- Jan 3, 2011
- 4,594
- 0
- 0
webvan said:
Thats not how it works, though. A rule is a rule, yes, but its a rule from the say its implemented. And it wasnt implemented at the time Contador broke the rules. Say u are speeding and u are fined with a 100 euro fine. The next month they decide to change the law so speeding fines will be 200 euros. U will still only have to pay the 100 euro fine since you violated the rules prior to the change of the fine. And WADA applies the same logic regarding doping bans´:
You ask why not. This is why not:
WADA is pretty clear on that subject in their code article 25.2:
25.2 Non-Retroactive Unless Principle of "Lex Mitior" Applies
With respect to any anti-doping rule violation case
which is pending as of the Effective Date and any antidoping
rule violation case brought after the Effective
Date based on an anti-doping rule violation which
occurred prior to the Effective Date, the case shall be
governed by the substantive anti-doping rules in
effect at the time the alleged anti-doping rule
violation occurred unless the panel hearing the case
determines the principle of "lex mitior" appropriately
applies under the circumstances of the case.
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/code_v2009_En.pdf
Exactly! There are a number of principles that govern law and most importnatly poenal law, such as "nulla poena sine lege" (which freely translates as no punishment without a law). You cannot change the punishment after the violation, because knowing the (new) punishment might have prevented the culprit from breaking that particular rule to begin with.
Regards
GJ
Regards
GJ
Right, but where has it been claimed that the rule was not in place in August 2010? I didn't see Riis say that for sure? He's only whining along the lines of "it's like Messi's goals after a suspension not counting".
Anyway the rule about a 4 year ban from a ProTour team was certainly in place (was part of the charter signed in 2008 or 2009), it's just never been enforced, so maybe he shouldn't push his luck too much...although of course Fat Pat is only really interested in the bottom line while saving appearances so he can't wait to have a money maker back in the peloton.
Anyway the rule about a 4 year ban from a ProTour team was certainly in place (was part of the charter signed in 2008 or 2009), it's just never been enforced, so maybe he shouldn't push his luck too much...although of course Fat Pat is only really interested in the bottom line while saving appearances so he can't wait to have a money maker back in the peloton.
webvan said:
A very quick search got me this link.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-set-to-implement-new-anti-doping-initiative
Although it doesn't say exactly when the rule was implemented, the item is from summer 2011 and talks about implementing the rule shortly.
Regards
GJ
webvan said:
They missed that chance already. The AC case is, as far as AC is concerned, done and dusted. It was a 2-year ban and that's it. Another important principle beneath that ("ne bis in idem", you can't be tried or punished twice for the same offence).
You might not like it, but Riis has a point. Whether he will succesfull with it remains to be seen.
Regards
GJ
So again, where has he made that point about the rule not being in place when Bertie was caught red handed ?
The 4 year ban from a ProTour team is an internal rule of a private entity, I don't see why CAS would have to comment on it, CAS found him to be guilty, the UCI is free to apply the rule if they wish.
The 4 year ban from a ProTour team is an internal rule of a private entity, I don't see why CAS would have to comment on it, CAS found him to be guilty, the UCI is free to apply the rule if they wish.
You are quite right that Riis only said that he will challenge the rule and not on what grounds. That was speculation on our part, but not baseless speculation as you seem to imply. You may not like the point made for a number of reasons, but I haven't seen you post one iota to challenge the validity of the argument made.
As for the four year ban from a pro-team. That just remains to be seen whether or not that can be challenged in front of CAS. It is a punishment and as such it should be open to appeal, specifically since it wasn't part of the punishment demanded (a 2-year ban) or the punishment as handed down by CAS. Must I remind you that the obligation to pay a year's salary in fines was also part of a charter but was succesfully challenged by Vino in front of CAS?
Regards
GJ
As for the four year ban from a pro-team. That just remains to be seen whether or not that can be challenged in front of CAS. It is a punishment and as such it should be open to appeal, specifically since it wasn't part of the punishment demanded (a 2-year ban) or the punishment as handed down by CAS. Must I remind you that the obligation to pay a year's salary in fines was also part of a charter but was succesfully challenged by Vino in front of CAS?
Regards
GJ
But not by Bertie it seems so it must have some good legal basis.
There is really nothing to appeal, CAS found him guilty of breaking the doping rules, UCI can apply the four year rule he agreed to in case he was caught doping, period.
Having said that Fat Pat's approach (bottom line oriented while saving face) means they likely won't go for it...it might still be brought to the table in case Riis and his lawyers push their luck.
As for the "new" points rule, I don't see a problem applying it really. Bertie signs a NEW contract in August-> current rules apply; returning from doping suspension, Yes/No ? Yes -> points don't count for two years, nothing retroactive here.
It's the same 4 year rule really, except it preserves Fat Pat's bottom line ;-)
There is really nothing to appeal, CAS found him guilty of breaking the doping rules, UCI can apply the four year rule he agreed to in case he was caught doping, period.
Having said that Fat Pat's approach (bottom line oriented while saving face) means they likely won't go for it...it might still be brought to the table in case Riis and his lawyers push their luck.
As for the "new" points rule, I don't see a problem applying it really. Bertie signs a NEW contract in August-> current rules apply; returning from doping suspension, Yes/No ? Yes -> points don't count for two years, nothing retroactive here.
It's the same 4 year rule really, except it preserves Fat Pat's bottom line ;-)
webvan said:
Okay, I am done discussing it with if you keep on being obtuse. You refuse to address the points made and just keep on peddling your own ideas driven by an apparent dislike of AC (or dopers in general). Whatever it is, it is painly obvious that you fail to grasp even the simplest of legal principles when they are being discussed, so by all means keep on shouting that Carthage sould be destroyed.
Regards
GJ
You're the one peddling that "retroactive rule" idea, even Riis understands it's not the case. My A+B demonstration shows that a rule cannot be retroactive if it is being applied to a NEW contract, can't you get that. The only thing they can do is take the UCI to court because they think that clause is abusive but that has nothing to do with any "retroactiveness".
If they do that the points will not count until CAS reaches a verdict, which could take a good year at least. We'll see how that goes...
If they do that the points will not count until CAS reaches a verdict, which could take a good year at least. We'll see how that goes...
- Jan 3, 2011
- 4,594
- 0
- 0
webvan said:
It has nothing to do with new contract or anything. All u have to consider is when the rules where implemented and when the violation was done. If it was prior to the implementation of the new rules normal legal terms (including the WADA article linked above) it cannot be enforced. the WADA code article covers that pretty nicely imho. I understand your line of thinking but thats not how it would normally be legally interpreted (and neither would it be fair). Again: if u get sentenced to 2 years in jail for a crime and they afterwards, while u are still in jail, make a new law that makes the punishment for the same crime 4 years, they are not gonna increase your setence with an aditionally 2 years.
The logic behind the whole thing is actually very well summarized by GJB earlier in the thread: "You cannot change the punishment after the violation, because knowing the (new) punishment might have prevented the culprit from breaking that particular rule to begin with." Thats really what u can boil it down to. U might not like it personally, but thats another story all together.
webvan said:
That was an agreement between the teams, not a rule. An agreement they (of course) didn't enforce, which makes it irrelevant already, but more importantly can't be enforced, because it's an additional punishment - which isn't allowed under the WADA-code as well, logically...
Cimber said:
All good points, but with the new contract I still think it can be argued both ways and technically he's not getting punished a second time, it's the team hiring him and only for some internal points system that doesn't even guarantee ProTour status as its "mechanics" are unknown and discretionary (I'm surprised you guys are not taking the UCI to task for that). I think Riis, and his lawyers, know all that, that's why his line of defense is that the rule in itself is abusive...I guess he missed it last year.
webvan said:
Of course the rider himself is being penalised a second time around! because rider points = team points = pro tour license.
Admittedly, points are not the only consideration for pro tour statuts, but they are a very important factor. Without points you’re not contributing towards a place in the pro tour and you’re thus less attractive to potential employers and as a result you’re less well paid, if you manage to find a place at this level at all.
It works exactly as a financial variant to the rule that said “no pro tour for the first 2 years after return from suspension”, that is being mentioned here in the thread, and to which all teams had agreed... until it hit them (and Saxo Bank is acting no different).
If i was a sponsor and being in the pro tour was important to me i would think twice before hiring a rider who can’t score points for 2 years (i.e. for the whole duration of his contract), and if i did i would certainly impose my financial terms.
But this point exclusion thing carries a sanction at athletic level with it as well: seen as his wins don’t translate into points any more, for the greater good of the team, when he comes back Contador would be best employed as a five-star domestic shepherding Sorensen and/or Noval around at the vuelta, San Sebastian, Lombardy etc... checking that they stay on his wheel like a shadow and making sure he doesn’t drop them and they always cross the line together on mountain stages, because every second counts. They’d certainly manage a top 10 here and there and make enough points to remain in the pro tour... If you’re prohibited from scoring points your status as an athlete simply drops.
But now, for Alberto Contador’s salary after 6 months suspension, things might be a little different because people still assume that he’ll win vuelta, giro and tour, in that order, when he comes back.
UCI not impressed with Danish lawyer's opinion, or with the blurbs of our resident legal experts, or maybe they just missed them: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-stands-firm-on-contadors-worldtour-points
- Jan 2, 2010
- 362
- 0
- 9,280
TRENDING THREADS
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 794
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 855
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 40K
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s ITT, September 21- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 942
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram