Italian rider Giampaolo Caruso has tested positive for EPO in an out of competition sample taken more than three years ago – and as the second rider from Katusha to test positive for a banned substance in a little more than a month, the Russian team could be looking at a suspension from racing of up to 45 days.
The sample for which the 35 year old, who has been with Katusha since 2010, tested positive was taken on 27 March 2012 and according to the UCI “had been stored and was reanalysed in light of new scientific developments.”
The governing body, which has provisionally suspended Caruso pending analysis of his B sample, did not say why the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation had retested the specific sample, which can be stored for up to 10 years according to current rules.
With Luca Paolini having tested positive for cocaine during the Tour de France, under rules introduced at the start of this year, any team with two riders returning an adverse analytical finding (AAF)within 12 months can face a suspension from racing of between 15 and 45 days.
– Katusha's Luca Paolini tests positive for cocaine
The first team to be sanctioned in this way was the Italian UCI Professional Continental outfit Androni Giocattoli-Sidermec, which was suspended for 30 days last month after samples from two riders tested positive for banned substances in June.
– UCI to suspend Androni Giocattoli-Sidermec after second rider tests positive
When the UCI announced the second of those AAFs, it said in its press release that it would ask its Disciplinary Committee to suspend the team in accordance with those new rules.
It has not yet said whether it will seek a similar sanction against Katusha, which will be led by Joaquim Rodriguez, who is due to lead it in the Vuelta which starts on Saturday.
Katusha is also a member of the Movement for Credible Cycling (MPCC) whose rules require that members suspend themselves in the event of a second rider testing positive within 12 months, but the samples must have been collected within that period.
The UCI rules introduced at the start of this year do not have any such qualification, although the governing body has said it will make no further comment until analysis of Caruso’s B sample.
Caruso had been due to ride in the Vuelta, and referring to his positive test, Katusha said that it “would like to underline that this news comes as a complete shock.”
It’s the second positive test of the Italian’s career. During the 2003 Tour Down Under, which he rode with ONCE-Eroski, he tested positive for the anabolic agent, nandrolone after winning Stage 5 of the race.
– Tour Down Under criticised for silence on Armstrong AND keeping quiet over 2003 stage winner's positive test
Caruso, who was also implicated in Operacion Puerto but ultimately cleared of involvement in the Spain-based doping ring by the Court of Arbitration for Sport, was only officially stripped of that Tour Down Under stage victory in 2012.
Add new comment
6 comments
Where can I meet him and throw some piss in his face!
Yea but at this point. these bans are not working. These riders are more than willing to take a 45 day ban if it means that they will win or promote in that race and make the money. At this point it needs to be life time bans. Riders will never take ban seriously unless they are banned outright, just like Armstorng. He never took it seriously until after he was banned for life. Now it is nothing but crying.
Start with life time bans and you will see these people wise us and figure out they can not afford the EPO if they can not race.
The 'two adverse findings within 12 months' rule seems rather arbitrary when the authorities can choose when to conduct tests on samples going back 10 years. Two adverse findings on samples taken within 12 months of each other would be a bit more within the teams control.
I'm not defending the team here (I think their history has some question marks), a sample from 2012 can't be considered the same as a fresh test, causing the team to be suspended? Surely?
It would be interesting to know why they re-tested it too. Obviously some kind of suspicion there.
I don't see why not. Why should they avoid the suspension just because a rider doped when it wasn't discoverable with scientific methods available at the time?
Second offence? Bye bye, Caruso. Your services are no longer required or wanted in this sport.