Should contador ride tour de france poll

[hrotha]

But in this case the guy who is responsible for the law is saying the law is out fo date and needs to change - therefore he should not continue to prosecute the law.

He did not have to appeal.

Not necessarily. He's saying a threshold might be a good idea that needs to be studied, not that he buys Contador's meat contamination story.

 

[metaCYCLE]

i think he should be at the start line. and if he'll be there he'll also be there for the win. an i guess that's the only thing that really p***es some people off...

 

[Publicus]

Except he got tested and was found to have had that amount during a time where there was no threshold. Therefor he has to be judged according to the law at the time of the infriction.

That's a difference, at least in my book.

He was judged according to the law at the time of the infraction. And he was exonerated. Full stop.

I know folks want to pretend like the RFEC decision didn't happen or it didn't have merit, but it did and it does. Until CAS decides the appeal, he's free to ride like every other rider in the peloton.

 

[moi123]

Should they beg him to come? YES

 

[Boleyn]

He has not been banned so, yes, he should ride.

Anyway, I want to see if AS can actually beat AC to win the Tour.

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

ofc he should ride.

Cant wait for the Tour, an Andy in top shape vs (mybe) a tired AC, closest match ever.

 

[biokemguy]

+1

Cant wait for the Tour, an Andy in top shape vs (mybe) a tired AC, closest match ever.

without AC (hopefully a little tired) it'll be a boring race for GC.

 

[isayic]

I just learned that the UCI allows Riccò to return to racing. That's why I don't see any reason for Contador to skip the Tour.

 

[Chef_Vodnik]

He was judged according to the law at the time of the infraction. And he was exonerated. Full stop.

I know folks want to pretend like the RFEC decision didn't happen or it didn't have merit, but it did and it does. Until CAS decides the appeal, he's free to ride like every other rider in the peloton.

I did not say that I don't. He's free to ride as for now, and that's all nice and dandy.

Just wanted to point out that he should, by all means and at all moment, be judged according to the law of the time of the infraction. So if, say, the CAS appeal would be judged AFTER the WADA had deciced to put up a minimum amount, he'd still have to be judged according to the law of the time.

 

[ManInFull]

He should ride. Yes, I realize that he could have 2 TdF wins taken away if he were to win this year and then be banned for 2 years. However, it will make the event much more exciting.

 

[Publicus]

I did not say that I don't. He's free to ride as for now, and that's all nice and dandy.

Just wanted to point out that he should, by all means and at all moment, be judged according to the law of the time of the infraction. So if, say, the CAS appeal would be judged AFTER the WADA had deciced to put up a minimum amount, he'd still have to be judged according to the law of the time.

Thanks for clarifying. I think that's the right approach from CAS perspective, but if WADA implements a threshold, the appropriate thing to do would be to revisit the prior suspensions to see if they warrant reconsideration.

 

[red_flanders]

I'd sure as heck think I should ride if I were him. Can't see how it's his fault the system is so slow and jacked up.

He shouldn't have to make the decision, it should be made for him.

Can you imagine a non-sanctioned football player sitting out games? Ridiculous.

 

[gatete]

Is there a HELL YEA option?

 

[Cerberus]

I did not say that I don't. He's free to ride as for now, and that's all nice and dandy.

Just wanted to point out that he should, by all means and at all moment, be judged according to the law of the time of the infraction. So if, say, the CAS appeal would be judged AFTER the WADA had deciced to put up a minimum amount, he'd still have to be judged according to the law of the time.

That's not a given. It's a general rule of law that you can't be punished for something that wasn't illegal when you did it, or be punished harder than the law allowed when you did it. The principle goes only one way though. It's perfectly acceptable and in some cases appropriate to judge someone accretion to new rules if the new rules are more lenient.

If a threshold is instituted, from say 2012, on clenbuterol on the grounds that trace amounts could be caused by contamination, then it's equally likely that trace amounts from before 2012 were caused by contamination. You could apply the rules from the time of the "offense", but you don't have to and it would not IMO be appropriate in this case. That's not to say there should be s treshhold, but if there should one it should apply back in time