Two Year Bans for Pellizotti and Caucchioli in Biopassport Cases
by Jen See on Mar 8, 2011 12:40 PM EST
in News
Email
Print
The sports arbitration court (CAS-TAS) in Lausanne announced their decision today in the biopassport cases of Franco Pellizotti and Pietro Caucchioli. Both Pellizotti and Caucchioli will serve two year bans as a consequence of this decision. Maybe it was the hair? Caucchioli will serve two years with a start date of 18 June 2009, when his Lampre team fired him and he stopped competing. Pellizotti's ban dates from 3 May 2010 and the Italian rider will lose all results from 7 May 2009. Pellizotti finished third in the Giro d'Italia in 2009 and won the mountains classification at the Tour de France. Today's decision wipes those results from the record book. The court has not yet released the full text of the decisions. Only a summary is currently available, but both decisions represent significant support for the UCI's biopassport monitoring program.
In the Caucchioli case, the rider appealed to the arbitrators after receiving a two year ban from the Italian anti-doping tribunal. Between 2008 and 2009, the UCI had examined samples from the rider and in June 2009, the organization notified him that they had found evidence of blood doping. Lampre suspended Caucchioli and the Italian authorities soon followed with a two year ban from competition. Caucchioli filed an appeal and argued that faulty lab work had influenced the results of the testing.
In their examination of the case, the court considered Caucchioli's arguments and the validity of the biopassport program. "After a minute examination, the TAS find that the "irregularities" invoked by the rider could not have influeced the results," explains today's summary. The decision also found that variations in the rider's hemoglobin levels could not have resulted from normal physiological changes. The court concluded that these biological changes confirmed blood doping. Banhammer! Caucchioli will be eligible to race on 19 June 2011.
In the Pellizotti case, the Italian anti-doping authorities intially decided to clear him. Though CONI recommended a two year sanction, the final decision from the Italian sports tribunal disagreed. They found that the passport anomalies were not sufficient to confirm doping, and Pellizotti received no sanction. The UCI filed an appeal with the arbitration court. In a confusing twist, Pellizotti also filed an appeal to recover legal fees and lost wages.
The arbitration court ruled forthrightly that Franco Pellizotti committed a doping offense and that the biopassport values confirmed blood doping. By today's decision, the court imposed a two year ban, dating from 3 May 2010. The rider began an provisional suspension on that date. The court also ruled that Pellizotti loses his results back to the date of the offense, in this case 7 May 2009. Consequently, he loses his third place in the 2009 Giro d'Italia and his mountains jersey at the 2009 Tour de France. Carlos Sastre, then riding for Cervélo, placed fourth in the 2009 Giro. Last, but not least, the court ruled that Pellizotti must pay the UCI €115,000 in fines. Pellizotti will be eligible to race on 4 May 2012.
69 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It really concerns me that the Italians Anti-Doping Tribunal thought there wasn't enough evidence
They convicted another rider off of passport evidence, so it’s not they’re anti-bio passport. I just think the bar of evidence needs to be set pretty high when not accompanied by a traditional positive test. Obviously, we’ll never know how the evidence looked for Pellizotti vs. the other guy. I just don’t want to see the concept of strict liability applied to irregular blood values (proving your innocence instead of the anti-doping agencies proving you are guilty)
I am glad that CAS supports the validity of the program in general though.
"Oh man, it’s going to take days to kill all these people!"
The Pellizotti case was odd that way
CONI recommended a two year ban, then the Tribunal reversed it. I never did see the full decision – I couldn’t help but wonder if there was some political influence of some kind involved. But really, I don’t know. The TAS decision here seems pretty unequivocal. I’m hoping they eventually release the full decisions, though, becuase then we will have a better idea of the standards of evidence involved.
"Caucchioli will serve two years with a start date of 18 June 1009"
Those are some long two years.! :o)
Presumably
Pello’s next race is the 2012 Giro? If he has a team. Some low-budget Italian team will jump. Hey, the 2012 Giro… maybe they can crash at Sui Juris’ place?
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Mar 8, 2011 2:07 PM EST reply actions
Or Movistar
I understand he was supposed to join them if CAS hadn’t banned him.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Mar 8, 2011 2:49 PM EST up reply actions
They'll have Piti back in January
Don’t need him anymore.
"Oh man, it’s going to take days to kill all these people!"
harsh but true
"There is nobody doing it for the money. Everybody is doing it because they want to ride bikes." Lizzie Armitstead
Do I have this right for Pellizotti?
Pellizotti’s ban dates from 3 May 2010 and the Italian rider will lose all results from 7 May 2009.
Ban dates from 3 May 2010 because this is when he was notified of the bio-passport results and thus “suspended” – on the eve of last year’s Giro, right?
Then, “will lose all results from 7 May 2009” because they must have seen the evidence of doping from that date forward, huh???
that's the way i take it
"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."
Yeah
The traditional positive model for dating suspensions and stripping results is kind-of awkward in bio-passport cases.
But then again, some traditional positives have no logic in their suspension dates either.
"Oh man, it’s going to take days to kill all these people!"
Full judgement should be an interesting read for this one.
Even if it is in French legalese. :-(
"There is nobody doing it for the money. Everybody is doing it because they want to ride bikes." Lizzie Armitstead
I wonder if the CAS uses a lot of pictures
I can’t read French beyond basic first year stuff, but I’d certainly look at pictures.
That's normal.
The full decisions are typically only available in French. Would I lie to you? ;)
Thanks, I’ll give it a read.
yes
Presumably they explain this in more detail in the full report. And yes, I will read that thing. Because I’m interested to understand the legal basis for the passport decisions.
And on a more spiteful note
I can’t wait to see their dry legalese smack-down of the slovenian panel as they overturn the Valjavec decision. Yes, I know it hasn’t happened yet but I will bet my swedish made penis-enlarger pump it will turn out that way.
How much did you pay for that pump?
In kronor, please.
Jens! Voigt puts the 'laughter' in 'manslaughter'
Hee!
Yes, I’m interested also to see the Valjavec case. Also, did anything ever happen in the Stevic case? Never did see a decision. But maybe I missed it?
Valjavec's is more complicated though
Capt Dotty’s (hey, I can’t call him that now if they take his polka jersey can I? Or does it still count since he did wear it?) was challenging the actual integrity and interpretation of the biopassport overall. Valjavec has stomach issues and medical evidence which suggest a reason for his biopassport fluctuations.
If Dotty had won, it might have been the end for the biopassport. With Valjavec, they could accept his medical evidence without hurting their testing programme.
Could have a point there
I’ve seen the Valjavec panel-report but not the Pelli one so hard to say how well supported his case was.
The Valjavec thing is problematic though since the Passport-experts so clearly dismissed his gastro-issues as an explanation, claiming that it was not possible to perform at the level he did if his problems had been as severe as to affect his values the way they did. If their assessments can be so easily overturned as in the Valjavec case I don’t see how they can have a reasonable chance to produce future convictions based on the current system?
The current system requires more data points before a conclusion for ‘likelihood’ can really be made.
It should be somthing like –
First strange result mandates intensive blood testing with a 2-3 tests performed every week for 3 months.
No suspension
Then the total data can be looked at to better show in indication that someting is up, or maybe the Lower Limit & Upper limits need to be adjusted to better account for ‘human varibility’.
THAT is an example of using basic Statistic Quality Control.
What would Deming do? (+8:00 GMT)
I'm not competent to argue testing protocols with you
Is there a possibility that there is a difference in the interpretation that is possible to make of data in the medical field from the materials/manufacturing field where you work? Statistics are statistics but the subject matter are different. Ashenden seems ardent to point out that the judgements are not based on the pure statistical data but from a medical analysis made by physicians. Does this change the way we should look at it?
I guess to me that is the problem right there.
What I just outlined is basically what Don Catlan advocates.
Increase the Data Points to have more information as this will reduce the need for such analysis.
The real quest is – why not just get more data through intensive testing once a ride shows an abnomality?
This would help everyone involved –
The Rider
The Doctor
The WADA, UCI, ect . . .
What would Deming do? (+8:00 GMT)
You see my scepticism though?
A large group of medical experts say: “based on our expertize it is possible to draw these conclusion with a sufficent amount of certainty” vs. random dude on the internet with good knowledge of statistics and testing (though in a completely different field of science) says" they can’t ".
You see why I tend to side with the former from a laymans perspective?
"In God we trust; all others must bring data." W. Edwards Deming
Not a single ‘expert’ has stated the cause to the medical reason that created the results they did.
They all just basically said his results were not similar to an average human living an average life.
For me, I feel this rubs right up to the edge of mendacious.
What would Deming do? (+8:00 GMT)
don't they say blood manipulation is the cause?
"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."
For both Pellizotti and Caucchioli
yes, they ruled it was blood doping. TAS has not yet ruled on Valjavec, which I believe is what this subthread is about. But I may have lost the plot ;)
I think RL is referring to the fuzzyness in saying how manipulation occurred?
The passport panel can only say that the rider has manipulated, either through transfusions or EPO or similar but can’t specify the method used. I don’t see this as a problem as long as the level of evidence is sufficient (which obviously a great many of the leading experts in the field think), the whole point of the BioP is to find an indirect way to detect it. If there was a test for transfusions we wouldn’t need the program.
+1
I have confidence in the panel of experts and their process. While it is not perfect its not too bad all it needs is targeted testing in all important races as recommended in WADA review of TdF. (I would throw in a very occasional targeted night test)
"More accurately, the principle of Occam’s Razor recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions"
By adding more data, you are actually agreeing with my point.
I’m not saying this expert panel were not capable.
I am saying that I feel they didn’t have enough data to actually review the case in a truly scientific manner.
I honestly feel the basic system is good, but without enough data there is no way it can work properly.
What would Deming do? (+8:00 GMT)
but, cyclists aren't average beings living average lifes.
They all just basically said his results were not similar to an average human living an average life.
"Wizard's first rule. People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true." -- Terry Goodkind
See, that's the problem!
People are using a system that is not actually mature, or managed well enough to really provide a clear likelihood of anything.
Then once somebody actually contests the hack job they are promoting as statistical control, they start with the bullshit press statements that if an athlete does win, then the whole system falls apart.
Which it won’t, but it does need a better methodology in place before possibly destroys other athletes lives.
What would Deming do? (+8:00 GMT)
Could you point to where the UCI says the system falls apart if a ruling is overturned?
Have they actually said that or is it that the analysis that journalists and othe commentators have made? I can’t remember anyone being so categorical . I know they’ve (Gripper lately) said it would be a blow but not that it falls apart?
I totally agree with Gripper as I also think the system will actually get stronger and not weaker if it was really put to the test instead of the charade they are doing right now.
I will try to dig out a quote, but it is always just unprofessional inflamatory news bullshit that some doctor, UCI, WADA, , or whomever says that I ususally tend to just stop reading.
What would Deming do? (+8:00 GMT)
Two Teams
Have Jen Gray
DS Team Name Score ↓
1. Phil H. syringe binge 170
2. duckabell Mighty Ducks 115
There were a lot of fresh cowboys in the peloton and it was a nervous fuss. Tommeke
Silly Dan
Nobody mention it to him and we’ll see how long it takes him to notice
Jens! Voigt puts the 'laughter' in 'manslaughter'
Let's start a pool.
There were a lot of fresh cowboys in the peloton and it was a nervous fuss. Tommeke
"I leave it all behind, I don’t want to know anything more of cycling," Pellizotti said.
"Not because of my age or for the time, even though it’s two years, it’s because I am tired. Even if I came back, cycling would still be the same, poorly managed, with the leadership continuing to do what they want, applying rules as they wish. I was hoping for a lot, I had a lot of patience. They had me waiting one year without racing, now they want me to wait another two. Even though it’s not 100 percent, it’s all but sure I will not come back as a cyclist. I don’t even want to watch the races."
I am very saddened for Pellizotti
While I totally feel the results of his tests that were used in his Biopassport showed some strange things and it would have been prudent to increase the frequency of data points, the direction that has been taken every step of the way was not really firmly based in science.
Rather, instead of using the real value of the Biopassport and build a large amount of data to truly show statistical likelihood, it was chosen to use his blood abnormality as a political tool.
Sadly, the real data shows nothing more then something strange and everything beyond that is purely glib speculation.
It is a real shame how this was all managed
What would Deming do? (+8:00 GMT)
I do not feel
that the biopassport can be perfect – it clearly just gives a mass of statistics and trends which must then be interpreted by ‘experts’. Like courts in the 1930s using ‘experts’ to determine whether someone is telling the truth or not.
In future I hope that it is used for targetted testing, and that tests will be able to trace the likes of EPO, masking agents, but also something similar to this plasticizer test which was mentioned in the speculation surrounding the Contador case. Someone has a bio-passport spike, haul ’em in right away and test them for everything under the moon.
I also don’t understand adding on time at the front of the ban. Media outlets are reporting that this was as an additional punishment, presumably for Pellizotti claiming his innocence and lodging his counter-appeal to cover legal expenses etc. Alternatively it could be that having analysed the bio-passport data fully, experts have claimed to the CAS tribunal that 2nd Qtr 2009 is where the anomalies began, so the tribunal felt that rather than start a ban from the date of the athlete being informed (as is the WADA guidance), it should be from where the evidence shows the offence commenced.
I think though that the first one is more likely, because if it was just semantics of moving the ban start date, the ban end date should also have moved as the ban should be 2 years – May 2009 to May 2011. Essentially Pellizotti has received more or less a 3 year ban. Which is in itself an unfair verdict in my opinion. How much protesting gets you an additional ban? Roger Sentjens denied it for a while before coming clean, and even then in his admission I think it’s clear that he lies about the source of his doping.
When did the biopassport itself begin? I thought it was 2008 – if Pellizotti is being banned based on levels in 2009 and 2010 being iffy, could it not be counter-argued that the levels in 2008 were the ones that were unusual? I just think the bio-passport on it’s own collates a body of information, but then what is done with that info can set dangerous precedents.
They didn't do anything unusual by stripping his results back to date of offense--it's in the rules.
313. Disqualification of Results in Competitions subsequent to Anti-Doping Rule Violation
In addition to the automatic Disqualification of the results in the Competition pursuant to article 288 and except as provided in articles 289 to 292, all other competitive results obtained from the date a positive Sample was collected (whether In-Competition or Out-of-Competition) or other anti-doping rule violation occurred, through the commencement of any Provisional Suspension or Ineligibility period, shall, unless fairness requires otherwise, be Disqualified.
I yearn for the cobbles--Edvald Boasson Hagen
The ISU introduced a passport system in 2009
yet they had blood data on Pechstein going back to the start of 2007, and used it to bust her as early as February 2009. She may have lost more results if the rules had been changed The main data points of the passport are things that were already being tested for. What was new was lining them up and beig allowed to draw conclusions.
At the extreme end the basic 50% hemo tests can themselves be relevant to the passport. CAS has already remarked on the basic simplicity of the tests in comparison to testing for doping agents
That provision is in-in-competition
so that someone who tests positive during the Tour for example but doesn’t have the result of the test or isn’t informed until weeks after, cannot keep the result and rewards from the Tour.
No (assuming that was a reply to me), it's all results from date of violation.
See, for instance, Thomas Dekker, whose results were wiped from December 2007, the date of his sample collection, even though it wasn’t found positive until 2009.
Stage races are covered in 291. If you need to see more, the UCI’s anti-doping rules are available on their webpage.
I yearn for the cobbles--Edvald Boasson Hagen
Yep
Until the decision is seen in full about the only safe assumpiton that can be made is that one ofthe spikes (maybe the only, maybe the earliest of several) in his blood results is in May 2009, and whatever the result from around that time says is enough to be considered a doping offence, and thus the effective date for loss of result purposes.
very sad
for the first time ever, i actually feel for a rider relating to a bio passport/doping case. its just the way its been handled from the moment he/we was informed, which was just before the Giro 2010, when they had proof of abnormalities from the previous years Giro/Tour. They were waiting til the 2010 Giro was about to start on purpose. To me, thats shocking. It was always going to end in tears.
On purpose?
There were a lot of follow up analysis and time given to pellizotti to respond to the initial findings. They probably procrastinated to extratest him too, in hope of getting a clearcut positive test but the aim was 100% to at least have him sidelined as the GT season started. This is entirely in line with what the race-organizers have requested, that riders known to be questionable are pulled before the races rather than after when they have affected the race-results.
Also in response to earlier comments
if he did come back, the likelihood is it would be with a ProConti italian squad. If he doesn’t end up on Pat’s blacklist (which apparently doesn’t exist but clearly does in some form).
Presuming he comes back in 2012, Zomegnan has already shown he won’t have banned riders back in their first year. He wouldn’t invite that ProConti team, or perhaps insist a certain rider doesn’t participate. I fully expect him to try and keep The Di Luca out of his race this year.
Yes, I think it was totally on pourpose . . .
. . . just to simply create some news on how the UCI is ‘tough on doping’.
How this has been handled is anything but professional, or respectful to the person being investigated.
Regardless of the possibility of Innocence or Guilt.
What would Deming do? (+8:00 GMT)
Timings probably have as much to do
with all nine members of the panel being required to make the decision to recommend disciplinary action is started, and that this is scheduled, according to reports, twice a year. Hence actions have been started in batches.
The UCI copped loads of innuendo last year that they were ignoring reports from groups of three members of the panel and delaying action etc, when it turned out this was just part of the procedures followed and only reports of the full group of 9 lead to cases.
They would have copped loads more if they had let him ride, then started the actions etc, and it turned out the 9 man panel report was already in before the race had started.
BP Process questions
Please have a look at this summary on page 90 of downloaded report. Great discussion after it. Martin Hardie is the Author/editor of this excellent report.
While not perfect it has a range of checks and balances built in.
Thanks To andrewp for making me aware of this.
"More accurately, the principle of Occam’s Razor recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions"
O/T (relevant to the AC case)
Recent CAS case of Gibb (UK wheelchair basketball athlete) is worth a read if these things are your bag.
Gibb case goes to the very heart of AC case as it is primarily an in depth look at the case law on “establishing” how a substance enters the athletes body.
Doesn’t knock the AC case out of the water totally (e.g. Gasquet “established” it was a kiss) but does illustrate the difficulty of the task ahead when athlete lacks actual physical evidence.
Interesting
Just had a glance but based on this ruling I wonder how Colo got his suspension reduced to 1 year? The conditions for a reduced suspension are applied rigorously in this case. There seems to be an inconsistant approach. What evidence did Gasquet provide?
"More accurately, the principle of Occam’s Razor recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions"
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Podium Cafe
Related FanShots on Podium Cafe
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Celebrate the Giro d'Italia at Podium Cafe!
Check our Giro Section for race updates, on-the-scene reports, and other hijinx.
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
