Fiets.nl

Karl66 schreef: ↑22 jun 2018 11:20 De Vuelta raakt hij toch kwijt, dus die prestatie van drie of vier op een rij verdwijnt in ieder geval uit de geschiedenisboekjes.

Karl66 schreef: ↑22 jun 2018 15:00 Oké Timo, speciaal voor jou: "Ik verwacht dat hij de Vuelta wel kwijt zal raken, want ik denk dat er geen plausibele reden is waarom zo hoog testte." Kan jij vannacht ook weer rustig slapen.

Al had ik gehoopt dat jij wel het verschil zou snappen tussen de hoop dat iemand door een rechter, op basis van wetgeving veroordeeld wordt of vinden dat iemand maar zonder rechtszaak en zonder basis in de wetgeving maar bij voorbaat gestraft moet worden...

timo2.0 schreef: ↑22 jun 2018 15:04 Maar waar zijn al die advocaten van Sky dan al negen maanden mee bezig?

Karl66 schreef: ↑22 jun 2018 16:12 Als de advocaten een gaatje gevonden hadden, dan was de zaak binnen de kortste keren opgelost, dan was er namelijk geen reden om te rekken.

It’s an unusual case I suppose, both in terms of length and in terms of substance. One of the things that people think about with doping cases is this principle of strict liability. In other words, once someone tests positive the presumption is that they’re at fault. But actually what the Froome case reminds us is that, at first instance, the sports body and their testing agency must prove that there’s been a positive test.

This is the interesting thing with Froome … we’ve gone right back to the fundamentals of the issue where he’s saying that the case against him is not proved. And the reason for the delay seems to be that these are pretty complex scientific arguments and a lot of documentation and validation is needed. Therefore there has been a lengthy process through the UCI’s independent arbitrary process.

Usually when these instances occur the rider in question is provisionally suspended but the nature of the substance here means that he’s not provisionally suspended. Therefore he is, in strictly legal terms, allowed to ride and allowed to pursue his career. And what we have then is the process occurring in parallel to that.

What’s going to be interesting now is that the Tour de France organisers, ASO … has a provision in its regulations which says that it can refuse to invite a person if they feel this will undermine the reputation of the race. They’ve said they may well invoke it against Froome, so that’s going to present a really interesting legal dilemma for all involved.

[...]

It seems to be a very technical argument now about the sensitivity of the test. The precedent on this, from what I can see, is not good for Froome in the sense that the test has been around for quite a long time. So this is going to be a very difficult argument for him to make, I would think.

Normally in these cases the athlete almost admits strict liability and tries to mitigate the sentence. But here we seem to be going back to the very first basics which is going to be very very difficult for Froome. But obviously he has the resources, and the legal team think they have the argument.