Originally Posted by doperhopper
Ferrari would probably pass even the polygraph test if allowed to choose carefully his claims.
1. "I've never seen any doping practice from LA" - truth - sure, it's enough that he looked elsewher when LA took something
2. "He (LA) never asked me informations or... about doping" - truth - LA did not need to ask, MF just told him what to do
In the interview he does not appear to be trying to pick legal nits, or carefully choosing words as suggested above.
He says several times in a variety of ways "nothing to do with doping"
He also says they are considering US legal action against USADA which could prove interesting if it is happens and is more than an empty threat.
I do not know whether doctors who attach to riding teams have UCI "approval" or enter into an agreement with UCI or other federations? , I have not heard of such agreements. The "teeth" that USADA have over riders stems from their license agreements with federations and carries the obligation to use arbitration and USADA process.
If Ferrari has no cycling "license" he is free to use the US courts to attack USADA using all available legislation such as defamation, restraint of trade etc etc. which will demand normal evidential standards.
It is not the first time an athlete has gone against federations in open court - years ago Butch Reynolds took the US federation all the way to supreme court and won. In cycling Heras has done so and won in spain.
It will make for interesting times if Ferrari does it.