Doping Digest: Di Luca and Sporting Fraud?

by gavia on Dec 1, 2009 1:17 PM EST in News Comment 24 comments

The local newspaper in Padova reported last week that the procura in Padova has opened a preliminary investigation into the possibility that Danilo Di Luca committed sporting fraud during the 2009 Giro d'Italia. Di Luca, who finished second overall, tested positive for the banned substance CERA on two occasions during the race. After deciding Di Luca's sanction, the Italian anti-doping authorities passed the information from his case to the district attorney in Roma, who has jurisdiction over sporting fraud cases. The case then passed to Padova, where the prosecutor Benedetto Roberti is in the midst of investigating a widespread doping case that has already involved Davide Rebellin and Riccardo Riccó. Roberti believes that the Rebellin, Riccó, and Di Luca all received their CERA from the same source, the former U23 national team coach of Serbia, Aleksandar Nikacevic. Nikacevic was arrested last July in connection with the investigation.

According to Di Luca's lawyer Flavia Tortorella, who gave an interview to Paolo Smoglica of Il Centro, Di Luca has nothing to do with the investigation in Padova and has never met the alleged dealer Nikacevic. Tortorella asserted that Di Luca's situation was far different from that of Riccó or Sella, because Di Luca continued to claim his innocence. The other two riders confessed to using CERA and provided information to investigators about their suppliers. Di Luca has challenged the allegations and continues to claim that he did not use the banned drug. According to his legal team, the testing process that found CERA in Di Luca's samples was flawed and they maintain that the rider never used the banned substance. Consequently, any investigation of sporting fraud on Di Luca's part is premature, they argue.

The Di Luca case promises to be a lengthy one. Like Landis, Di Luca is arguing that the testing process is fundamentally flawed and the Italian appears committed to exhausting all avenues of appeal. No doubt the opening of a sporting fraud investigation is intended to pressure Di Luca either with the goal of ending the appeal process or acquiring information to help close the wider investigation of the doping ring centered in Padova. Both Riccó and Di Luca have been connected with Dr. Santuccione, but did they use the same dealer? The authorities believe so, though it's far from clear that they have the evidence to prove it. Caught up in the same investigation in Padova, Rebellin meanwhile has returned his Olympic medal and paid back 75,000 euros of his prize money, though he continues to maintain his innocence. Like Di Luca, Rebellin continues his legal battle. At least, the lawyers are smiling.

— Sources, Di Luca indagato and Di Luca non c'entra con l'inchiesta

0 recs | Comment 24 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Question for you, Gav (or anyone else who might know).

If ultimately found guilty of doping, wouldn’t this be Di Luca’s second strike. I realize his first suspension wasn’t technically for doping, but rather from working with a “banned” doctor, but surely he will get more than the standard two-year penalty. Might they ban him for life? I can’t think of anyone who deserves to be burned at the stake more than this little prick.

by The Team Chef on Dec 1, 2009 1:59 PM EST reply actions

Not sure

how they would interpret it, actually. It’s technically a second offense, but I think there’s some wiggle room there. Of course, the possibility of a lifetime ban is likely why Di Luca has decided to go the full length with the legal challenges.

by gavia on Dec 1, 2009 5:20 PM EST up reply actions

plus there's a giro at stake

by yeehoo on Dec 2, 2009 5:53 AM EST up reply actions

Bah Di Luca, what a fraud

Look, it's a bird...no, it's a plane....oh never mind it's just fucking balloon boy

by Phil H. on Dec 1, 2009 2:00 PM EST reply actions

lol, yeah

right there with you. Bah Di Luca!

by gavia on Dec 1, 2009 5:20 PM EST up reply actions

Bah Di Luca AND Rebellin.

Glad they took his shiny medal away.

Any word on the 2008 Giro re-tests? I thought we were supposed to hear in November, which I understand ends on December 6th.

It was just a long race--Edvald Boasson Hagen, on the Giro

by majope on Dec 1, 2009 5:49 PM EST up reply actions

A pox on all your houses!

Re-tests? What re-tests? Gav looks around all innocent-like.

I haven’t seen any mention of those things in like 100 years. Seriously, that story has dropped off the planet. Like, where did it go? I can only think that the delay has something to do with the link between the re-testing and the investigation in Padova, so the results are all locked up with the criminal investigation. But eh, I’m not sure.

by gavia on Dec 1, 2009 6:11 PM EST up reply actions

Glad to see the fraud charges.

It’s about time someone other than the UCI got involved. Maybe jail time/fines will be better deterrents that suspensions.

"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."

by ant1 on Dec 1, 2009 3:29 PM EST reply actions

the only flaw

in the testing process is the fact that di luca didn’t test poz every time he was tested in the giro! a throughly contemptible man…at least pretend to be remorseful.

"well...you live in england so: you love the rain. loves the queen. hates cycling. based on mr bean had a tremendous amount of humour. all ride in a mini cooper. all getting drunk before the age of 12. getting drunk at least 3 times a day."- frinking, 7/9/09

by benrazor on Dec 1, 2009 6:07 PM EST reply actions

but, but, but, i'm innocent!

heh, i can’t say i believe him, but he’s entitled to his days, weeks, years, in court. and yes, they tested him 12 times during the giro, he came up positive twice. it was much the same for riccó actually also.

by gavia on Dec 1, 2009 6:12 PM EST up reply actions

strange isn't it

i was being half angry, and half making a point about the system- any time they catch them is good, but why only 2 in 12 y’know?

by benrazor on Dec 1, 2009 7:01 PM EST up reply actions

probably the positive threshold

The threshold for declaring a sample positive is set pretty high for EPO, and the CERA test is similar to the analysis for regular EPO. I’d guess that the other samples showed evidence of the drug, but were not sufficiently positive to be declared an adverse analytical finding, if that makes sense. These tests aren’t blue-means-yes sort of tests, so for me, it’s not too hard to see why some samples would not meet the threshold while others do.

by gavia on Dec 1, 2009 7:06 PM EST up reply actions

ah, didn't know that

thanks man, makes sense indeed.

by benrazor on Dec 1, 2009 7:27 PM EST up reply actions

makes sense of

“NEVER TESTED (sufficiently) POSITIVE (to be declared an adverse analytic finding.) Two in 12 makes me wonder about all the 0-fers out there. Lotta sorta, but not officially, pregnant riders.

by M. Anatole on Dec 1, 2009 9:36 PM EST up reply actions

Remember, the reason for the threshold is that false positives do happen.

Testing is good; proof is good; jumping to conclusions based on questionable evidence really isn’t.

by Ed K on Dec 1, 2009 11:04 PM EST up reply actions

Very True.

My opinion has always been, how would I like it handled if it were my job and my life.

Having said that I think DiLuca also had some abnormal testing pathology were some of his tests came up very very low ( masking efforts ). That, I believe may be a stronger indication than a value closer to the upper limits as elite rare athletes should have higher values a greater recovery rates than average athletes.

I waited a half an hour to give my two toddlers breakfast until I had my Eneco tour coverage sorted, then made sure I got them fed before the sprint. --- Bought With Blood. ..... Hmmm, my kinda people. If only they could explain to my wife why my bike belongs in the house and not the garage. --- Thevaro

by thevaro on Dec 2, 2009 12:00 AM EST up reply actions

a greater = and greater ( ughh)

by thevaro on Dec 2, 2009 12:03 AM EST up reply actions

To be clear...

…I don’t believe DiLuca’s denials any more than gav or any other reasonable person does. My point was simply, lab hijinks aside, the threshold represents the point where they can say for sure that these values are the result of EPO and not some other factor. I was objecting to drawing the conclusion that someone who has values below the threshold must be on EPO. That’s not justified. On the other hand, it’s entirely possible that they are. All it means is that the test can’t tell us for sure; and we have to live with that uncertainty.

by Ed K on Dec 2, 2009 12:36 PM EST up reply actions

Wait a sec--it's not 2 out of 12, it's 2 out of 5.

According to Cyclingnews, Di Luca gave 12 urine samples and 5 blood samples during the Giro. It’s the blood samples that tested positive.

A third sample was deemed “suspicious” but apparently didn’t meet the threshold for positive.

It was just a long race--Edvald Boasson Hagen, on the Giro

by majope on Dec 2, 2009 7:46 AM EST up reply actions

Nice catch

That was not in the Italian article, thanks.

by gavia on Dec 2, 2009 12:17 PM EST up reply actions

Right

The testing thresholds is also why we get stories of labs being paid to pre-test samples to determine how much a rider can get away with.

by gavia on Dec 2, 2009 12:19 PM EST up reply actions

The testing of the 1999 Tour samples

was to get the ‘positive’ range more closely aligned to what a sample with EPO actually looks like. That’s why they needed to get their hands on some samples that had EPO in them, hence choosing 1999.

So they do look at moving the cut-off to a place where it catches the bad guys without an unacceptable risk of false positives.

If the parameters of a positive test are stacked well in favour of an athlete, that’s no bad thing. Blackstone‘s maxim ’n’ all.

by Drongo on Dec 2, 2009 1:50 AM EST up reply actions

i agree

And remember that in all this the athletes that are doping are at the same time trying to keep their values below the thresholds. So yeah, kinda rare they get caught.

by yeehoo on Dec 2, 2009 5:58 AM EST up reply actions