Re: Re:
Benotti69 said:
sniper said:
also interesting to recall (per Dirtyworks' earlier postings) that Rigozzi, Contador's lawyer in the Clen-case, was chosen by Cookson to replace Verbiest.
So Cookson replaced one dopers-lawyer with the other.
Then Rigozzi gets to chose the members of the 'independent' CIRC panel.
Saugy, Zorzoli, Rigozzi.
Cookson likes his Swiss.
It really stinks doesn't it. These people are more suited to the mafia than sport.
Just because Rigozzi was
one of AC's lawyers in the clen case, you cannot assume the lawyer is unsympathetic to anti-doping. I am a retired trial lawyer and I have argued loud and long in the Clinic, that AC's clen case should not have resulted in an adverse CAS finding (to much criticism, derision and cynicism). But that is because I see AC's case through the legal lens and not the moral lens.
AC had a lot of good legal arguments to make and that's what lawyers do. They advocate a legal point. That has nothing to do with their personal views on issues such as doping. I defended a slug of murderers but that doesn't mean I am in favour of murder. Lawyers have a moral duty to be frank, candid and honest with the court or the tribunal about the facts and the legitimacy of their legal arguments. But it is not their job to wag their finger at the 10 nanograms or so, of clen in AC's system in the litigation context.
PS - a nanogram is a millionth of a gram. No performance enhancing effect! Not even close. It had absolutely no effect on his performance in winning the TDF. That is the legal argument. De minimus non curat lex!
What lawyers do is argue legal points, not morality. That is for the preachers, religion and Church, not the courtroom. In the courtroom we argue law using law books and not the Bible or the Koran. That is as it should
be.
So it does not mean Rigozzi cannot work for the UCI or cannot do a good job.