Riccò hospitalized for possible kidney ailment

[rolfrae]

Cav: "I hope he becomes somebody's ***** <female dog> in prison"

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/video-cavendish-aldag-and-kelly-react-to-ricco-doping-news

(Oh come on... I hate it when the filter blocks stuff on the main site.)

And what does Cav think about Contador, or Valverde, and what will he say about Lance when the truth comes out in court?

 

[RGScales]

I would just like to add to this thread, it may have already been stated somewhere in the 49 previous pages but... I met Ricco in 2008 prior to his CERA bust and I can tell you that he is easily one of the most arrogant, dim witted people I have ever encountered. I had overheard a conversation he was having with another rider (assumed) and he sounded on the same level as Forest Gump.
I have absolutely no problem accepting that he REALLY botched his transfusion and let the blood reach a temperature that was just too warm which led to septicemia.
Additionally I would like to pose a question that perhaps someone else may have some insight into...Why in the WORLD would he be transfusing this early in the year other than to keep his Crit at a certain level for the biological passport? It seems to me that doping for the Mallorca challenge or the Tour of the Med (cant remember which he was supposed to race) is just a silly risk to take...perhaps reinforcing my original statement that he isnt especially bright.

 

[Met de Versnelling]

And what does Cav think about Contador, or Valverde, and what will he say about Lance when the truth comes out in court?

I agree, he cuddles up to Lance way to much for my liking.

Just saying what he said.

 

[Anonymous]

So Ricco denies, and then now there are reports that his blood indicated there had been a transfusion.

http://www.telegraaf.nl/telesport/wielersport/8980287/__Transfusie_Ricc_vastgesteld__.html?cid=short

rough translation

MODENA - Examination of Riccardo Riccò's blood showed that the Italian cyclist indeed had performed blood transfusion. The results confirm that the reading of the rider Vacansoleil pointed to poorly preserved blood being administered.

 

[Hematide]

Dutch paper "de telegraaf" claims blood transfusion has been proven by research of ricco's blood

link to a dutch article about it here:
http://www.wielerflits.nl/nieuws/12501/-bloedonderzoek-bevestigt-bloedtransfusie-ricco-.html

a translation

"An examination of Riccardo Ricco's blood confirmed that the Italian has undergone a blood transfusion. de telegraad reports that at least. The results would confirm that Ricco administered himself really badly stored blood, as for some time claimed.

According to the newspaper, for the italian public prosecutor, it is not even a question whether Ricco made use of blood doping, but with whom it happened.

Ricco itself has not yet responded to the message, and also no reactions within the Vacansoleil team"

 

[hrotha]

So Ricco denies, and then now there are reports that his blood indicated there had been a transfusion.

http://www.telegraaf.nl/telesport/wielersport/8980287/__Transfusie_Ricc_vastgesteld__.html?cid=short

rough translation

MODENA - Examination of Riccardo Riccò's blood showed that the Italian cyclist indeed had performed blood transfusion. The results confirm that the reading of the rider Vacansoleil pointed to poorly preserved blood being administered.

What I find interesting is that when the police gets involved they detect doping so easily. I suppose it might be because Riccò didn't have time to manipulate his values before the test, but still, I'm reminded of the French police proving the Festina riders did EPO by testing hair samples years before any sport authorities had a test for it.

 

[Ferminal]

So does the "bad blood" somehow alter values to make it blatantly obvious he took a (bad) transfusion?

 

[Boardslide]

And what does Cav think about Contador, or Valverde, and what will he say about Lance when the truth comes out in court?

Has anyone actually asked his opinion, if they did they might be surprised by the answer. No one is going to give opinions unless asked directly as now with Ricco.

 

[Chuffy]

So does the "bad blood" somehow alter values to make it blatantly obvious he took a (bad) transfusion?

I wondered that - unless someone, somewhere has got a secret test for autologous transfusion!

Perhaps he did indeed have someone else's blood?

 

[Escarabajo]

So does the "bad blood" somehow alter values to make it blatantly obvious he took a (bad) transfusion?

Those were my first thoughts.

Maybe when the blood is bad it is more obvious in the tests. Besides he did not have time to manipulate it anyway. It could have been somebody else's blood and a good test is also feasible. Any way you want to look at it he would be doomed. The judge will probably have access to his blood tests or even more, the hospital could have kept more of the samples in store. I really don't know what would be a procedure in these types of cases. Note that the Doctor was the one who called the police and therefore the same one to take all the samples.

 

[Cloxxki]

Those were my first thoughts.

Maybe when the blood is bad it is more obvious in the tests. Besides he did not have time to manipulate it anyway. It could have been somebody else's blood and a good test is also feasible. Any way you want to look at it he would be doomed. The judge will probably have access to his blood tests or even more, the hospital could have kept more of the samples in store. I really don't know what would be a procedure in these types of cases. Note that the Doctor was the one who called the police and therefore the same one to take all the samples.

Oh, what are the chances that the doc thought he'd done his duty, and forgot to save a second and even third sample? Even CONI will likely forget to show up to the hospital to get their fair share.
I have a bad feeling of missed opportunity in this case, however great it is that the doc spoke up.
Did you guys catch that the Operation Galgo folks had some unplanned hospital visits? Perhaps the long forgotten risks of transfusions, which in part made EPO so popular, are resurfacing here.

 

[Hematide]

now also biciclismo

http://www.biciciclismo.com/cas/site/noticias-ficha.asp?id=35462

 

[biopass]

And how do you know that he was not microdosing?

There is a race next week and he was one of the favorites as far as I am concerned. So what does not add up? Please explain.

I dont know, Im just reacting to the story that he is supposed to be blood doping.

 

[RGScales]

they would be able to look at a blood smear under a microscope and be able to pretty easily identify a percentage of blood cells that are dead or damaged. That percentage would be able to point to the amount of blood transfused. Also, if there was a bacterial infection from the blood, certain bacteria are more apt to grow in "bad blood" than others so the presence of that bacteria would be a pretty strong indication. I am not sure for certain but I think that perhaps Pseudomonas would be a likely suspect.

 

[DAOTEC]

"C'est tragique !"

John Fahey WADA pres. told AFP:

"I'm very disappointed, it's tragic that someone put in danger. It is terrible to see an athlete plunge! I am very disappointed when it happens, when people make mistakes again. Penalties may not have the desired effect."

WTF, Now what! at once this scavenger bloodsucker opens his potty political mouth to push his own pocketing agenda.

 

[MarkvW]

In the USA . . .

I'm not really up to speed specifically on EU laws but if a similar thing happened in the US, UK, Australia or NZ then I will pose that if the scenario wen't something like this ...

1. Ricco transfused
2. Blood was tainted and everything wen't wrong
3. Admitted to emergency with life threatening conditions
4. Ricco advised Dr what he had done and what went wrong.
5. Dr had a flip top head and blabbed all to the 5 o's
6. Police found no evidence at all in his residence.

(Feel free to correct anything in the story, I haven't had the time to follow it and what information is out there seems third hand.)

... then Ricco would walk (based on those loose facts), no doping charge, no criminal charges. Now if the story is slightly different and Rossi told the police (unlikely?) then the situation changes.

Doctors can generally only pass on patient information when they are complying with a court order, or, they believe their patient is about to cause grave injury to either themself or another person. Neither of those conditions existed.

France, Spain and Italy do have some odd laws regarding sports doping though so again, I'm only commenting based on the laws of countries I know about.

Edit: It's also worth adding that anything Ricco said whatsoever when in the condition he was in at the time i.e critical condition whether it was to Doctors, Police or anyone wouldn't generally able to be used to obtain a conviction.

In the USA, the doctor would have been obliged to keep his mouth shut because of doctor-patient privilege that must be respectednby the doctor. There never would have been a search because there never would have been probable cause.

The last paragraph is false and misleading. The statement would generally be admitted in the USA, and it would be up to the fact finder to sort out how valuable the testimony is. Note that police interrogations of detained witnesses are not at issue here.

 

[Barrus]

In the USA, the doctor would have been obliged to keep his mouth shut because of doctor-patient privilege that must be respectednby the doctor. There never would have been a search because there never would have been probable cause.

The last paragraph is false and misleading. The statement would generally be admitted in the USA, and it would be up to the fact finder to sort out how valuable the testimony is. Note that police interrogations of detained witnesses are not at issue here.

Here in many of the European states, and I believe England as well, that is not the case. If a crime comes to light during the medical treatment a doctor has in most cases the right to decide whether to inform the authorities and in certain situations is obliged to inform the authorities, neglected to do so can either result in criminal charges (including conspiracy, co-committance or aiding and abbetting) or in charges before the ethics board and a possible loss of their license.

 

[Met de Versnelling]

Here in many of the European states, and I believe England as well, that is not the case. If a crime comes to light during the medical treatment a doctor has in most cases the right to decide whether to inform the authorities and in certain situations is obliged to inform the authorities, neglected to do so can either result in criminal charges (including conspiracy, co-committance or aiding and abbetting) or in charges before the ethics board and a possible loss of their license.

This is absolutely correct. There is no provision for Doctor - Patient confidentiality when there is a criminal crime committed OR as i believe, where one may be about to committed.

 

[DAOTEC]

bottleneck > ' EU Umbrella '

Here in many of the European states, and I believe England as well, that is not the case. If a crime comes to light during the medical treatment a doctor has in most cases the right to decide whether to inform the authorities and in certain situations is obliged to inform the authorities, neglected to do so can either result in criminal charges (including conspiracy, co-committance or aiding and abbetting) or in charges before the ethics board and a possible loss of their license.

Now you hit it big Barrus ....

As that might be the case in some, I repeat some (vast minority) European states/countries within the European Union, "It's absolute against the EU law" ...

So if the Cobra for once keeps his mouth shut, sticks to his own version from now on, and let the process take it's time, some crusaders (incl. the Doc) trying to nail him will get in big trouble.

If such a transfusion is illegal, the doctor may be required to report it to the police.

Susan

Recyling you're own blood isn't against the (any) law, and is not illegal or even punishable in regards to the doping 'witch hunt', only when can be established that it was upgraded through unconventional means.

 

[Anonymous]

This is absolutely correct. There is no provision for Doctor - Patient confidentiality when there is a criminal crime committed OR as i believe, where one may be about to committed.

Ditto. as i said earlier in the thread, i signed one only the other day. Confidentiality unless, I take part in illegal acts or endanger my life or the lives of others. Same across most of europe.

 

[Escarabajo]

...


Recyling you're own blood isn't against the (any) law, and is not illegal or even punishable in regards to the doping 'witch hunt', only when can be established that it was upgraded through unconventional means.

Doping is illegal in Italy = Threfore it is against the law = Therefore it is a crime.

 

[Barrus]

Now you hit it big Barrus ....

As that might be the case in some, I repeat some (vast minority) European states/countries within the European Union, "It's absolute against the EU law" ...


.

Hahaha, no. It is not absolutely against EU law, I don't believe there is even a provision that deals with it. Although there might well be, but I doubt it does not leave domestic jurisdictions the leeway to create a provision which ensures that doctors have the right or even the obligation to refer information to the authorities in the case of criminal acts. Now if I am wrong I will admit that, but can you than please provide for the directive, the resolution, or if you meant from the human rights perspective the jurisprudence of the ECHR?

 

[DAOTEC]

battle of the laws

Doping is illegal in Italy = Threfore it is against the law = Therefore it is a crime.

correct: 1) but not a transfusion and if it's your own non boosted blood their own illegal Italian law (compared to EU) doesn't hold up. That's why the hunt for whatever can prove the Doc's fantacy is on. 2) it is never a crime if one supports his "OWN" body !!!!!

Hahaha, no. It is not absolutely against EU law, I don't believe there is even a provision that deals with it.

Yes, there is and not only one so it is are.

Although there might well be, but I doubt it does not leave domestic jurisdictions the leeway to create a provision which ensures that doctors have the right or even the obligation to refer information to the authorities in the case of criminal acts

Again on National levels gouverments always try to change whatever bill to their suite, but if EU tested most of the time, these new age laws/rules misarable fail and are unconstitutional. (as in this case)

Now if I am wrong I will admit that, but can you than please provide for the directive, the resolution, or if you meant from the human rights perspective the jurisprudence of the ECHR?

Ohh, please Barrus in high respect for you, "I never said you are wrong". on the contrary ...

2 cases in the very, very near future will bring ?

 

[Barrus]

Apparently you and I are talking about 2 completely different things. I am talking about doctor patient confidentiality, you are talking about the doping law. Something completely different, or am I wrong in interpreting your post?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I cannot state about EU or Italian law, but I do believe in the US it's against the law to perform such a procedure without a medical license. It may be illegal to even posses and transport blood as well without a medical license.