the sceptic said:
that certainly clears everything up
Can someone translate that for those of us who are a bit slow?
It seems kinda like the old hematocrit percentage rule.
(a) If, after doing the review that the UCI is supposed to do, the UCI finds that a violation has occurred, then the UCI may ban the rider.
Two things protect the doper, er, I mean rider, here: (1) The UCI's review can be stacked however the UCI wants to stack it; and (2) the UCI is not required to suspend--the provision says it
may suspend.
(b) The ban can only be effective "for such time that the violation, in the
opinion of the Anti-Doping Commission or such member, is likely to affect the Rider’s results."
The "Anti-Doping Commission" (whatever that is) can only ban the rider for so long as the rider's anomaly keeps him "in the glow." The language here is very discretionary, it seems. It uses "in the opinion of the Anti-Doping Commission or such member" language. That tells me that you probably can't read that paragraph in isolation. There might be appeals provisions elsewhere. Maybe there aren't appeals, though. In which case, it would appear that the Commission or Commission Member's word is final. If the ban is less than a week, it appears the rider must just eat the ban.
If the ban is more than a week, the rider can "file written submissions." This language, in isolation, appears pretty stupid. What is the Commission supposed to do with those submissions? Maybe there is language somewhere else. Also, the rider gets to keep submitting stuff whenever he wants, in order to prove that his biochemistry is back to "normal" (whatever that means in the twisted world of pro cycling). Once the rider is "back to normal" he'll be able to ride again.
The next paragraph is results management stuff. I couldn't care less about that.