Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,245 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Only Di Luca shocked ... He thought he was the only rider getting the "Special" sauce on the team :rolleyes:

Joining Di Luca from the Vini Fantini-Selle Italia team to be caught using EPO.

So ... Team wide doping stopped back in 2006, Riders in general stopped doping and the field was suddenly clean. So much for that line of crap! :)

Santambrogio suspended by UCI for EPO positive
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,906 Posts
I thought the team's denunciation of DeLuca after his positive test smelled funny. I'd bet the whole team is rotten.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
750 Posts
What I recall was Scinto (team director) threw the sponsor under the bus when Di Luca's positive broke. Scinto claimed he didn't want Di Luca on the team but had his hand forced by Vini Fantini's chief who is a Di Luca fan and apologist. One has to wonder if Di Luca coming on board led to this also? Di Luca's out-of-comp control was a week or something before the Giro and Santambrogio's was the first day so from a timing perspective it could easily have been Di Luca that was the source of EPO for Santambrogio.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,642 Posts
How could the team director not know what is going on :rolleyes:?
"It's the end of our project," Scinto said.

"What can I say, I'm stunned. I defended him more than any other rider because right from the start in Naples there were really bad rumours going around about him. I didn’t want to believe him and more than once I talked to him face to face. He said: 'It's only jealously, don’t worry but you can't keep asking me questions because they're offensive'."

Call me naive, but I'm not so sure that I'd claim to have been "stunned" in light of what followed that statement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
625 Posts
Di Luca's out-of-comp control was a week or something before the Giro and Santambrogio's was the first day so from a timing perspective it could easily have been Di Luca that was the source of EPO for Santambrogio.
hmmm, in each case I wonder why they were allowed to keep racing for so long after the positive? :idea:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
750 Posts
hmmm, in each case I wonder why they were allowed to keep racing for so long after the positive? :idea:
Good question - assuming a couple days transport to get samples to the lab, and then another couple days to perform the testing, do the paperwork, and so forth it would seem possible to know within a week of a sample being taken if it was positive. For sure within the 3 week timeframe of a grand tour.

I suspect the UCI and GT organizers/promoters have a gentleman's agreement to wait until after the racing is completed before going public with positives. There is probably more damage to the race's image when you have a perp-walk taking place at the depart village during sign-in like happened in the past (Ricco, etc). Also, if a positive comes up during the race the team then feels compelled to abandon the race. Since the other assumed clean riders on that team are racing for valuable worldtour points it really sucks for the riders that are clean to get pulled from a race because some dirtbag decided to dope.

There might be some other wrinkles to this also, but I would guess Di Luca's result came back right around the grand depart and Santambrogio's a week or so into the race, so they held off on both. The delay between the two I can't explain, other than maybe to establish plausible deniability that the results weren't known until a month after the samples were taken - in other words since the samples were taken a week or so apart the UCI spaced out the announcements accordingly.

EDIT: Now that I think about it - was Di Luca's announced on the rest day? That blows my theory I guess somewhat - although a rest day is probably better than a racing day.
 

·
Bianchi-Campagnolo
Joined
·
3,902 Posts
Weird thing is that I think of Scinto as one of the good guys. Obviously Vin Fantini is not as slick an operation as Sky. Scinto was forced to take on Di Luca and Garzelli (who had a very quiet final Giro - maybe he was not on the juice), but I don't know about Santambrogio, who with his previous teams was a domestique who fell back halfway up the high mountains. Santambrogio also fell back during the third week. No rest day bag, perhaps?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,103 Posts
Weird thing is that I think of Scinto as one of the good guys. Obviously Vin Fantini is not as slick an operation as Sky. Scinto was forced to take on Di Luca and Garzelli (who had a very quiet final Giro - maybe he was not on the juice), but I don't know about Santambrogio, who with his previous teams was a domestique who fell back halfway up the high mountains. Santambrogio also fell back during the third week. No rest day bag, perhaps?
Rest day bags may be detectable in that the depressed reticulocyte production will be detectable without EPO microdosing, which may in itself be detectable. It seems to be that these clowns were doping up prior to the race and hoping for the best. As their levels dropped back down to normal their performance dropped.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
625 Posts
There might be some other wrinkles to this also, but I would guess Di Luca's result came back right around the grand depart and Santambrogio's a week or so into the race, so they held off on both. The delay between the two I can't explain, other than maybe to establish plausible deniability that the results weren't known until a month after the samples were taken - in other words since the samples were taken a week or so apart the UCI spaced out the announcements accordingly.
I think a case can be made that the continued participation of both riders had an impact on the outcome of the standing. It was an EPO fueled Santambrogia that towed Nibali on stage 14, to put the first significant time gap into Evans. No shocker that at key points Vini Fantini looked to be riding for Nibali, but now that the EPO positives are coming in, it puts a different spin on things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,085 Posts
I think a case can be made that the continued participation of both riders had an impact on the outcome of the standing. It was an EPO fueled Santambrogia that towed Nibali on stage 14, to put the first significant time gap into Evans. No shocker that at key points Vini Fantini looked to be riding for Nibali, but now that the EPO positives are coming in, it puts a different spin on things.
No doubt.

BTW, isn't it a little alarming/annoying it's taking so long to get results back?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
750 Posts
I think a case can be made that the continued participation of both riders had an impact on the outcome of the standing.
Agreed - I have noticed however a lot less spectacle the last couple years in terms of dope positives and raids during the grand tours. Just saying I suspect the UCI and promoters could have a mutual interest in keeping the conversation about the racing during the race, as opposed to the headlines being all about dope. It wouldn't be the first time the powers that be put moneyed interests ahead of fair competition...
 

·
Anphaque II
Joined
·
6,176 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,020 Posts
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top