Italian anti-doping authority opens investigation into Mario Cipollini

Nick T wrote:

In these he-said-she-said cases, there's just some words flung about with no proof from either side...

It's not a "he said she said" case though.

The Gazzetta has what it says is proof, documentation seized from Fuentes by the Guardia Civil, copies of which its Madrid correspondent has obtained, and images of which it has published in the print edition in recent days. It looks like pretty damning stuff.

In Cipollini's case, the notes, said to be in Fuentes's hand include the very same phone number Italian journalists would use to contact the cyclist at the time in question.

In Basso's case, the notes, again said to be written by Fuentes, include the codename - that of his dog, Birillo - which Basso himself has admitted was how he was identified by Fuentes.

There's another point to consider. Yes, the Gazzetta wants to sell more papers. But it is also owned by the company that owns the Giro d'Italia.

I'd be surprised if the decision to run the stories wasn't made at group level - if you are in effect casting doubt on the legitimacy of the most successful stage winner in the history of the Giro, and the most recent home rider to have won it twice - both two of the biggest stars of Italian cycling of the last two decades - you don't do it lightly, especially if there is also a potentially damaging impact on the race you own.

Ciaran Patrick wrote:

A newspaper makes a headline with only supposition and a headlines to affect there bottom line and every one assumes given the nature of this he is guilty.

If he did or didn't dope irrelevant, I have as much time for dopers as I do papers dragging up old cyclists and saying they dopers.

The other thing that made me laugh was the idea of being taken to court with no one saying here is evidence however small.

Anyone fancy there time in court because one of your friends told the press that you maybe did something illegal.

To be fair to the Gazzetta dello Sport, their story is based on much more than supposition.

If the documentation they published in recent days is what they say it is - and I think there's a pretty strong case that it is, and their lawyers must be 100 per cent certain to have let it go to print in the form it did - then it's less a case of a smoking gun and more one in which the bullet is still spinning out of the barrel.

I don't think CONI would have opened a file if it didn't believe there was a case to answer. Worth remembering also that were it not for CONI's persistence, Valverde would never have served a ban - the Spanish authorities weren't exactly falling over themselves to prosecute that case.