UCI: Italian Giro top favourite will be Bio-pass exposed in hours

[Moose McKnuckles]

That´s OK then, buga the evidence, if you´ve got the support of enough unqualified individuals you´re off the hook.

Well, that's actually how politics works in the United States.

 

[luckyboy]

Is there anything going on with this? Didn't Valjavec have a hearing with his national fed a while ago now?

Caucchioli & De Bonis have recently been banned on the evidence from the blood passport..

 

[DAOTEC]

Giovedì 29 Luglio | 15:35

Coni, chiesti due anni di squalifica per Pellizotti

http://www.tuttobiciweb.it/index.php?page=news&cod=31355&tp=n

 

[sportzchick]

It is an Italian. And my guess is Cunego, mainly due to the combination with the Lampre-situation in Italy

But please let it not be Basso, Pelizotti or Simoni (I'm a big fan of Liquigas and I have a soft spot for Simoni, I really want him to finish the Giro on a high note)

does it really matter - just get let back in again and everyone thinks they are still heros

I cant see the point to any of it anymore

 

[Barrus]

does it really matter - just get let back in again and everyone thinks they are still heros

I cant see the point to any of it anymore

Just relax and enjoy the show and go out and ride. Don't get to hung up on who dopes and who doesn't unless you want to focus on this. (keep out of the clinic, as it will bash any hope you have)

Does anyone know the arguments of the defense team of Pelli yet?

 

[DAOTEC]

Pello Lunedì 2 Agosto | 18:43

3 dates set for hearings !!

The National Anti-Doping Tribunal, considering the suspension of the procedural time for the TNA from 22 July to 20 August 2010, announced that President Francis Plotinus has established four new hearings in September and two in October.
These include, for Thursday, September 16, at 10.30, was set the hearing on Pellizotti, for which the doping prosecutor requested a two-year ban for doping rule violation in relation to the biological passport.

http://www.tuttobiciweb.it/index.php?page=news&cod=31464&tp=n

This thing is far from over ... latest is that Pello might line up in the Vuelta

 

[DAOTEC]

Tadej Valjavec (AG2R) starts racing again in the Tour of Doubs 1.1 come Sunday Sept. 5th: http://www.biciciclismo.com/cas/site/noticias-ficha.asp?id=29966

Starterslist


There is also expected some movement in the Pello case cause of this.

Tadej Valjavec farà il suo ritorno ufficiale alle corse domenica prossima nel Tour du Doubs. Lo sloveno della AG2r era stato fermato all'inizio di maggio (come Pellizotti) per presunte irregolarità nel suo passaporto biologico

http://www.tuttobiciweb.it/index.php?page=news&cod=32247&tp=n

 

[therealtimshady]

i suppose they will ban pellizotti for 2 years - it does seem unfair to me, not sure whether there is much to go on

 

[Escarabajo]

i suppose they will ban pellizotti for 2 years - it does seem unfair to me, not sure whether there is much to go on

Why do you think is unfair?

Do you have the data to back up your opinion? It is your opinion against the Panel of scientists.

 

[therealtimshady]

Why do you think is unfair?

Do you have the data to back up your opinion? It is your opinion against the Panel of scientists.

its based on two abnormal values. no failure of any tests, it could have been sorted out a year ago but my main issue is that prat mcquaid wont investigate the armstrong allegations saying they are rubbish and "in the past" but does a lap of honour over how he is getting pellizotti and co on equally dodgy evidence and equally in the past.

also his pursuit of valverde however correct sparks of major double standards

 

[Escarabajo]

its based on two abnormal values. no failure of any tests, it could have been sorted out a year ago but my main issue is that prat mcquaid wont investigate the armstrong allegations saying they are rubbish and "in the past" but does a lap of honour over how he is getting pellizotti and co on equally dodgy evidence and equally in the past.

also his pursuit of valverde however correct sparks of major double standards

The problem is that with only two values the off-score could have been off the roof and that could have been enough. And they already have a baseline to work with from previous years, so only one value off could be enough.

As per Armstrong is concern you and I know that the UCI gives him the VIP treatment.

 

[DAOTEC]

Pello news

Friday, September 3 | 18:22 (1)

CASE PELLIZOTTI. "No public hearings ? We are surprised "

The President of the National Anti-Doping Tribunal, Dr. Francesco Plotinus rejected the application submitted by August 30th to TNA Defense athlete Pellizotti under Article. 4, paragraph 2 of the TNA Operating Instructions (Appendix H) referred to the rules of sports doping cones in the publication of the hearing already set at the headquarters of the TNA, next September 16 (11:00 am) providing that the hearing should be celebrated in private. The TNA also has appointed for this case, as the CTU Prof. Giancarlo Isaac (pictured).
Speaking to tuttobiciweb.it on this decision, lawyers and Rocco Taminelli Cristina Lancellotti, said they were simply surprised and disappointed at a decision that goes against the logic of transparency.
"I agree with Franco Pellizotti (under Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the Operating Instructions TNA - Appendix H), we asked the TNA to conduct the hearing on September 16 in a public rather than in the Council Chamber, considered appropriate to inform a direct and comprehensive public opinion and not having much to our assisted nothing to hide or to fear - they told us lawyers -. We were somewhat surprised to learn that both the Office doping prosecutor that the Union Cycliste Internationale, the latter champion of transparency and publicity of anti-doping procedures, reacted negatively to our request deemed inappropriate. "

Source: http://www.tuttobiciweb.it/index.php?page=news&cod=32366&tp=n

I had no time to translate it so it's a google one sorry.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Thanks for the update, DAOTEC.

I'm with Pellizotti on this one - if he wants his hearing to be public, it should be. He's going to end up being the only guy who gets punished under the Biopassport, while the others go back to riding as if nothing happened. It would have been interesting to see how the testimony unfolded, like we saw with Floyd's case.

 

[DAOTEC]

I´m with Pello to Beech Mtn it is dispicable what they are doing only to him.

Escarabajo said it nicely two posts back.

 

[DAOTEC]

Alarm

Franco Pellizotti is preparing for a two-year suspension ...

Link: http://www.ciclonews.it/news_scheda.php?id=25179

 

[Cobber]

The problem is that with only two values the off-score could have been off the roof and that could have been enough. And they already have a baseline to work with from previous years, so only one value off could be enough.

As per Armstrong is concern you and I know that the UCI gives him the VIP treatment.

Does anyone know his values? I'd be interested to see how they compared to LAs blood values that he posted last year.

 

[DAOTEC]

Is Pellizotti about to be cleared ?

Thursday, September 9 | 24:37 (0)

The case Valjavec and the doubts obout the biological passport

See decision in full Case No: VT 01/2010 down in this thread.

CONCLUSION. Since the UCI has not met the Commission's requests, providing evidence of illegal practices, while the runner has provided plausible explanations for the values in question, the verdict of acquittal. With the possibility of appeal within one month to the Tas for the UCI.


The Italians stay on the ball > http://www.tuttobiciweb.it/index.php?page=news&cod=32530&tp=n

 

[Ney the Viking]

If I understand the translation right, the doctor said that the one anamoly may be due to stomach bleeding, so the court is probably right in dismissing it.
But then they say that the same doctor conclude that the other anamoly isnt explained properly, they say it isn't convincing.

So to sum up, they beleive him when it's convinient, and do not believe him when it doesnt suit them? Am I the only one that find that a bit smelly?

 

[DAOTEC]

Is Pellizotti about to be cleared ? @Ney the Viking & all

Ljubljana, 28 July 2010
OLYMPIC COMMITTEE OF SLOVENIA
DOCUMENT No I 909-8-O/10 ASSOCIATION OF SPORTS FEDERATIONS

Department for the fight against Anti-Doping
[Received Law firm Jadek & Pensa Celovska 25
FILEZVALOO7-001 1000 LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA
ORDER 29 July 2010] Tel.: +386 1 230 60 10
http://www.olympic.si

Case No: VT 01/2010 antidoping@oIympic.si I

DECISION
The Disciplinary Commission of the National Anti-Doping Commission has in the Senate presided over by Irena Ilesic Cujovic and Tadej Malovrh and Dusan Verbic as members in the matter of the International Cycling Union (UCI), represented by Philippe Verbiest, and of the National Anti-Doping Commission (NAK), represented by Damjan Moiina, against the
Athlete Tadej Valjavec, represented by Odvetniska pisarna Jadek & Pensa d.n.o. - o.p; (Law»firm= Jadek & Pensa) in the matter of Anti-Doping Rule violations according to Article 21.2 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, -after hearings on 18 May 2010 and 8 July 2010.

Decided:
1. The Athlete Tadej Valjavec has not violated the anti-doping rules according to Article 21.2 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules.
2. Each party bears its costs of proceedings.
3. The costs of result management are born by the International Cycling Union (UCI).

Reasoning:
The International Cycling Union (hereinafter referred to as: "the UCl”) sent a notification that he supposedly violated the anti-doping rules according to Article 21.2 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules on 3 May 2010 to the athlete Tadej Valjavec (hereinafter referred to as: “the AthIete”).
The UCI stated in the notification that;
- the conclusion on the alleged violation of anti-doping rules arises from a unanimous statement of the Expert Panel that the haematology profile, containing Athlete's blood samples from 2008 and 2009, convincingly proves there is no other reasonable explanation for the Athlete's blood profile information other then the use of prohibited substance or method of oxygen transfer enhancement;
- the oxygen transfer enhancement is a prohibited method, which is listed as a prohibited method according to M1 on the List of prohibited substances or methods of the World Anti-Doping Agency.

The Athlete stated in his written defense that:
- it is not clear, what the subject of charges is, since the prohibited methods are listed indetail (and not as examples) in points a) and b) of the category M1 of the prohibitedmethods;

- it is not evident from the notification of the UCI when the Athlete supposedly used any ofthe prohibited methods;

- the UCI has not proven that the model of biological passport was used appropriately in the case at hand (it has not proven, how the fixed factors have been entered, whether the variable factors of the type of the device and the altitude, at which the Athlete was situated before and after the testing, have been considered);

- The UCI has not submitted any evidence with regard to the calculation of suspicion of the entire sequence. Thus, it is not at all clear why the entire sequence would be suspicious;

- At the time of Athlete’s blood samples collection the model of biological passport method had not yet been standardized, however the assessment of the results was performed based on the standardization;

- Numerous sample measurements (analysis) have not been conducted in accordance with the technical documents and the mistakes could influence the results and thus, the problematic measurements of sample values should be excluded and in this case we do not have 6 consecutive measurements;

- Not all test results are included in the Athlete’s biological passport; but only those up to August 2009, whereby it is not clear why the entire biological passport of the Athlete has not been presented;

- The information should be anonymous, but this is not the case, since the places of collection clearly indicate the Athlete and this could influence the assessment;

- The Expert Panel was set up with irregularities and the Expert Panel prejudged the matter and violated the principle of innocence when it stated that the haematology profile of the Athlete presents convincing evidence of the use of the prohibited method according to M1.

- by not submitting the to the Athlete the entire documentation in the matter on time, the UCI hindered the defense of the Athlete;

- the Expert Panel has not sufficiently researched the possible causes for the Athlete’s blood profile as were presented by the Athlete in his written explanation;

- the cause for the abnormal blood profile in the case of sample No 17 (19 April 2009) is the loss of blood due to bleeding corrosion in the stomach;

- the cause for the abnormal blood profile in the case of samples No 20 and 21 (27 August 2009 and 29 August 2009) is firstly haemodilusion (sample No 20), which occurred after the wasp sting and administration of the therapy (corticosteroids) and intake of greater amounts of fluids, and secondly, previous altitude trainings and living in a hypoxic room.

The Senate of the Disciplinary Commission (hereinafter referred to as: "the Senate DK”) has in the evidence procedure taken insight into the enclosures A1 to A41 and B1 to B54, questioned the Athlete, Dr. Samo Zver, Dr. Milan Udir, Dr. Maja Pohar Perme, Marko Polanec and Dr. Giuseppe D'Onofrio. The Senate DK has executed all proposed evidence, except evidence, submitted by the Athlete on 19 July 2010 (B55-56), after the evidence
procedure has been concluded as was explicitly permitted by the Senate DK at the hearing on 8 July 2010, and evidence, which have been submitted by the UCI with regard to these
(disregarded Athlete’s) evidence on 22 July 2010 (A42-A45).

The Senate DK adopted the decision after execution of all evidence and after hearing and reading the Athlete’s closing arguments. The Senate DK explains that he regards as closing arguments the Athlete’s closing arguments and of his representative at the hearing on 8 July 2010 and the amendment of these closing arguments dated 19 July 2010. Since the Senate
in its decision disregarded the evidence, submitted by the Athlete later (on 19July 2010), the Senate established that it is no longer necessary to give word to the UCI and thus, no new closing arguments of the Athlete or its amendment are necessary; thus, the Senate disregarded in its decision the submission of the UCI submitted on 22 July 2010 and also the Athlete’s closing arguments dated 23 July 2010.

 

[DAOTEC]

Continue >>

The Senate DK finds that the Athlete has not violated the anti-doping rules.

The UCI Anti-Doping Rules apply with regard to the violation of the anti-doping rules. The UCI reproached the Athlete of violating Article 21.2 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, setting out that the use or attempt of using a prohibited substance or prohibited method presents a violation of anti-doping rules. Thereby (in accordance with Article 21.2), it is not important
whether it is an intentional violation, or violation due to negligence nor whether or not the Athlete knows he is using prohibited substance or method.

In accordance with Article 22 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules the UCI and the national cycling federations (in the case at hand the NAK) bear the burden of proof for the violation and they need to prove that the Athlete violated the anti-doping rules. The standard of proof is comfortable satisfaction of the Senate DK. If the athlete must rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof is by a balance of
probability.

According to the UCI, the Athlete supposedly violated the anti-doping rules because he used the prohibited method of oxygen transfer enhancement (M1).

In the opinion of the Senate DK, the UCI has not even proven with the named standard of proof (comfortable satisfaction) that there was an oxygen transfer enhancement in the case of the Athlete. Even the statements of the UCI in this regard are insufficient, since it is not clearly evident which event (blood sample, sequence) the UCI regards as the one, from
which it can be established that there was the use of prohibited method of oxygen transfer enhancement. As late as during the evidence procedure (expert opinion dated 15 June 2010 (A30) and testimony of Dr. D’Onofrio) it became evident for the first time which samples (sequences) are regarded by the UCI as abnormal, whereby the UCI has not at all stated this
in its submissions. All along the UCI only stated that no other explanation, other that there was the use of prohibited method of the oxygen transfer enhancement, is possible in the case of the blood profile, as arising from the Athlete’s biological passport. The Senate DK is of the opinion that such statement is in itself too general. In addition, the UCI has not
supported its statements (already in the first part with regard to the oxygen transfer enhancement itself) with any evidence; even more, it has not even proposed any evidence in this regard. The Senate DK adds that it regarded Article 23 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, which states two cases as examples presenting the proof of oxygen transfer enhancement.
The Athlete’s blood profile could indicate the first as well as the second example, set out in Article 23 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, however the UCI has not stated to which of the two examples (first, second or both) the Athlete’s biological passport refers in the case at hand;
thus, the Senate DK could not execute the evidence procedure in this regard. The Senate DK cannot even by far be comfortably satisfied that there was an oxygen transfer enhancement in the case of the Athlete without any appropriate statements and without proposed evidence, which would prove the statements.

Regardless of this, the UCI has in no case proven that the Athlete used the prohibited method of oxygen transfer enhancement. Even if the Senate DK regarded that the UCI has stated and proven the oxygen transfer enhancement in the sense of Article 23 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules already by submitting the blood profile, the UCI has neither stated nor proposed any evidence with regard to the prohibited method of oxygen transfer
enhancement. The only statement of the UCI in this regard was that “it is not necessary to state which prohibited method took place in the case at hand". The Senate DK assesses that merely stating that “there is no other known reasonable explanation” cannot be sufficient for finding that an athlete violated anti-doping rules. In any case the Senate DK cannot be
comfortably satisfied on the Athlete’s use of prohibited method.

Similarly is evident from the opinion of Dr. Sottas (A40), in which Dr. Sottas explains that the statistical method of the biological passport or the values arising from it do not show the probability of doping; they only show that there are abnormal values, which cannot be a result of the natural physiological fluctuations. Dr. Sottas states that only an external cause
(health condition, altitude exposure, if not considered) can explain such fluctuations. The stated means that both parties need to prove the cause of abnormal value of blood profile (whereby the UCI bears the burden of proof). The UCI has not done so.

In the opinion of the Senate DK, the Athlete has proven as likely that the results of blood samples dated 19 April 2009, 27 August 2009 and 29 August 2009 are a consequence of other factors and not of the use of prohibited method.

It is evident from the testimony of Dr. Udir and according to the information from the Athlete’s health records that the Athlete had long-lasting health problems, which he had not treated adequately and continuously. The witness, his ex-coach Polanec, confirmed that the Athlete is a person, who handles the stressing situations relatively poorly or that they reflect in his
health condition. It is evident from the esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy and from the path histological diagnosis in relation to that and from the opinion and testimony of Dr. Zver that the Athlete has acute and chronic changes of the stomach mucous membrane (erosions in the stomach, certain covered haematin corks), which lead to fresh bleeding from the stomach
mucous membrane. There is dead tissue in the Athlete’s stomach. The Athlete has reactive gastritis (inflammation of the stomach mucous membrane), which could cause the bleeding in April 2009. The Athlete himself stated that he was noticing black excrement in April 2009 and the Senate DK entirely believes the Athlete’s convincing testimony. Even Dr. D’Onofrio
himself told, questioned as witness (he is a witness proposed by the UCI) that the cause for such blood profile as was Athlete’s on 19 April 2009 could be a bleeding in the digestive organs and that he could not exclude this possibility. Dr. D’Onofrio confirmed also that it is possible that in such case the Athlete would lose an amount of blood equivalent to 1 to 2
bags of blood (450 to 900 ml). The Senate DK concludes from the above stated that the Athlete has proven with the balance of probability that the loss of blood due to the bleeding in the digestive organs was the cause for his blood profile on 19 April 2009.

The Senate DK was not convinced by the opposing statement of the UCl, which arises from the opinion of experts (A30) that it is strange that an Athlete being in such a bad health condition could only 18 days later participate in Giro d’ltalia, at which he achieved a very good qualification (9"‘ place in the overall standings). Furthermore, the UCI stated that it is
not possible that the Athlete's blood profile would improve in only 18 days the way it has, if the bleeding in digestive organs actually occurred. The Senate DK followed in this regard the Athlete’s statements and the statement and the opinion of Dr. Zver, that the bleeding most probably occurred even before the 19 April 2009 and that there was probably more time for the regeneration of the blood profile. Additionally, the Senate DK finds that the Athlete has extreme physiologic abilities, 'which' distinguishes him from an average person. The Senate DK is of the opinion that it is not impossible that an athlete has the ability of faster renewal of blood compared to an average person in addition to the exceptional regeneration abilities in the sense of physiologic capabilities, which were confirmed by the witness Polanec and which enabled him good result at the Giro d'ltalia.

 

[DAOTEC]

Continue >>

The Athlete stated with regard to the blood profile dated 27 August 2009 that before that he had been living in the conditions of oxygen shortage(living in Pokljuka at the altitude of 1,300 m and in the hypoxic room at the stimulated altitude of 2,800 to 3,200 m). The Athlete convincingly stated that he had been living and training in his house in Pokljuka in July and
August 2009, which the Senate DK believes him; furthermore, he has proven this fact with the newspaper articles from that period (B7). It is evident from the medical certificate (B12) that the Athlete was administered, due to an insect (wasp) sting, on 25 August 2009 a therapy, namely corticosteroids methylprednisolonum in the amount of 80 mg with the
instruction of the doctor to take in as much fluids as possible in the next 24 hours. lt is evident from the opinion and the testimony of Dr. Zver that methylprednisolonum holds the fluids in the human body, which was, in addition to the intake of greater amounts of fluids, *the cause of haemodilusion and therefore lower value of Hb despite the longer living in the
altitude conditions. The Senate DK considering the lack of evidence, which would convincingly indicate otherwise, believes the witness and is of the opinion that the Athlete has proven with the balance of probability that the cause of his blood profile on 27 August 2009 was so called haemodilusion. Dr. D’Onofrio, questioned as witness, told that in his opinion the haemodilusion cannot have such an effect as was stated and proven by the Athlete, however has not supported his opinion in the manner, in which the Senate DK could be convinced about that. The same applies to the UCI expert opinion (ASO), in which the experts only stated that the standard dose of the methylprednisolonum is 250 to 500 mg or more, which is essentially more that what the Athlete received, and that the methylprednisolonum has only minimal effect on the holding of the fluids in the body; however, they have not explained what is this effect and what is, on the other side, the effect
of increased drinking of fluids. The experts were only of the opinion that, even if the results from 27 August 2009 would be excluded, the result on 29 August 2009 would still be abnormal, based on which it would be possible to conclude that the experts assessed that the result on 27 August 2009 is not problematic. The Senate has, based on the statements and submitted evidence of the Athlete, assessed that it is probable that the result of blood
profile on 27 August 2009 is the consequence of the treatment of wasp sting.

The Athlete stated with regard to the blood profile on 29 August 2009 that the high value of haemoglobin (Hb) is the consequence of living in the aforementioned conditions of oxygen shortage, whereby the effect of haemodilusion faded out within two days. Dr. Zver stated in
his Opinion that the value of Hb on 27 August 2009 was without the wasp sting very likely the same to the value on 29 August 2009, to which the Senate DK believes considering the lack of evidence, which would convincingly indicate otherwise. Thereby Dr. Zver explains in the
opinion and also when questioned as witness that it is normal that the share of reticulocytes falls, if an athlete does no longer live in the conditions of oxygen shortage, which entirely confirms the Athlete’s statements with regard to the, blood profile. The UCI experts stated in the opinion only information that according to the modern scientific researches (they have not
stated which researches) it is required that one is exposed to hypoxic conditions for at least 2 to 3 weeks in order for such conditions to actually have the effect on increase of the HB; however, the Athlete had only been exposed to such conditions for 11 day in August 2010. Considering the lack of more detailed analysis, which would confirm the statements of the UCI experts (Dr. D’Onofrio stated the same, however, no more convincingly), the Senate DK is of the opinion that the Athlete has proven with the balance of probability that the cause of his blood profile on 29 August 2009 was living in the hypoxic conditions. Thereby, the Senate DK has not regarded as relevant the note of the UCI experts that the Athlete’s Hb value from 26 September 2008 until 14 December 2008 was comparable to the value on 29 August
2009, even though he had not been living in the hypoxic conditions. The Senate DK is of the opinion that this fact cannot present evidence that it is not probable that the hypoxic conditions would influence the Athlete’s blood profile.

The Athlete stated and has proven also that the abnormal blood profile is the consequence of wrongly applied statistical method of biological passport. Dr. Pohar Perme, questioned as witness, showed that the graphs of the Athlete’s blood profile would considerably change if the UCI technical documents were respected in entirety, especially considering the correction
factors with regard to the Athlete’s altitude living. Dr. Sottas in his opinion (A4O) and its amendment (A41) has not, in the opinion of the Senate DK, sufficiently explained why in the case of Athlete’s biological passport the correction factors with regard to the altitude living had not been regarded. Thus, the Senate DK finds that the Athlete has proven with the balance of probability that the method of biological passport was applied wrongly and that this could have influenced the “abnormality” of the Athlete’s blood profile.

With regard to the irregularities in the analysis of the Athlete’s blood samples, stated by the Athlete, the Senate DK finds that the Athlete has proven with at least the balance of probability that the irregularities with some analysis have been made. Not even Dr. D’Onofrio, who was of the opinion that these were administrative mistakes when writing the report, opposes to this. Considering the lack of other evidence, which would indicate that the mistakes in the analysis of the Athlete’s blood samples actually and significantly influenced the Athlete’s blood profile results in the way that they would no longer be “abnormaI", the Senate DK finds that the Athlete has not proven with the balance of probability that his blood profile is a consequence of mistakes in the procedure of blood sample analysis. The UCI on
the other hand submitted evidence, expert opinion (A3O), from which it arises that especially in the case of the most critical results (19 April 2009 and 29 August 2009) there were no irregularities made.

Even though the Athlete has not succeeded with the last statement, the Senate DK still finds, based on all other statements and submitted evidence, that the Athlete has proven with the balance of probability that his blood profile from the biological passport is not a consequence
of the use of prohibited method.

Since the UCI has not comfortably satisfied the Senate DK that the Athlete used the prohibited method and at the same time the Athlete established with the balance of probability that he did not apply the prohibited method, the Senate decided as is evident from the findings of this decision.

The findings with regard to the costs are in accordance with the provisions of Articles 274, 275 and 276 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules. In accordance with Article 274 of the UCI Anti- Doping Rules each party bears the costs of proceedings, except if a different decision was specifically justified. The UCI Anti-Doping Rules are set out in the manner that each party bears its own costs, except in the cases of exceptions explicitly stated in Articles 275 and 276 or in specifically substantiated cases. The wording of Article 276 confirms that one of these exceptions is not the mere fact that the athlete was acquitted, since otherwise the UCI Anti-Doping Rules would set out such an exception. The Senate DK finds that there are no special reasons, which would justify different decision than provided for in Article 274 of the
UCI Anti-Doping Rules. Thus, it decided that each party bears its own costs of proceedings. In accordance with Article 276 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, the party defined in the decision has to bear the costs of the result management in the case the athlete is acquitted in accordance with Article 275.2. Since the Athlete has been acquitted based on this decision,
the Senate DK order the costs of the result management to be paid by the UCI.

Legal notice: An appeal is admitted against this decision within 1 (one) month. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decides on the appeal.
Disciplinary Commission of the National Anti-Doping Commission

The President of the Senate: Irena llešic Cujovic
The Member of Senate: Tadej Malovrh
The Member of Senate: Dušan Verbic
-------------------------------------------------------

Footnote: That's a beautiful piece in [http://www.tuttobiciweb.it/index.php?]. Technically too. I wonder how many understand that Italian.
Just take 'con probabilità par. That's proof, "balance of probabilities'. But who understands that?

The whole statement is now above attached and documented. This comes from the Slovenian NOC. Who want the whole case to gopublic which is the opposite of what UCI/WADA don't want..


P.S: dottor Pohar (a Slovenia scientist) has explained to me that not even altutude profile had included in their model. But again, who understands that??

P.P.S. I ask the expert of Pellizotti and did sent him this English version.

I hope you all enjoy it ... this stuff is hard to get ... but is serving a good cause.

 

[DAOTEC]

ALARM Is Pellizotti about to be cleared ?

Pellizotti his Expert/Scientist did put it on his website moments ago !


Click: http://www.chemometry.com/Index/Anti-doping/Cases/Valjavec/Valjavec%20ENG%20OCR.pdf

 

[Cobblestones]

Pellizotti his Expert/Scientist did put it on his website moments ago !


Click: http://www.chemometry.com/Index/Anti-doping/Cases/Valjavec/Valjavec%20ENG%20OCR.pdf

So it probably peters out to nothing as so many other big announcements before that.

 

[The Hitch]

Several essays totaling thousands of words.

DAOTEC

You know so much about cycling and post every news story here first, before anyone else here hears about it. ALl the transfers all the doping scandals.

But do you actually watch cycling or do you just get the news

 

[DAOTEC]

All day long The Hitch but probably not always the same as you guys do.

Saw some breathtaking shock and awe stuff from the next 'big thing' today, an 18 year old kid called "el pito loco" Gómez brutally splittering over 15 year older Óscar Sevilla, Click: http://forum.cyclingnews.com

Or that overload running around in the Tour the l'Avenir at present, Click: http://forum.cyclingnews.com

Yeah that brings me in extacy, not 2 clowns going up the Tourmalet shaking hands on top, over how good a deal they made. Although there is no disrespect, it's just I stop watching it when seeing it happen, it's the wrong example for the next generation and kills the sport.