Sorry, I missed a step. After the judge has all the paperwork, a date for a hearing is proposed. Sometimes, that is. Often there is no hearing, and usually that appears to be at the judge's discretion. If there is a hearing, there can be some delay, depending on the schedules of the parties, though the hearing can be held by videoconferencing.
Of the thirteen cases, only five had hearings. Of the eight decisions reached without a hearing, in seven cases the judge made this decision; in the other, the rider waived his right to a hearing. In those cases in which there was no hearing, the time between when the investigative phase was closed (no more submissions allowed by either side) and the announcement of the final decision ranged from ten days to three months, with the mean about 45 days. In the cases in which there was a hearing, the same time period ranged from 1.5 to 6 months, with the mean about 90 days. That six months case, though, is an outlier; no other case with or without a hearing exceeded three months. Also, there may be a delay between the time the athlete is informed of the decision and when that decision is made public. E.g., in the Caruso case, a hearing was held in the middle of March 2017, during which time the rider decided not to contest the case further. But the decision was not announced until June of that year.
So how fast Froome's case will proceed from here depends mainly on two factors: 1) whether the judge requests further documents from either side, and if so, if there are substantial delays in meeting those requests; and 2) whether a hearing is held. In the best or fastest case scenario, with no further documents requested, and no hearing, there is a very good chance a decision will be made before the Giro, and almost for certain it would be made before the Giro is finished. If there is a hearing, the odds are very good a decision will be made before the Giro is finished, and only in very unusual circumstances would the decision not come down before the Tour starts. But if more documents are required, and there are delays in furnishing them, or in challenging the need for them, etc., then all bets are off.
I’ve felt for a long time that institutions and individuals are susceptible to public pressure, and I think the Froome case has gotten to this point at this time at least in part because of all the criticism of his riding with his case unresolved. Though there isn’t enough information to be sure, it does seem to me that Froome, at least since December when the positive was announced, really is trying move this case forward as fast as he can, consistent with a fair examination of all the evidence. I do give him credit for that.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram