so, to further develop my earlier deduction in
this post that the delay was likely a
procedural interruption caused by cas' review of barring ashenden’s testimony…how likely was it to influence the outcome ?
It can be looked at from on a number of different angles each of which may or may not apply…
Evidentiary angle.
since the hearing ended and assuming ashenden was indeed excluded, there shouldn’t have been anything new (in terms of admissible evidence) added to the ‘pile’ for the 3 arbiters to base their decision on between the end of november and yesterday. as i speculated earlier, if the result of wada complaint was allowing wada to submit additional written arguments, the nature of the supplemented arguments may only be an
expansion on those ashen den was denied in the first place. that is - wada may have received an opportunity to boost the likelihood of a 2-step transfusion theory. Frankly, I can’t see anything of sort… like the additional tests (they can’t be turned around in 2 weeks) or some new technical interpretations (they would require the other side be given the right to respond) and would take longer that 2 weeks. having in mind this type of considerations, i lean to the opinion
there was NO new evidence added as a result of the latest delay. it was all likely about legal procedural motions and responses. you want odds dr mass ?
let’s put it at 60/40. so this round favours bert
Psychological angle.
Not being an expert in the field, I can’t give it a due review. But if I was a member of the panel - much less it’s chairman - I’d very much be paying attention to the complaint. I would look thrice and weigh each of my past and future decisions. Can it result in altering some previous interpretations (before the complaint) ? I think so. Particularly now, when the arbiters have to commit their verbal consultations to writing and thus enter legal history. which leads me to the last angle…
Legal significance of a precedent.
again not being an expert, i can only use my knowledge and experience gained from similar cases. there is one big legal issues on the table - strict liability. clen threshold was mentioned earlier too, and the panel’s verdict may indeed affect it’s regulation down the road, but its significance imo isn’t comparable to contador’s verdict impact on strict liability. where will this chip fall ? hard to say but it’s clear that the panelists well realise they will create a significant legal precedent if they completely exonerate contador.
i’m going to take a risk here and say something i haven’t said before - if the panel rejected wada theory of a blood transfusion - which increasingly looks like they did - contador’s case (in terms of legal logic)
becomes equivalent to rfec's hearing or the german ponger’s case. we all remember that was another precedent (1st full clen exoneration) except in that case the evidence of contamination was almost obvious and much stronger than in bert’s case. still wada refused to budge and dragged that poor german into cas to only yield in the last minute. (I described those circumstances in other threads).
such is the strength of wada commitment to the principle of strict liability ! cas knows it and cares about it but if contador’s exonerated it may force wada into reshaping the principle - as wada should.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram