Re:
deValtos said:
I don't quite understand ... so ... did they make a decision without watching a replay? :surprised:
Something doesn't quite add up here.
Simples.
When a decision is made externally and a justification is sought for it, this is what happens. The first rule in such a scenario is not to allow the "wrong" evidence to be presented. The second rule is to constrain the defense - this time they outright abolished the right of defense. They apparently went as far as to advise the jury to not watch any news as they might see the evidence by accident while a reversion of the decision was still possible. Wonderful.
Now, after 30 days.
The jury knows fully well their decision is indefensible. So they use that carefully prepared defense of "we did not see any evidence and Sagan did not say anything either". The narrative now goes "It was just a mistake, we did not know, the process is to blame.".
That it would turn out this way was obvious from the start to anyone familiar with the concept of political processes. No surprises.
What is surprising is the audacity to proclaim that a refusal to look at evidence or even hear out the defense somehow justifies the "mistake". That is even more damning than the decision itself. These puppets are the worst of the worst and the sooner they get removed from any decision-making role the better. Bora should sue-out their shoes from under them.
On the positive side, this will likely force the UCI to put in processes which will avoid at least the most blatant political rulings in the future. And for that everyone who likes professional cycling should be happy.
That this whole affair will afford the Sagan brand, and the person, a stronger position in the sport goes without saying. Time will tell whether that was a good thing or a bad thing.