Although this topic is clearly inspired by the Contador verdict, I would like to discuss it as a standalone topic, since it is of broader application.
The idea of a retrospective ban, which we have seen here and in other cases, is a strange one to me. To take Contador's case: as of the RFEC acquittal, rightly or wrongly, he was what you might call "innocent in the eyes of the law." He was not suspended as of that date by any regulatory body. So, he raced, and won the Giro. There were apparently no irregularities in his testing during the Giro. Now Zomegnan has expressed outrage, justifiably in my view, that the results of the race he used to direct have been scrambled for no apparent reason.
My view is that a ban should be prospective only, with credit for "time served," i.e., time actually suspended. A "ban" during which a rider can race (and make money, even if he cannot keep the results) isn't really a ban. In Contador's case, this would mean he would get five months credit for his previous suspension, keep his 2011 Giro and TdF results, and face a 19 month ban (2 years minus 5 months) starting now.
I am sure this is not the result that Contador would prefer in his current circumstances. And the length of the delay in this case makes the problem much worse than it otherwise be. Nevertheless, I think this is the rule that makes the most sense.
What say you all?
The idea of a retrospective ban, which we have seen here and in other cases, is a strange one to me. To take Contador's case: as of the RFEC acquittal, rightly or wrongly, he was what you might call "innocent in the eyes of the law." He was not suspended as of that date by any regulatory body. So, he raced, and won the Giro. There were apparently no irregularities in his testing during the Giro. Now Zomegnan has expressed outrage, justifiably in my view, that the results of the race he used to direct have been scrambled for no apparent reason.
My view is that a ban should be prospective only, with credit for "time served," i.e., time actually suspended. A "ban" during which a rider can race (and make money, even if he cannot keep the results) isn't really a ban. In Contador's case, this would mean he would get five months credit for his previous suspension, keep his 2011 Giro and TdF results, and face a 19 month ban (2 years minus 5 months) starting now.
I am sure this is not the result that Contador would prefer in his current circumstances. And the length of the delay in this case makes the problem much worse than it otherwise be. Nevertheless, I think this is the rule that makes the most sense.
What say you all?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram