teams (despite the supposed UCI 4-year ban). But go against the FAMILY? The family knows when the Godfather ain't happy. They'll follow his lead.

IE, don't mess wit Pat.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

I think losing one's job over the case is a good place to start.

People can lose a job for unjustified or justified reasons. Just because he lost a job does not mean he was wronged. Wronged implies not justified. But, yes, loss of his job sure fueled the fire to sue.

 

[Darryl Webster]

True. Other riders are taking 2-year suspensions (AKA "Taking the pinch") and not only being welcomed back, but going straight to ProTour teams (despite the supposed UCI 4-year ban). But go against the FAMILY? The family knows when the Godfather ain't happy. They'll follow his lead.

IE, don't mess wit Pat.

Accept now we have Novetski ( we hope!) being a modern day Elliot Ness and The Untouchables just might get collered in time to make suing the UCI succesfully somthing that might just succeed.
I recall reading somewhere that legal costs in the Flandis case put a strain on UCI finances ( perhaps somone can verify?. If so I suspect the UCI purse can I`ll afford to much time in wrangling.
An easy salution is Pady Mc Tinker has a word with a few team managers and gives the green light.

 

[D-Queued]

Accept now we have Novetski ( we hope!) being a modern day Elliot Ness and The Untouchables just might get collered in time to make suing the UCI succesfully somthing that might just succeed.
I recall reading somewhere that legal costs in the Flandis case put a strain on UCI finances ( perhaps somone can verify?. If so I suspect the UCI purse can I`ll afford to much time in wrangling.
An easy salution is Pady Mc Tinker has a word with a few team managers and gives the green light.

I believe the strain was on the USADA's finances, not the UCI's.

the USADA is requesting that its grant be doubled in response to the financial strain of persecuting highprofile cases, such as the recent Landis vs. USADA case.

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/progs/plan2/_files/pdf/worthington/jenkins08.pdf

Dave.

 

[BroDeal]

I think the UCI should be using the bio passport, but never to sanction. It should be used to identify those who need a more "targeted" approach. But all of this rinses out in the wash, as we know the UCI to be a corrupt organization to begin with.

To me it looks like the UCI did a half assed job and based their case on very few samples. If they were running the bio passport correctly then they would be taking samples every two weeks in addition to in-competition testing. Basso went months without being tested. We can assume that other riders have similar patterns of testing.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Fat Pat gets his way.

UCI is wrong for this but that will not stop the Swiss from upholding the findings.

 

[Mambo95]

Why is there an automatic assumption that the UCI are wrong?

The suspension was recommended by a panel of experts such as Michael Ashenden. When he says something about doping it usually 'Ashenden says this, Ashenden says that. He's an expert, he knows'. But when he does it on behalf of the UCI he's suddenly wrong and a pawn in some sort of McQuaid conspiracy.

Personally, while the evidence against Pellizotti will be complex and understood by very few (certainly no-one on here), I think it's probably rock solid.

 

[Oldman]

For Pellizotti to win he's going have to prove he was wronged, meaning he's going to have to prove the "suspicious blood and urine readings" are invalid or bogus... something that casts serious doubt on the values OR that suspicious values in itself does not warrant what he's gotten. Not passing judgement, but it sounds like a real uphill battle.

It does but would be great if in defending their franchise the UCI is forced to reveal their basis for selective targeting. While I don't want to support a rampant doper I'd give a buck to a defense fund that forces the UCI vampires into the light of day. Don't they explode in the light? I like 'splosions.

 

[Mambo95]

It does but would be great if in defending their franchise the UCI is forced to reveal their basis for selective targeting.

Why would it be great? So the dopers have more intelligence?

Would it be great if the CIA were forced to reveal how they track terrorist cells?

 

[BroDeal]

For Pellizotti to win he's going have to prove he was wronged, meaning he's going to have to prove the "suspicious blood and urine readings" are invalid or bogus... something that casts serious doubt on the values OR that suspicious values in itself does not warrant what he's gotten. Not passing judgement, but it sounds like a real uphill battle.

It seems to me that the burden of proof is on the UCI. They already failed in a venue where the athlete is at a huge disadvantage. In a court of law, where Pellizotti will have a lot more rights, they will have larger problems.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Why would it be great? So the dopers have more intelligence?

Would it be great if the CIA were forced to reveal how they track terrorist cells?

But the point is that the CIA keeping their tracking of terrorist cells under wraps is protecting people from being placed in harm's way, at least in theory. Not telling the dopers their means for justifying selective testing is not.

It's a delicate balancing act. We would prefer if the dopers weren't given extra information to help them beat the tests because a lot of us are jaded and think that there are a lot of them already successfully doing so. But then again, we'd all like to know how the UCI makes some of its decisions, because otherwise it's a rather secretive operation, which given their propensity to make decisions that look like they were made with "extraneous interests" at heart, opens up suspicions of ulterior motives. Take the changing of the points system for choosing the ProTour teams, then keeping it secret. You fight all season for one goal, then the goalposts move, and they won't tell you where they are until you're outside of it. It's Kafkaesque.

 

[Mambo95]

But the point is that the CIA keeping their tracking of terrorist cells under wraps is protecting people from being placed in harm's way, at least in theory. Not telling the dopers their means for justifying selective testing is not.

It's a delicate balancing act. We would prefer if the dopers weren't given extra information to help them beat the tests because a lot of us are jaded and think that there are a lot of them already successfully doing so. But then again, we'd all like to know how the UCI makes some of its decisions, because otherwise it's a rather secretive operation, which given their propensity to make decisions that look like they were made with "extraneous interests" at heart, opens up suspicions of ulterior motives. Take the changing of the points system for choosing the ProTour teams, then keeping it secret. You fight all season for one goal, then the goalposts move, and they won't tell you where they are until you're outside of it. It's Kafkaesque.

Sure you'd like to know. But there's absolutely no need for you to know. Anti-doping is like an intelligence operation. You don't go giving out your strategies to the 'enemy'.

However, you seem to think that they should provide dopers with a checklist of how to fly below the radar just because a handful of people of internet have got it into their heads that there's some sort of complex conspiracy going on. There's no 'delicate balancing act' at all.

How this: They single out riders for target testing because they have reason to believe that they are doping. That's all there is to it.

 

[MacRoadie]

Why would it be great? So the dopers have more intelligence?

No, so the pervasive corruption within the UCI will be revealed and they will be forced to approach anti-doping from a level-playing-field standpoint.

As it stands now, "selective targeting" has two meanings: 1. Selectively testing those individuals who's passport shows questionable values indicative of possible blood manipulation, and 2. Selectively avoiding those individuals that the UCI has a vested interest in protecting.

The Passport took forever to implement. It went through so many iterations, with input from so many, that there is absolutely nothing about the program that isn't known by or can't be known by those being tested. Half the scientific world seems to have contributed or debated at some point or another. H@ll, even after the tests come back they are reviewed by a panel of experts who make a judgement call on the interpretation of the test data. The dopers know what parameters pique the interest of the panel. It's no secret.

It's the second point that needs to be eradicated.

 

[Mambo95]

No, so the pervasive corruption within the UCI will be revealed and they will be forced to approach anti-doping from a level-playing-field standpoint.

As it stands now, "selective targeting" has two meanings: 1. To select those individuals who's passport shows questionable values indicative of possible blood manipulation, and 2. Selectively avoiding those individuals that the UCI has a vested interest in protecting.

But this is just the world of conspiracy theories. Conspiracies that only really exist in the minds of posters on this forum.

Who are these individuals that are being protected? Pellizotti was the leader of Italy's biggest team, busted on the eve of the Giro. Wouldn't he be protected. What about Contador, Basso, Ullrich, Vino, Valverde, DiLuca - all big stars?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Sure you'd like to know. But there's absolutely no need for you to know.

There is no need for me personally to know. But maybe team owners should know what the points their teams are going to be judged on are going to be before they plan their whole season around a points system that's going to be discarded at the end of the season.

Maybe I don't personally need to know, but we do need to be able to feel that the UCI is accountable to somebody or some entity when it makes decisions that can ruin careers. I don't personally need to know what the grounds were, and the riders and teams perhaps shouldn't know what they were, but I do feel that the riders and teams should have the right to know that the UCI aren't able to act with complete impunity on whims that may be entirely arbitrary, and that their policies for deciding on whether to pursue selective testing of a rider are acknowledged by an independent party as fair and reasonable. The riders and teams shouldn't know what those policies are, but there should at least be some outward acknowledgment that the UCI are acting in good faith.

 

[Merckx index]

I find this discussion weird. On the one hand, we all complain that too many dopers beat the tests. There is a belief among many in this forum that the UCI contributes to this by protecting certain riders, by giving them advance notice of tests, dismissing positives secretly, or whatever.

But now, when a test apparently catches someone, a lot of people are accusing the UCI of nailing an innocent rider. WTF?

The passport is not perfect, but neither is any test for a particular PES. As with the latter tests, the passport is designed to let a lot of dopers slide through, in order to minimize false positives. In the almost once in a blue moon situation when someone fails the passport test, I think it's a pretty good bet that that rider was doping (Actually, we could just throw darts at a board with riders' names on it, and any hit would almost certainly be a doper, but that's another story).

Pellizotti is *****ing for the same reason Tyler did, Heras did, Vino did, Floyd did, etc. Not because he's innocent (he might be, but I doubt it), but because he has been caught while a lot of equally dirty riders were not. That's a shame, but getting cleared is not going to contribute anything to making the system better. On the contrary, if anything it will force UCI to raise the bar to the point where virtually every doper will pass.