fmk_RoI said:
The problem sport justice has with the claim that stripping a rider of victory and reallocating the win causes disrepute is that such an action is laid down in the rules. In the Valverde case, for instance, they weighed the possibility of Valverde winning the Worlds but then decided that, well, the UCI had the ability to strip him of victory should that happen and should it transpire that he was involved in Puerto. The possible disrepute was undone by the sanction available to the organisers, a sanction some here seem to think itself causes disrepute.
So will Froome refund Vegni if he gets sanctioned during or after the Giro?
Just because one has redress if something comes to pass doesn’t mean that one encourages that thing to pass. We could turn this logic around on Froome himself. Many people, of course, have accused Froome of doping, of intentionally taking performance enhancing substances. Suppose he’s exonerated, and wishes to claim damages against someone he feels wrongfully smeared him. Maybe he wins that case. By the logic you’ve just suggested, everything is back to normal, no harm done. But of course many people who have actually been falsely accused of something will tell you that no settlement of any kind ever completely restores their reputation. In fact, there are some pretty well-known legal cases in the U.S. where someone was falsely accused of some serious crime, and despite being completely cleared, has faced serious consequences indefinitely.
Now maybe it’s different with some bike race. After all, allowing someone to ride who is later ruled to be a cheat is not quite the same as being accused of rape or murder. But if it is different, it’s not because the rider can later be stripped, if necessary. That by itself is no guarantee that no harm has been done.
If you argue that stripping the rider of victory causes disrepute, then are you granting the race organiser the right to refuse to strip the rider of victory in order to protect the reputation or serenity or whatever of their event?
Come on, you’re more logical than that. It isn’t the stripping that causes disrepute, it’s the fact that someone was racing who everyone knew might subsequently be stripped. Even if the race organizers declined to strip the rider, they would still be in disrepute (to the extent that stripping would cause that).
If an election commission allowed someone to run for office who had been charged with murder, and following the election he was convicted of the crime, the commission would not be in disrepute because of the conviction, but because they allowed someone to run they knew might be convicted. Yes, the conviction prevents a murderer from holding office, but the commission shouldn't have had to depend on this.
Or let's take this back to the argument made several months ago now: if we're saying that someone potentially being stripped of victory can cause disrepute, where do we draw the line? If Jesus Christ himself, or Gandhi, or Buddah, or whoever your embodiment of purity is, if that person turned up a the start of the Giro there is the possibility they might pop a positive: they could be spiked, their kidneys could malfunction or the tinfoil hatted cynics could even be right and everyone dopes. So that embodiment of purity has to be pre-emptively banned and we get a wonderfully Orwellian scenario: to save the race from the potential of disrepute, you have to cause actual disrepute. Cause I think we'd all agree, there'd be quite the media storm if you banned Jesus Christ himself, or Gandhi, or Buddah, or whoever your embodiment of purity is.
Beyond what I've just said about the flawed logic here, this hypothetical scenario also violates the 99% scenario I mentioned above. If the probability of an AAF (let alone no AAF) turning into a ADRV is < 1%, then you respect the rider's right to ride.
Just to be clear, I'm not pushing the idea of Froome's being not allowed to race, nor do I think he will be prevented from doing so. But this is the guy who said he acts in a way that is above and beyond just following the rules.