Italian cyclist Ricardo Riccò, who tested positive for CERA (a third-generation EPO drug) while competing at the 2008 Tour de France, has filed an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Riccò’s appeal seeks a reduction in the two-year ban that Italy’s anti-doping agency handed him in the wake of his positive test this summer. Riccò contends that his co-operation with authorities should be factored in to his punishment.
According to a statement released by the CAS earlier today, as a general rule the agency tries to release a judgment within four months from the date that an appeal is filed. Some cases, however, can take longer. So, although an arbitration panel might rule as soon as the middle of March 2009, there is no guarantee that a ruling will be issued at that time.
Riccò, after news of his positive test result broke, at first proclaimed his innocence, but changed his tune after meeting with CONI officials two weeks later. After he admitted to having used CERA, the cyclist named his supplier (Dr. Carlo Santuccione) and eventually went on to criticize the anti-doping tests. Speaking about his supplier, Riccò said:
“I have not paid, naturally. Santuccione assured me you could not be found positive. So I did not give him the money.”
After Riccò met with CONI officials, he spoke to the media:
“I came here and I have explained the error I made, I think you all know 13 days ago the position that I was in, I think I have made a good gesture for everyone to have admitted my mistakes,” Ricco told reporters.
The 24-year-old also warned that testing procedures needed to be looked at.
“During the tour they made a lot of tests, they made 10 tests in about 13 legs, two were positive and in fact in theory all the tests should have been positive therefore the method needs to be checked,” he said.
Riccò originally received a 20-month ban, which was later increased to two years — the standard suspension for a first doping offense. It’s that suspension that he is asking the CAS to reduce to a shorter term.
Ricardo Riccò was one of four riders who tested positive for banned substances during the Tour, itself. Three of those riders (including Riccò) tested positive for EPO or CERA. Three other riders — Leonardo Piepoli (a teammate of Riccò’s), Stefan Schumacher and Bernhard Kohl — came up positive for CERA on later retesting of samples taken during the fabled three-week race.
An interesting ploy, but I wonder how sound. I am not aware (correct me if I am wrong) that it is codified that one gets a reduced sentence for “cooperating”. I know that it is somewhat SOP in the US to plea bargain for a reduced sentence/lesser charge, either in return for testimony against others or simply to cut case load, but I have never heard of someone appealing a normal sentence on such grounds.
How common is it to reduce the 2 year ban in exchange for cooperation? I could see maybe if it was very common to grant such that maybe he might have a case that he is being unfairly singled out, but my impression is that there have not been that many cases where the ban has been reduced for such a reason.
William,
I believe the World Anti-Doping Code and/or the UCI’s rules provide some possibilities for reducing a suspension if the athlete cooperates with the investigation. But in those few cases that have occurred, it’s been cooperation that brought down other (usually bigger) fish, or cooperation that’s bolstered a relatively weak case against such a big fist and made it much stronger. I’m not aware of who else (besides Dr. Santuccione) that he might have implicated. The only one that comes to mind is Piepoli, but he was already under suspicion. It’s not like that would have been a new revelation, or that they wouldn’t have caught him without Riccò’s help.
I think it comes down to the old adage “would you do something wrong if you knew you wouldn’t get caught?” The answer to that question says volumes about a persons ethics and integrity. I think it’s laughable that Ricco’s attitude is that he deserves a reduced suspension because he cooperated. He named the supplier. Geez, goody goody for him! He should be up for sportsman of the year! What a great guy!
What a load of horse-hooey! Not only did he CHOOSE to cheat, but then he didn’t even PAY for it, like it’s the Dr’s fault that he got caught! (news flash Mr. Ricco….you got caught cuz YOU CHEATED!) I don’t think he even realizes what he did is wrong! Naming the source is his way of cooperating, after initially LYING and claiming innocence!
I think if it’s within their power, the CAS should go for the lifetime ban in lieu of the 2 year ban. The peleton would be better off without someone of that character (in my opinion). He has the morals of a snake. Funny..isn’t his ‘nickname’ “the Cobra”? Hmm..how fitting.
That point is: while it may be possible for a reduced sentence in exchange for cooperation, it doesn’t seem to be mandatory. Rather it is up to the discretion of the sentencing authorities, who can weigh things such as the value of whatever “cooperation” was extended, the number and severity of offenses, etc. So WADA or whoever looks at the details of Ricco’s case and decides he doesn’t rate a reduced sentence. What basis does he have for an appeal? If there were numerous cases similar to his where reduced sentences were handed out, I could see it. But such reduced sentences seem to be rare. Or if they had indeed decided in a harsher than usual sentence because they didn’t like the way he parts his hair. But he got the standard sentence for a first violation. Remember, there have been several past cases where 2 years bans were reluctantly handed down for inadvertant and/or trivial violations because the panels felt their hands were tied by the regulations.