bianchigirl said:
You did read the whole document didn't you CC? Just wondered if it was all contract law why they bothered to mention the chain of custody issues with the sample
at all
If you mean "They" as CAS, they did not mention it at all.
Gusev's side claims it. CAS never mentions it in the finding.
I enjoyed reading it aside from awkwardness in reading a translation.
Swiss employment contract law is very tough on the issue of immediate termination.
CAS doesn't conclude that the test were invalid for any reason or that the conclusion that they were suspicious was wrong.
From the report;
The conclusions of Dr Rasmus Damsgaard as a result of the email of July 20, 2008 read as follows: "The urine test for EPO in combination with highly suspicious changes in blood profile couple are strong indicators of marrow stimulation caused by exogenous EPO or a substance with similar effect such as CERA. Based on these facts, the rider is considered suspicious of having used a banned substance by WADA "
CAS reponds;"Olympus sarl does not allege, nor demonstrates appreciation right, the results medical tests Mr. Vladimir Gusev is a violation of rules set by WADA or the UCI"
Then; "Given these factors, the formation holds that there was no proper grounds for with immediate effect terminated the employment contract of Mr. Vladimir Gusev. The simple Indeed, the admission of Olympus sarl, analyzes, including urine, the rider Gusev were suspicious does not authorize Olympus sarl terminate with effect Now the contract"
Part of his contract read; "12. Termination by the Company, (a) The Company may terminate this Agreement without notice or liability to injury in cases of gross negligence on the part of Cycling or suspension thereof in accordance with UCI regulations during the remaining term of the Agreement. By gross negligence should also hear the violation of national anti-doping standards in countries where the cyclist is participate in professional cycling event, the violation of UCI regulations or those National Federations, the Code of Conduct issued by the Agency World Anti-Doping Code of Conduct
or the anti-doping policy of the Team
Like I said before, it appears they are saying just because you put this in the contract doesn't make it legal.
Instead they rely on a previous section of his contract.
"5. Rider's Condition or Medical and Drug Testing, (c): Under certain circumstances, the Company and the Team Rider may require to undergo drug and / or alcohol testing. When the Company and the Team have reasonable suspicion that Rider is using drugs, intoxicants, alcohol, narcotics, or any other controlled substance or performance enhancing substance, Rider may be Referred to a certified testing laboratory for completion of the tests."
But the team didn't send him out for a certified test. It was about due process.
If there were clear problems with chain of custody they would not have had to jump through all these hoops.
BTW. I'm with Gusev on this from the standpoint of a labor management dispute. If Astana was going to fire him, it was their problem to make it stick.
It does make me wonder how this affects how teams address the issue of a suspect rider.