GThere2 said:
You're looking for instant justice, regardless of the possible outcome.
For sure, yes, we can all agree that there is a 99.99% likelihood of the B sample confirming the A and that requesting the B is only delaying the inevitable. But the MPCC rules are clear (well, actually, they're far from clear, in English, but we all seem to understand them), that the auto-suspension arises once the B sample confirms the A (or the result of the A is accepted). That's the rule, and that's the rule that needs to be applied.
How would it appear to outsiders if the MPCC actually did have inconsistent application of their rules, if in this case they told Astana to suspend themselves based on the A sample but in the next decided on a strict application of the rules? We're supposed to trying to get inconsistent application of the rules done away with, not encouraging it.
Is the rule right or wrong? In essence, the stand down is right, the teams need to take some punishment for what their riders do, and it makes sense it only kicks in after a second (the first
could be an accident, after that it looks like carelessness, or worse). The exact wording of it though, that it relies on the B sample to suspend a team while the A sample is enough to suspend a rider? Should we really be surprised that the MPCC rules have wiggle room? Give the voluntary nature of their code, and given the difficulties of getting people to agree to such a code, then no, I don't think that we should be surprised that the teams left themselves wiggle room.