Re: Re:
Parker said:
But Contador was an appeal case, so the 'right' decision in that case got backdated as if it had been delivered at the time of the 'wrong' decision. Effectively it stated that had the 'right' decision been delivered at the initial hearing he would not have been able to start those races. Froome is allowed to start these races without question.
But was the Contador decision actually rationalized in that manner by CAS? Because Article 10.11 says “the period of Ineligibility shall start on the date of the final hearing decision”. That would be the CAS decision, not the Spanish fed decision. CAS was free not to follow that rule, but that’s my point: there’s a lot of flexibility. I think that comes across in the article on fairness as well; several potential factors are discussed. While the fact that Froome has raced and tested negative during this period is certainly relevant, I don’t conclude from that article that it definitely means any ban would start at the time of the CADF decision. Indeed, the article emphasizes this:
Based on CAS jurisprudence, it is, however, possible to extrapolate several factors that hearing panels may take into consideration when assessing the principle of fairness. No one particular factor is determinative on the issue.
Also, the Petacchi case suggests there is no clear rule about when a ban begins. He was provisionally suspended after his positive in May 2007, but then cleared by his national federation in July, much as Contador was. He was eventually banned by CAS in the spring of the following year, backdated to November 1 of the previous year. Why then? That date did not correspond with the date of the “wrong” decision—that was in July. Moreover, he was allowed to keep his results in the Vuelta that year, which came after he was cleared by his home federation.
Then there's this:
LaFlorecita said:
Honestly backdated bans with loss of results should be the norm following the most logical argument: the athlete commited a punishable offence, so should not have been competing for x months after the infraction, so should lose all results.
That’s an excellent counterpoint to the notion that bans should begin when the “right” decision was made. Following that logic, the “right” decision at the time of Froome’s AAF notification (assuming CADF later sanctions him) would have been to suspend himself, so all his results from that time up to the time of a decision should have been DQd.
With the current set of rules, dragging out the case is a very valid option for athletes.
Hence the fairness clause, an attempt to discourage them from doing this. If they are seen to be delaying, they can get both a backdated DQ and a ban going forward from the time of the decision.
In any case, a proactive (from time of decision) ban raises an interesting possibility. Suppose Froome is banned for one year after the Giro. Would that ban be appealed? Probably not by WADA/UCI, because one year is about in keeping with other recent cases. Would Froome appeal it? I’m thinking he might not. What would he have to gain? Mostly the Vuelta. He would be keeping the Giro, and since he had to sit out the 2018 Tour, he couldn’t get that back. He would miss next year’s Giro, but having ridden it this year, that wouldn’t matter, and he would be back in time for the 2019 Tour. So in addition to the Vuelta, all he would have to gain from an appeal would be an early return to racing next year, and a proper preparation for the Tour. But given that he might be given a longer ban by CAS, one that might effectively end his career, Froome might think that was a risk not worth taking.
brownbobby said:
I think in the intervirw Lapartient has said that this is the likely outcome now...ie. unlikely the case will be resolved before the Giro but should be before the Tour
If the Tribunal was indeed convened in the middle of February, the hearing could be going on this week (or maybe delayed to next week because Froome is racing, though since attendance is usually by video conferencing he might be able to do it even during the T-A). In that case, there's a good chance the decision could come before the Giro starts, especially given the provision for expediting. The decision should be reached by the end of the Giro, and since no one wants Froome potentially pulled from that race, that possibility would be enough to have the decision moved up a little.
But then again I always lose money on horses :lol:
You need to go down to the stables before the race begins, and as the saying goes, follow the syringes…
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram