Try focusing on the points of law made clear in the judgement...Summoned said:OK, so your link here is to a post saying there has been two months of discussion of what the process to refuse a rider starting a race looks like. Which is fine, it has come up here and there, but I don't remember much, if any discussion, of Valverde in that. Presumably you are referring to Valverde starting the 2007 Worlds RR championship?fmk_RoI said:You're really going to have to stop this samhocking, it's passed tiresome: rather than relying on your memory try reading back and reminding yourself on exactly where the precedent question came from.samhocking said:Been though this? You were the one asking FMK with your "how many precedents are there of riders challenging organisers at CAS over the right to ride?" but now saying you hate that barrack-room lawyers favourite legal term?
I really don't have a clue what you are asking or wanting to discuss or in what way, especially if you have already had the question answered before and have 'been through all this'! I'm out, it's like talking to my toddler i'm afraid.
If I am misunderstanding your reference, I apologize. But if I am correct in what you are referring to, three thoughts come to mind immediately. First, that was not the ASO trying to prevent Valverde starting a race. Second, Valverde had the support of the Spanish federation during that process. Third, and to some extent this flows from the second point, the process as a whole was much different at that time, especially so given what was to come with Contador and Armstrong as examples of bringing the sport into disrepute.
Again, it is quite possible that I am misunderstanding what you are referring to, and if so, I am very sorry. But if that is the case, it is also quite possible that you have not been quite as clear as you might have been about the Valverde case's relevance to what is going on with Froome now.