DiLuca Case: WTF?

by Chris... on Aug 7, 2007 7:05 PM EDT in News Comment 15 comments

Can someone explain this to me?

Pescara investigating judge Maria Michela De Fine had already pursued the shelving on July 12, accepting the request from prosecutor Andrea Papalia. In the coming days the second shelving is likely to occur and, according to La Gazzetta dello Sport, it is likely to happen soon as the Italian judicial system breaks for its August vacations.

Like I've said, when I wake up to CN headlines that DiLuca has been proven guilty, then I'll feel moved to think about this. Until then, it's pretty hard to tell whether anything is actually going on.

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

wtf?

Do they just babel and go there these days? That made no sense.

The criminal investigation of Diluca's involvement with Santuccione was dropped in July. The procura said that it could not be proven that Diluca had used illegal substances in his relationship with Santuccione. The judge de Fine agreed. CONI, however, has not ruled on the evidence yet. It is expected that Torri will release his report in September; he is currently on vacation (or will be soon.) Unconfirmed rumors have it that Torri will ask for a three month suspension on the grounds that Diluca was working with a Dr who was then suspended. Santuccione was suspended for five years for a previous offense from working in cycling.

The second case is based upon investigations from the criminal antidoping authorities. This investigation is from 2006, and has apparently uncovered a blood doping ring using a hospital in Teramo. The network was reportedly denounced by an anonymous witness. It is apparently a big deal involving athletes from numerous disciplines. Puerto with an Italian accent. The procura in Pescara (I did not make that up, I promise) has requested that the case against Diluca be archived on the grounds that he is not "criminally relevent." Papalia - the judge in this case - has not yet ruled on this request, but is expected to grant it. Neither has CONI. See above about the vacation thing.

For now, nothing will really happen until September most likely. There are no criminal charges being filed, and we won't know until Torri is done lying around on the beach whether the sporting authorities will act. He's free to ride, and you're free to ignore the headlines ;-)

(Sources for all this are Gazetta and sportpro.it)

by gavia on Aug 7, 2007 7:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

wtf #2? Similar Citations

Vastly Different Treatment

Consider if you may ...

OP Document 3 mentions Dariuz Baranowsky, Joseba Beloki, Gianpaolo Caruso, Alberto Contador (...) among other riders. Likewise, document 55 also mentions Caruso's name, "55 (CARUSO) and 58 (KOLDO GIL) with references to "IDEM ANDERLE", [René ANDRLE] whose program (doc. 11) indicated EPO consumption as cited in the OP documentation."

* Whereas RFEC and the UCI see no link Between Contador and Fuentes and let him ride the Tour, the Italian Olympic committee (CONI) suspends Caruso for two years.

Then please consider, what a difference a year makes ...

Document 24 refers to Jörg Jaksche and a doping program consisting of EPO, anabolic steroids, growth hormone, IGF-1, coordinated with a program of extractions, reinjections, and analysis.

Likewize, in document 31 annotations with the title "INDIVIDUALIZACIÓN" are located in which different riders from team LIBERTY are identified by his initials: RH (Roberto HERAS), MS (Marcos SERRANO), JB (Joseba BELOKI), IG (Igor GONZÁLEZ), AV (Ángel VICIOSO), JJ (Jorg JAKSCHE), AD (Allan DAVIS), L. (without identifying), AC (Alberto CONTADOR).

In addition, in that same document there are the initials A. C. next to instructions that say: "Nothing or equal to J. J.". Soooo . . .

* May, 2006: Documents alleged to detail the doping activities of more than 58 cyclists were also found, leading to the immediate suspension of several high-profile riders, Ivan Basso, Jan Ullrich and Francisco Mancebo, citing among them Alberto Contador. A year later ...
* July 26, 2007: Referring to the same documents, "In no way could the name of Contador be related to the customers of Mr. Fuentes", claims Patrice Clerc.

Is this equal treatment under what law? What "principle" are we trying to apply here? What ultimately happened to these "doping investigations"? What a croc!

BOTTOM LINE: The smoke and confusion surrounding all these investigations suggests to me the doping problem is currently well beyond the will and ability of the anti-doping agencies to control.

by Rydr1 on Aug 8, 2007 1:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Can't make heads or tails

of this sometimes.

In May 2006, police raids discovered 100's of bags of frozen blood, some containing EPO, thousands of doses of steroids and blood transfusion equipment. Documents alleged to detail the doping activities of more than 58 cyclists were also found, leading to the immediate suspension of several high-profile riders, Ivan Basso, Jan Ullrich and Francisco Mancebo, citing among them Alberto Contador.

The next month, July 2006, 5 riders including Cantador, "all received a written document officially clearing them of any links to the ongoing Operación Puerto . . . There are not any type of charges against them nor has any legal action been taken against them," reports the newspaper El Diario Vasco.

Subsequently, the UCI asks the respective national federations to start, "disciplinary proceedings to be started in accordance with the rules." The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority clears Davis. Moreover, the Madrid court in charge of the case tells the Spanish cycling federation (RFEC) that court documents could not be used in the federation's investigations. By October, the judge goes so far as to even clear Ullrich and Basso, "who were put under investigation without proof of involvement." Then RFEC suspends its investigation.

In December, 2006, the judge questions Contador for barely 10 minutes, at which time he denies he knowing Fuentes and refuses to submit to DNA testing. Finally, even Fuentes is cleared and the case is dropped when it was determined that there was, "a lack of evidence that a crime was committed under Spanish law."

RFEC requires no cyclist to submit DNA samples and none but Ullrich's of the 150-200 blood bags originally discovered is ever tested.

Upon closer investigation, http://www.sueddeutsche.de/sport/weitere/artikel/939/124756/ , it appears Contador might have been "cleared" because he agreed to act as a witness against other riders (such as Jörg Jaksche, who now appears to be outing Contador), that certain documents were sealed in exchange for his testimony against Dr. Fuentes and other clients, and that the UCI has been denied access to certain key documents such as document #31.

Werner Franke said "Document 31" details what banned substances Contador received from Fuentes and has forwarded the document to WADA. Jaksche says he is willing to testify for WADA, but never directly witnessed Contador taking any banned drugs. http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20070804/ca_pr_on_sp/cycle_contador_doping

by Rydr1 on Aug 8, 2007 1:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Spanish Law

I don't believe you've actually committed s crime under current Spanish law (with regard to doping) unless you've slept with the doping controllers wife. I believe CONI follows a similar legal framework. French Law stipulates that to be considered a doping violation you must have slept with someone's wife.

by paolo on Aug 8, 2007 8:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Okay now

It's starting to make sense!

At first, I thought the doping investigations used the Stableford method of scoring like they do in golf. You know, first you pick the winner and then you make the score come out. Then I thought if you were on a soccer team or track team you were above the law. Then I thought, well if you were a celebrity, or on the home team, or there was a lot of money involved, then you couldn't say or do anything.

Nah. Leave to the French, "Cherchez la femme!"

by Rydr1 on Aug 8, 2007 10:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Separate from Puerto

The Diluca stories are separate from Puerto. Oil for Drugs preceded Puerto and is centered on Santuccione an Italian doc. The second investigation is of a blood doping network uncovered over the past year. There isn't too much info available but it seems to be separate from the Fuentes network.

My wtf wasn't really about the actual cases against Diluca; it was in response to the really garbled and confused explanation given at CN. Like, say what?

Puerto is a mess, and the Spanish inaction is disquieting to say the least. Maybe Contador and Valverde are innocent, but there has been no serious effort to determine it and plenty of reasons to believe that they deserve the same fate as Basso and Scarponi. That there is an absence of political will in Spain to prosecute doping and sporting stars is fairly clear, and that inaction is opening up a widening rift in cycling, since France, Germany, and increasingly Italy are for various reasons intent on sanctioning doping in sport. The result is what one Italian journo dubbed "justice at two speeds."

As of today, WADA is apparently opening an investigation of Contador based upon the Franke documents and the testimony of Jacksche. We'll see what, if anything, comes of that.

by gavia on Aug 8, 2007 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

My point was aimed more at "garbled and confused" inconclusive / worthless investigations and "two standards -- no standards" of justice.

I'm sure I sound negative and frustrated (`cause I am. Sorry!). Clean this sport up! Gaagh!!

Thanks :-)

by Rydr1 on Aug 8, 2007 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

totally

It's way frustrating.

I'm striving for the half-full perspective. At least someone is doing something. Better than nothing. Or something ;-)

by gavia on Aug 8, 2007 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe with this latest AC flap

THEN we will have hit bottom, things will improve and we can all laugh.

I'll keep filling up my glass, at least to the half way point!

Keepin' the faith.

by Rydr1 on Aug 9, 2007 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

sort of off topic

but Bonds apparently just broke the home run record using his massive performance enhanced muscles. I just got to watch the cool celebratory fireworks display right out my office window while I work late and feel sorry for myself.

Team Bobke's Spleen - Who wants to be stranded with a flat tire?

by Jimbo... on Aug 8, 2007 12:00 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Fun!

Bonds' case is making me pretty irritated. ESPN can't stop talking about doping, as if Bonds invented it. What they don't get that we do is that you can't single out individuals w/o considering the larger context. Why can't they just say Bonds is part of a different era, may or may not be part of the problem, and his record stands? It's not the same as breaking the record in old times, but I don't understand the angst everyone's having.

Oh, and don't get me started on Selig.

Got a problem? Va fa Napoli!

by Chris... on Aug 8, 2007 1:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Irritating, perhaps,

more like comical to me at this point. As I've discussed before, I used to spend lots of time in weight rooms and witnessed 1st hand the prevalence of steroid use in college athletics. 25 years ago I watched players in the lockeroom shoot each other up regularly before and after workouts and speak openly, even give advice to anyone that asked, about "cocktail" scheduling and availability. I can only imagine that that kind of boldness and arrogance, the thinking that athletes are above reproach, is 10-fold in the pros. I doubt there exists a pro athlete in America that hasn't been a witness to the same behavior, and any serious sports journalist who has spent any time around lockerooms should be just as aware of this crap.

by Scott. on Aug 8, 2007 10:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Cream and the Clear

For an excellent look at what Bonds has been up to take a look at, Game of Shadows, by Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, which details Bonds' steroid use. Extracts are also available in the March 13, 2006 issue of Sports Illustrated, http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/baseball/mlb/03/06/news.excerpt/index.html

I say we don't include him in the record books. It tarnishes everybody else's efforts and rewards cheaters even if by only drawing attention to them. Same goes for the TdF jersey winners as far back as we have good records and reasonable grounds for suspicion. For the glory of the sport and the integrity of the Tour!

I'm tired of trying to figure out who the real heroes are and recomputing winners and losers. It really takes the fun out of watching the sport for me with all these nagging doubts.

by Rydr1 on Aug 8, 2007 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs