skimazk said:
From the UCI decision:
I'm assuming that the waiving of the USADA arbitration has no impact on his right to appeal to CAS because it isn't a formal decision yet. He basicly was invited to give his view to USADA before they made a decision. Now that UCI has agreed with USADA's findings and made a decision on their findings there is a formal decision that he can appeal to, hence the right to appeal to CAS.
In any case there isn't anything limiting LA's legal team from submitting an appeal to CAS. Whether CAS will summarily dismiss, based on LA's decision not to contest, or allow the appeal is not so clear.
UCI seems to have left a
'hint' about an issue that might be suitable for an appeal in it's response:
"The UCI is of the opinion that the Code is very clear in this respect:
No action may be commenced against an Athlete or other Person for an
anti-doping rule violation contained in the Code unless such action is
commenced within eight (8) years from the date the violation is asserted
to have occurred.
The Code does not provide for any possibility for an anti-doping organization to take
away from the athlete or other person the benefit of this clause.
It is UCI’s view that USADA’s reference to national law is not appropriate. First
article 24.3 of the Code states that the Code shall be interpreted as an independent
and autonomous text and not by reference to the existing law or statutes of the Code
signatories or governments. Secondly it would be in full contradiction with the
purpose of harmonisation of the Code that an action could be commenced against
one athlete but not against another because of different national legislations
governing the statute of limitations. Where WADA emphasizes the need for
harmonisation of sanctions, there should be no disharmony in the possibility to
sanction an athlete at all."