I’m surprised that Froome’s team couldn’t get those Vuelta samples in the first place. They’re critical to almost any theory of how he exceeded the threshold, e.g., kidney problem, drug-drug interaction, dehydration. They would have to know those values in order to support their case. But maybe the information being withheld is not the values, but the details on how the samples were collected.
And yes, of course, IF Morgan is trying to win the case on a technicality, this just confirms what has seemed very likely for months, that Froome has no explanation. Remember, Morgan won another case, as I posted upthread, when he showed that rules weren’t followed in the process of sample collection:
I was looking through Mike Morgan’s previous successful cases, and as someone here pointed out, he really takes advantage of technicalities:
Adrianova – sample analyzed after SOL expired
Devyatovskly – IRMS analysis interrupted
Bobby Lea – drug was in a pain-killer he took to sleep
Impey – contamination by pharmacist
Campbell-Brown – rules for how urine sample is to be collected were broken
Cilic – confused nicethamide, a banned drug, with nicotinamide, a B vitamin
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Other tactics are "procedural" technicalities like: claiming the athlete's case is not subject to the jurisdiction of the UCI or its judges, location of the proceedings versus location of the AAF, allege defendant was not properly notified of their case in writing within a certain timeframe, etc. All of which was rubbish, but the lawyers have to get paid for doing something
Some of these, such as wrong jurisdiction, fall under No Case to Answer, and should have been resolved very early in the process. Petacchi tried to argue that he wasn't notified within the proper time frame, and that claim was dismissed. He also tried the wrong jurisdiction argument, and argued that WADA failed to appeal on time. His case is a textbook example of all the technicalities that athletes with resources will explore in desperation.