- Jul 28, 2010
- 125
- 0
- 0
Merckx index said:Tyler's case, which involved a brand new test, was settled in about 8 months. Floyd's case, the science of which was far more complex than that for Bert, was settled in September of the year following his TDF win. Most importantly, neither of them was allowed to ride while it was going on.
The science in Bert's case is unusually simple. Bert has not challenged the finding of CB in his body nor its amount, nor the conclusion that it could not result from meat that passed the inspection standard in Spain. His entire case revolves around the likelihood that the meat he ate could be contaminated above the standard. Leaving aside the enormous evidence against that possibility, it does not take months to develop and defend a position on that question. Nor does it take months and months to address the possibility of transfusion, even setting aside the point that WADA/UCI are not supposed to have to prove that.
If WADA/UCI want more time, I have to believe that is because they expect their decision will have major remifications for how athletes in the future who test positive for CB are treated. I appreciate the delicacy of the situation. They don't want a decision that will open the door to a lot of headaches in resolving future positives. But given the importance of not leaving the sport's biggest star in limbo, I'm racking my brains to come up with a reason why they couldn't settle this sooner. Maybe python or someone else with more inside information will tell us.
+ 1
As he's not contesting that there was a doping violation the legal point is relatively straightforward:
Can Bert on the 'balance of probabilities' show he was 'not at fault or negligent' with respect to 2nd rest day positive test?