The Riccó Case Takes a Strange Turn in Important UCI Decision
by Jen See on Jul 30, 2009 1:01 PM EDT
in News
Email
Print
The UCI has decided to extend the sanction against Riccardo Riccó from 20 months to 24 months. The Italian climber, who tested positive for CERA at last year's Tour de France, will now be eligible to ride on 17 July 2010, which means he will miss both the Giro d'Italia and the Tour de France next season. Riccó has already signed a contract with the Italian team Ceramica Flaminia for his return, which is now delayed by four months as a result of this decision.
The reason for the UCI actions is complicated and relates to the question of jurisdiction. In the Riccó case, both the Italian anti-doping authorities and the French anti-doping authorities opened investigations. The French anti-doping authority, the AFLD, imposed a two year sanction on Riccó, the standard penalty for a first offense.
In Italy, the case followed a more complicated path. In his hearing before CONI, the Italian anti-doping authorities, Riccó admitted to using doping at the Tour and admitted to consulting with the banned Dr. Santuccione. The doping violation earned him a two year sanction, while the visits to Santuccione added six months. Because Riccó provided information to the investigators, though, the Italian anti-doping authority CONI recommended a sanction of 18 months. This recommendation was over-ruled by the Italian anti-doping court, who makes the final sanctioning decisions, and Riccó received an enforced-vacation of 24 months. The rider then challenged the decision at the sports arbitration court, who found in his favor. Result? An 18 month ban.
Now comes the UCI decision to uphold the French sanction, and invalidate all the torturous proceedings in Italy. The UCI spokesman Enrico Carpani explained the situation in this way: "Yesterday, the UCI recognized as valid the decision taken by the AFLD (the French anti-doping authorites) which imposed a disqualification of 24 months on Riccó and not the 20 months established by TAS," the sports arbritration court. "CONI does not have the necessary competence to adjudicate the Riccó case, competence which - on the basis of the question of territoriality - resides with the AFLD. Therefore, the UCI accepts the sanction decided by the French Agency," Carpani continued. In relation to Riccó's cooperation with the CONI investigation, meanwhile, Carpani said that the UCI had not received any documentation on that aspect of the case, but the cycling union could choose to offer the Italian a reduced sanction. In the meantime, Riccó can now appeal the new UCI-imposed sanction to the sports arbitration court, which would mark his second visit before the court. That sound you hear is Riccó's lawyer laughing all the way to the bank.
The situation has taken a truly bizarre turn. It's hard to understand exactly why the UCI decided to intervene so late in the proceedings. Clearly, there is more to the story than the Riccó case, and it seems likely that the UCI here seeks to set a precedent that privileges the decision of the Federation where the violation occurred over any sanction - or non-sanction - by the rider's home federation.
The astute reader will now understand where this story is headed, and it leads directly to the dispute between the Italian anti-doping authorities and the Spanish Federation over the fate of Alejandro Valverde. Valverde, who is slated to ride the Clasicá San Sebastián this weekend, received a two year ban from the Italians as a consequence of evidence they argue links the Caisse d'Épargne rider with Operation Puerto. The Spanish Federation has refused to recognize the ban, and asserted their prerogative to decide the fates of their riders.
Not so fast, says the UCI. The decision to privilege the French decision in the Riccó case suggests the end game for the Valverde case. The UCI has now said that the national anti-doping authorities have jurisdiction over riders who commit offenses on their territory, regardless of where those riders may be licensed. Valverde's legal defense has hinged on this question of jurisdiction, and the UCI decision in the Riccó case suggests that this argument now sits on a very shaky foundation. The UCI has promised a decision in the Valverde case for some time now. With this announcement in relation to Riccó, it seems likely the Valverde decision will follow shortly.
— Sources, Gazzetta dello Sport, Tuttobiciweb.
102 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Thank you for this excellent analysis
Kids, don’t use drugs, mkay?
Sorry for the levity. Really great post.
Excellent article
You hold the suspense well also. I was wondering why the delay in declaring that France had jurisdiction (or competence as it is described here) over the matter.
The punchline is of course Valverde.
But this is all appealable to an Arbitration Panel so the last word has not been spoken.
Of course who is to say that any particular federation will abide by a UCI decision? What happens if they do not? Kicked out of the UCI? Can that go to an arbitration board?
In any event, this is all good news for the lawyers involved.
On the topic of PEDs
NYTimes reporting Red Sox (at the time) Ramirez and Ortiz tested positive in 2003 for PEDs.
Link.
Really, really interesting.
Thanks, gav!
Throughout the stage all I kept on thinking was: ‘don’t finish second, you can’t finish second again’.--Heinrich Haussler
ain't it tho?
I read the headline and was like, wtf? Very interesting implications all the way around.
Too bad both the Italians and Ricco wasted cash on a case that is now moot, at least, for now.
The UCI and TAS are both in Switzerland and the TAS is bound by Swiss law.
I wonder if that could be an avenue for Ricco’s lawyer to uphold the original TAS decision.
Depends
I am waiting – in vain, it appears – for the Ivan Stevic case that is still before TAS. That case also deals with the question of jurisdiction – whether it is where the offense was allegedly committed or the home federation. That decision hasn’t come down yet, and it should give an indication of the views of TAS on this UCI decision and the Valverde appeal.
Vediamo.
you mean . . .
Liz Hatch’s ex- ex- ex- ex- ex- (I really have no idea how many to put in there) boyfriend, Ivan Stevic?
Okay, that's weird.
The first I heard about this was a denial that the extension happened in the Belgian press somewhere while I was looking something else up. Then when gav posted, I looked again and found a bunch of articles that were much more recent saying that it did happen, and could no longer find the one that said it didn’t. So is CN ahead of things, or behind?
Throughout the stage all I kept on thinking was: ‘don’t finish second, you can’t finish second again’.--Heinrich Haussler
Cycling news are just a bit behind everyone else here
Tuttobici had a similar story up earlier complete with similar puzzled quote from Enrico Carpani (about 4 1/2 hrs ago). He then went away and checked up, then the new improved version was given.
Oops, it was probably the Italian press I saw it in, then.
So CN is behind—thanks for the confirmation.
Throughout the stage all I kept on thinking was: ‘don’t finish second, you can’t finish second again’.--Heinrich Haussler
And now
Another article: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cycling-union-decides-on-24-month-ban-for-ricco
Staring at the swim team gets you killed by a gang of dancing ninja men who know how to twirl.
by TheFigurehead on Jul 30, 2009 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Funny, Valverde did not test positive in Italy during the 2008 TdF...
He said Riccò’s case is similar to Spaniard Alejandro Valverde, who tested positive when the 2008 Tour de France was in Italy. Italy ruled on Valverde because his positive control happened in its country and it will be the UCI’s decision whether to make Italy’s two-year suspension global, said Carpani.
..
CONI got the blood sample from the Tour and compared it with blood from OP. Based on this, CONI is claiming that Valverde doped.
However, back to the question of jurisdiction, if he did dope (something to be decided), it did not happen in Italy. This is the argument used by the Spanish federation, which now appears to be supported by UCI’s decision.
It's not a matter of where you get the injections
it’s a matter of where you compete under the illegal influence of PEDs.
If you load a gun in Spain and shoot a guy in Italy you will get charged with murder in Italy. The italians don’t care that Valv.Piti loaded his gun in Spain.
er, no
You have it backwards, I’m afraid. He raced on dope in Italy, allegedly, therefore the Italians have jurisdiction. It doesn’t matter where he got the doping.
Adding
That is a bizarre comment from Carpani, if in fact, it is a direct quote. This quote was not in the Italian press, but it’s like wrong and stuff.
Good point, thx
However, the Valv’s case does not seem as clean cut as Ricco’s given that the Italians do not have an actual positive sample for Valv.
Right
But the point is not that the cases are the same. The point is that the UCI’s decision to uphold the French sanction – where the violation took place – instead of the Italian sanction – the rider’s licensing federation – is important, because it sets a precedent. That precedent opens the way for the UCI to confirm the sanction handed down in Italy on Valverde, because he raced there, despite the inaction on the part of the Spanish Federation, where he is licensed.
Ignore the CN report – it’s completely fucked. The point isn’t that there is any similarly between the cases. The importance here is the decision between two contending sanctions decided by two different federations. One takes precedent over the other, and the UCI has now decided that the federation where the violation took place has precedence.
...and the dispute remains where the infraction took place
Spain is saying Italy has no right to impose any sanctions….sooooo they will contend that it remains a jurisdiction issue. It is not the same as Ricco.
by steph- on Jul 30, 2009 10:40 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
The Riccó Precedent
The Spanish have argued that only they have the right to sanction – or not sanction – their riders. The UCI is now saying, nope, anyone can sanction your riders, if they prove that a violation has taken place. This is also the same issue as the Stevic case, he carried a Serbian license, but has been banned by the Italians for offenses that took place in Italy.
Yes, the Italian Federation has to make the case that a violation occurred in Italy, and they have to make the case that they legally obtained the evidence. If they do so, it doesn’t matter what the Spanish say, the Italian anti-doping authorites can sanction a Spanish rider for offenses committed on their soil. If Valverde used a banned method to compete on Italian soil, the Italians have jurisdiction. That’s all the Riccó precedent means. It says that a national anti-doping authority has jurisidiction over foreign riders racing on their soil – the principle of territoriality – and can impose sanctions on those riders, regardless of action – or inaction – by their home federation. It also says that the UCI will recognize those sanctions as legitimate.
And if you want to take this precedent further
then technically all of Floyd Landis’s appeals etc. mean nothing because he should have been appealing the sentence imposed by the French, not that of US Cycling. Do we all want to go there again?
Sure, why not ;-)
It will be fun
Just spinning the pedals in the hills of Western Maryland
Nice job!
Much better than the CN news item, which claims Valverde “tested positive when the 2008 Tour de France was in Italy”.
I can’t remember the exact grounds for Valverde’s CONI suspension — were they able to get a DNA match on a Puerto blood bag or some other specific test? This might make the Valverde case much different than Ricco because Ricco failed a drug test — the Valverde case might be both a jurisdiction issue and an evidence issue.
"It's just a bike race" - Frank Schleck
whoa
Really? CONI did take blood samples from Valverde during the 2008 Tour, but he did not test positive.
Gah.
Adding
Sorry, meant to add, yes, the Italian authorities did a DNA match between the Valverde blood samples and the blood bags, which were – and I believe still are – in the custody of the district attorney in Roma.
thanks, just found this too
From CN
Head anti-doping prosecutor Ettore Torri linked DNA samples taken during last year’s Tour de France – from the rest day in Italy on July 21 – to blood seized in the Operación Puerto investigation.
I’m not sure why “linked” is used instead of a stronger word like “matched”, but it sounds like the evidence is better than I remembered and it is mostly a matter of sorting out the process and jurisdiction issues.
"It's just a bike race" - Frank Schleck
Yes
That isn’t quite right, but we’ll let it slide. CONI carried out the tests, but the DNA matching was actually done by the district attorney in Roma. This is how the Italians were able to get the evidence – the criminal authorities and the anti-doping authorities are legally required to cooperate on these cases. And yes, they did match. According to the Italians, the evidence is as strong as the evidence in the cases of Basso and Scarponi, and indeed, the Valverde appeal has rested on the issue of jurisdiction more than the facts of the case.
Nice work Gav...
..though I still think there is a jurisdiction issue. The district attorney in Rome was given blood from Spain to match….I thought I read awhile ago. The original blood was in Spain….isn’t that what the Spanish authorities are disputing….the testing of the blood from Spain….and not that he tested postive in any races in Italy?
Italians are saying...
that they have evidence that he used “banned practices” during times he was racing in Italy, and consequently, they have jurisdiction in the same way the French have jurisdiction over the Riccó case at the Tour. The Italians also argue that the evidence was legally transferred to Italy from Spain by international agreement.
We’ll see – it will still go to TAS, I assume, but this decision on the Riccó case sets up the foundations for the UCI to uphold the Italian sanction over the objections of the Spanish Federation. Then, of course, TAS will decide the appeal, which by the way, Valverde has already filed.
I’d guess there’s a good chance we’ll see Valverde scratched from Clasicá San Sebastián, though.
Vediamo.
We have been down this path before with Valverde
UCI tried to stop him from racing at the 2007 Worlds. CAS ruled with Valverde and he raced in Stuttgart. I covered that race and the press conferences were…well they were quite entertaining. Don’t count Valverde out just yet.
by steph- on Jul 30, 2009 10:43 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Right
But the UCI did not have the same level of evidence that the Italians have assembled. They tried to exclude him on the basis of being mentioned in the case, and TAS deemed that insufficient. Which, was the right decision, in my view.
This investigation is considerably more detailed than that one.
yup...not sure where this will go with the CAS..
…as the Spanish authorities will push the jurisdiction questions…which are quite valid.
Valverde - your time is (rightly) up.
that is all.
milramfan.
by milram- on Jul 30, 2009 1:57 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
The astute reader will now understand where this story is headed,
But only with the help of a very astute author.
Thanks for a well written, logical, astute, and easy to follow article. They are rare on issues as complex as this.
Moo
Beautifully explained
my head hurts trying to make sense of this one.
okay, this may be a stupid question, and i'm just too tired to remember, but did valverde even race in italy in 2006?
if you’re basing the argument on the jurisdiction of where the doping offense took place as opposed to the rider’s national federation.
"Wizard's first rule. People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true." -- Terry Goodkind
Yes, he did.
Throughout the stage all I kept on thinking was: ‘don’t finish second, you can’t finish second again’.--Heinrich Haussler
okay... what race?
"Wizard's first rule. People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true." -- Terry Goodkind
Could be 2004 WC in Verona.
2004 was the year Valv was featured on Puerto docs now in public sphere.
tnx muchly, both you and tedvdw and majope
"Wizard's first rule. People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true." -- Terry Goodkind
But if the sanction of the national authority where the offence took place, takes precedence
is that not good news for Valverde, who allegedly stored his blood bags with Fuentes in Spain?
If a Spanish rider tested positive in the Vuelta and the events of the Mayo case repeated
I’m sure the UCI would still appeal to the TAS. This may be an attempt by the UCI to flex a little more muscle and standardize penalties.
The italians are arguing though
that the offence he committed was racing in Italy in a period when he was clearly doped. Where he actually injected/ transfused/stored blood is not interesting from their perspective.
It might the opposite
I guess the big difference is that the Italians do not have a positive sample for Valverde while the French do have one for Ricco.
CONI will have to overcome two obstacles: prove that the blood in OP is Valverde’s and that he was racing in Italy while doped during that period (2006?).
They HAVE proved it was his blood
And I think 2004 is when they claimed he raced dirty based on “treatment”-schedules for the codename Valv.piti.
Valverde turned pro in 2002
and raced in Italy every year from then until 2006:
2002: Milan-Sanremo, Tirreno-Adriatica
2003: MSR, Milano-Torino, Giro di Lombardia
2004: World Championships in Verona
2005: MSR, Lombardia
2006: MSR
The blood later DNA-matched to him also tested positive for EPO.
Throughout the stage all I kept on thinking was: ‘don’t finish second, you can’t finish second again’.--Heinrich Haussler
Care to share a link to a reliable source?
I’d like to check it out. The usual sources only refer to claims and speculation but no real facts.
The ban that CONI handed down = documented proof that the Valv.piti blood...
…was Valverde’s. That’s all they need. Intent to dope = doping under WADA code and UCI regulations, and storing blood for the purposes of doping, especially when that blood tested for EPO (see link in majope’s reply above), is all the proof they need to sanction him. The fact that they also possess schedules detailing what he took and when pretty much seals the deal. This has all been well documented. The fact of the sanction more or less proves it, and even Valverde’s lawyers haven’t been trying to contest the substance of the assertions, only the jurisdiction of the Italians…
You see how calm Vaughters is? That’s because he’s really one giant seething ball of Evil inside. With like, extra Evil.
I guess we will have to wait and see...
We will be witnessing the development of an entangled legal procedure, now with jurisdiction claims thrown into the mix. Nice…
I guess my positivist approach to claims like this suggest that I hold judgment and remain emotionally distant from the issue until everything is crystal clear.
In the mean time, I’ll go for a bike ride. Oh, I’ll bring my cell in case the TAS wants my opinion ;-).
Not sure I follow you here
According to the reports on the CONI investigation of Valverde, they matched the blood bag DNA with Valverde’s DNA. The Italian anti-doping authorities took a sample from Valverde (among others) during the 2008 Tour de France and voilà, it matched.
Two issues remain at stake: Will the UCI extend the sanction imposed by the Italian authorities world wide? And second, did the Italians follow all of the correct legal procedures in pursuing the case – in particular, in relation to obtaining the evidence and establishing their jurisdiction? Valverde’s legal team has not challenged the evidence itself, instead they have appealed the case on procedural grounds.
You can search here, there are a lot of stories on the Valverde case. I have typically used the Italian and Spanish reporting on the case, because it is the clearest, but if you check the comments, others typically post English-language links too.
You said what I was trying to say above better...
…the evidence isn’t terribly doubtful. All the questions are procedural. That’s more or less it.
You see how calm Vaughters is? That’s because he’s really one giant seething ball of Evil inside. With like, extra Evil.
So as the effects of this decision sneaux-ball
Can we surmise that this increases the likelihood of El Pistolero riding in CdE kit next season? Not having to pay the Ballaverde’s salary gives room in the budget to sign Sr. Alberto.
Brooklyn Chewing Gum: Vlaanderens Mooiste
Exactly as we planned it, or something like that.
It’s like there’s some sort of cycling mafia out there messing with all these coincidences.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
That is the sound I kept making when I read your last two paragraphs. Really perceptive and smart analysis. Thank you.
You see how calm Vaughters is? That’s because he’s really one giant seething ball of Evil inside. With like, extra Evil.
Ok question based on my most recent obsession (the TAS):
Does anyone have a clue what is the precise mechanism by which the UCI wiggles out of the TAS decision here? Is it a matter of them saying “oh we’re mooting that TAS decision because we’re going to apply this ‘other’ sanction (from the French), not the one he appealed (from the Italians)” or is it something else that I’m not seeing? I only wonder because typically TAS has been the last word on these things, and its seeming extremely non-final in this case.
You see how calm Vaughters is? That’s because he’s really one giant seething ball of Evil inside. With like, extra Evil.
That's exactly it
Ricco appealed the Italian decision, now he has to go and appeal the French one too.
what he said.
Sucks to be Riccó in this case, for sure. He spent a bunch of cash lawyering a case in Italy, only to find that he really needed to lawyer up in France. The UCI really should have had it a bit more together on this issue. As a side note, I didn’t know until now that the French had even bothered to sanction Riccó. Go figure.
k thanks to both of you :)
clarity is good for the soul…or something. Johann would know.
And Gav, if you didn’t know that the French had sanctioned Ricco, I wonder if anyone knew… which also makes me wonder whether this ‘sanction’ actually occurred specifically so that the UCI could do this?
You see how calm Vaughters is? That’s because he’s really one giant seething ball of Evil inside. With like, extra Evil.
Well..
The AFLD did sanction the other riders caught during the Tour. But it’s a good point – since the Italians were quick to open a case against Riccó, I don’t remember seeing any mention of a French sanction.
I’ve never actually seen this issue arise before the Tour case – here with Riccó – where two anti-doping authorities threw down competing sanctions on the same rider. Usually, the licensing federation is the country where the anti-doping proceedings go down, and since everyone is working with limited resources, none of the orgs. really go out of their way to open investigations. This is an odd one for sure. In the case of Schumacher, for example, the German anti-doping authorities never opened a case, and the AFLD sanction was applied by the UCI to the rest of the world.
mmm humm.
I have no idea what to add. Color me suspicious that someone decided a ‘test case’ was in order, one where the guilt of the party was never in doubt.
You see how calm Vaughters is? That’s because he’s really one giant seething ball of Evil inside. With like, extra Evil.
yeah both are possible.
L’Equipe does have an archive. Try the ‘rechercher’ box on the front page.
The following produces a number of relevant results, but nothing mentioning an AFLD ban, at least in the summaries. I admit I’m too tired to dig further, but have fun if you’re so inclined.
http://www.lequipe.fr/recherche/search.php?r=ricco+24+mois&submit.x=0&submit.y=0
You see how calm Vaughters is? That’s because he’s really one giant seething ball of Evil inside. With like, extra Evil.
AFLD has a search function
but rider names have been removed from all decisions …
http://www.afld.fr/decisions.php
Searching for “Sanctions” in “Cyclisme” keyword “2 ans” year “2008” gives:
http://www.afld.fr/docs/decision618_2008-64.PDF (rEPO, Plumelec 5 July, 6 Nov 2008)
http://www.afld.fr/docs/decision626_2008-72.pdf (rEPO, Cholet 8 July, 18 Dec 2008)
http://www.afld.fr/docs/decision636_2008.73.pdf (rEPO type Mircera) HTTP error 403 Forbidden = access denied!
http://www.afld.fr/docs/decision637_2008.74.pdf (rEPO type Mircera, Brest 3 July and Pau 15 July, 13 Oct 2008)
http://www.afld.fr/docs/decision630_2009-03.pdf (rEPO type Mircera, Brest 3 July and Pau 15 July, 22 Jan 2009)
http://www.afld.fr/docs/decision635_2009-08.pdf (rEPO type Mircera, Brest 4 July and Lescar 15 July, 26 Jan 2009)
In parentheses: substance detected, sample taken, suspension start. Decisions 2008-74 and 2009-08 were backdated. All got 2 years. Which one is Riccó? I though he was busted for Mircera on 2 occasions one of which was Cholet (the time trial). Perhaps it’s the one I couldn’t access. Decision date was 18 Dec 2008 so unless there was backdating, Riccó is out (of French races at least) until 18 Dec 2010.
There was some different privacy case
this place used to have a full list of all doping cases, but they were forced to take all the names out of the old cases. Nowadays this german site is the best reference, but you can probably still cross reference back with the french stuff should you care to.
It looks like
they dated the sanction from the time of the offense, not the time of the decision. He stopped racing obviously, so there is logical grounds for doing it that way.
Looks like it from where?
From latest UCI mutterings? Because in the AFLD documents I see nothing but: “effective from the moment the rider is informed,” which I generously took as the date of the decision (except the 2 that were backdated, where the from-date was explicitly mentioned).
From the reports at Gazzetta
The reports at Gazzetta had his return date in July of next year. Effective from the moment the rider is informed could mean informed of the positive, not necessarily informed of the sanction, you know?
Could be.
The most logical thing to me would be the date of either informed of positive or stopped competing, whichever came first (in practice always coinciding). I could even imagine: from sample date (but that seems too generous). However, this what they write:
Article 3 – La sanction prononcée à l’article 1er de la présente décision prend effet à
compter de la date de sa notification à M. […] .
I take that as “from the decision date.”
um...
Really, because I read it is: “The sanction pronounced by the first article of the present decision takes effect starting from [à compter de] the date of the notification of M…”
So from the date of notification…
You see how calm Vaughters is? That’s because he’s really one giant seething ball of Evil inside. With like, extra Evil.
Ok, "of its (the sanction's) notification *to* M..."
But still, that turns out to be from the date that so and so was notified of the sanction prescribed by the decision. Right?
Or am I really missing something here?
You see how calm Vaughters is? That’s because he’s really one giant seething ball of Evil inside. With like, extra Evil.
Let's take a look at the dates.
Ricco’s first positive (weren’t there two?) was from July 8 (Stage 4), it was announced by the AFLD on July 17, and his CONI hearing was July 30. He was suspended then, but the duration of the suspension was not announced until October 2.
The original ban was set to end July 30, 2010, 2 years from the hearing. The reduced ban was announced by CAS on March 17, 2009, and would run until March 17, 2010. That looks like 20 months from the announcement of the positive, which cut almost another 2 weeks off of the original ban.
The new (or upholded French) 2-year ban, though, now ends July 17, 2010.
So, different bodies might be reading the rules differently? CONI seems to have gone from the date of hearing, but CAS and either or both the AFLD and UCI from the notification of the positive (or, since he was chucked out of the Tour that day, perhaps that’s also considered last day raced).
Throughout the stage all I kept on thinking was: ‘don’t finish second, you can’t finish second again’.--Heinrich Haussler
AFLD
is going from the notification date of the positive result. Claro. Thanks for doing the digging on that, M.
There is always leeway on this issue, and it is one of the aspects of the sanctioning process, ie, when to start and stop the sanction. In Basso’s case for example, they did some funny math. So, there’s no firm rule on when sanctions have to start.
Er yes, that's what I said, no?
Sanction and decision are subtly different, but you can’t notify the rider of one without the other, so that’s moot.
Anyway, as researched above by majope, apparently the date of the result of the A-sample test is taken as start date of the sanction. So, er, never mind our discussion :)
I think we may have gotten confused about translation...
or I thought you were disagreeing with me. never mind.
You see how calm Vaughters is? That’s because he’s really one giant seething ball of Evil inside. With like, extra Evil.
The hierarchy?
I don’t think that the TAS decision is the final since AFDL and CONI operates on a level below UCI. The TAS decision didn’t involve UCI, so in theory it doesn’t matter to them. But I guess it’s possible that TAS comes to the same conclusion as before if Ricco appeals UCI’s decision.
Staring at the swim team gets you killed by a gang of dancing ninja men who know how to twirl.
by TheFigurehead on Jul 30, 2009 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Careful...
CONI = Italian governing body for Cycling, but really the Italian Olympic Committee
AFLD = French Anti-Doping authority, distinct form French Cycling Federation.
CONI also handles doping stuff. In France, they’re separate. Bans are handed down by a national federation (French Cycling Federation or CONI, depending) and then the UCI takes the documentation and decides whether to confirm the ban and make it universal. Valverde, for example, right now has a ban handed down by CONI, but since the UCI hasn’t determined whether to make it universal, he can still race in Spain.
There are two other extra UCI (or its national federations) players in this scheme though. 1) The WADA, which we saw making an appeal of Tyler Hamilton’s 8 year ban for a second offense. They have jurisdiction, as I learned, because the UCI and its member federations have signed onto the WADA code. 2) The TAS or CAS (Tribunal or Court of Arbitration for Sport), which is typically the court of last appeal for Athletes and other interested parties who don’t like a decision made by a lower agency (The WADA appealed the USA Cycling / UCI decision to give Tyler Hamilton an 8 year ban as opposed to a lifetime ban, for instance, and Ricco appealed his original suspension by CONI, and Valverde has also appealed his suspension by CONI, even before the UCI has ruled whether to universalize it).
If I just screwed any of that up, I’m sure majope or gavia will correct me, but I think that’s the org chart, right?
You see how calm Vaughters is? That’s because he’s really one giant seething ball of Evil inside. With like, extra Evil.
Italian Cycling has its own governing body
Federazione Ciclistica Italiana, but they only deal with organising races and the like, and the only ban I can remember them issuing was to Simeoni over his jersey protest. Italy also has an official Drug Police, NAS, actually recognised as a police force through various international treaties. They were the ones who issued the official request to Spain for samples from the blood bags and copies of the Puerto documents, then they could pass all that on to CONI. They deal with narcotics as well as doping in sports, chasing speedboats from Albania and the like.
Really!
Who knew. So does CONI or FCI issue licenses?
You see how calm Vaughters is? That’s because he’s really one giant seething ball of Evil inside. With like, extra Evil.
Great read
Long time lurker. This is the first article/conversation I’ve felt compelled to comment on. That was a great column/post/editorial gavia. Thanks.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
![This is funny on so many levels. [Html should open bigger]](http://cdn3.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/239959/flagged_small.jpg)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
