fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
Parker said:
I can look at it perfectly well from the organizer's point of view. And from their legal point of view - not as a proxy. To exclude Froome they would need to have strong justification - and they just don't have that. Looking at it from their point of view, it will be unwise to get into a legal battle that they almost certainly won't win. Seeking to exclude him and failing will do more damage than him riding without obstruction.
I'm not as sure as you are about their legal stance. If they can proove there is a fair chance of ruined reputation, their decision to ban will stand on solid ground. And if no-one can guarantee (including Froome's layers) that the reputation will not be ruined, they have solid case. That is why Vegni is screaming for guarantee. And there is precedent for organizers right to decline participation as long as the written rules are adhered and the ban is not seen as punishment. Reputation of the sport and race is key here.
We've been through this elsewhere:
the disrepute rule does not apply here.
bambino said:
And there is precedent for organizers right to decline participation as long as the written rules are adhered and the ban is not seen as punishment.
I suppose a citation is out of the question? If you're going to make claims like this, it's best to back them up with detail, for us eejits in the cheap seats.
I know we went this thru and I've looked that again.
You make your point that it is not applicable based mainly on 2 arguments; a) Froome should've done something wrong to disrepute sport or race which he hasn't until the matter is rightly resolved, and b) would be seen as potential double punishment.
The b) would never happen wouldn't it, if the rral matter is not resolved before i.e. Giro? If there is no punishment from the actual case available, how would banning from Giro be (at that time) double punishment? Anyhow, the punishment piece is irrelevant, if a) for disrepute of sport can be seen valid. It is not punishment, it is banning according to rules adhered and signed up by the athletes being part of UCI.
For the disrepute clause, the actual wording says:
"The organiser may refuse permission to participate in – or exclude from – an event, a team or one of its members whose presence might be prejudicial to the image or reputation of the organiser or of the event."
The key here is the word "might" which is something the catch-all favored layers throws in to clauses. That clause (with my limited english skills) does not mean the violation to the sport or race should've happened already. It gives a room to act if there is likely violation to the reputation of the race or sport coming up in the future.
I'll stop it here, as I said everyone is better off if the matter would be resolved before Giro. I'm sure we all agree.
And yeah the sitation. As I said already in last page, CAS freed up bunch of Russian athletes from lifetime olympics ban and gave back their medals because of lack of physical evidence of doping. Immediately after that, IOC announced those athletes are, despite CAS freed them from doping charges, not welcome to Korea Olympics. 47 athletes appealed to CAS saying they should be allowed to compete, but CAS rules them out of the mainly based on a clause that IOC can in their sole discretion deside who competes in Olympics and who not.
http://www.tas-cas.org/en/jurisprudence/recent-decisions.html
Look at 18/03 and 18/04 mainly. Double punishment also a discussion there.