WADA confirm appeal of Contador

[Benotti69]

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/News-Cen...-Statement-of-Appeal-to-CAS-in-Contador-Case/


and an article here

http://road.cc/node/33877

no surprise

 

[skippy]

My comment to road.cc which is valid here and follows up on my blog entries :

"Acting as separate org.s will only work IF they have separate hearings !
Now that both have announced , CAN WE HAVE an EARLY HEARING in the interests of the other racers ?

Not looking forward to seeing a result in the Giro OR the TDF which is perhaps overturned IF Contador is suspended !

Each racer dreams of Victory on the Grand Tours and part of that dream is standing on the podium . Too many recent victories have been "By the way , we decided to move you up one step on the podium"!

Caisse racers missed out in Paris because of Flandhole and ASO would like to have given Riis shortshift but could not stomach passing the title to Virenque . "

LOts of meat on this carcass for CNF to pick at !

Who pays the Lawyers anyway ? The racers pay to UCI and so they are entitled to be treated fairly and "Justice delayed is Justice denied !"

Past several years i have not turned up in Paris simply because there is no point seeing a "Victory ceremony that is about to be a FARCE !"

OH by the way , should the discision be Suspension then 4 years please not a "slap on the wrist "waffle !!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

My comment to road.cc which is valid here and follows up on my blog entries :

"Acting as separate org.s will only work IF they have separate hearings !
Now that both have announced , CAN WE HAVE an EARLY HEARING in the interests of the other racers ?

Not looking forward to seeing a result in the Giro OR the TDF which is perhaps overturned IF Contador is suspended !

Each racer dreams of Victory on the Grand Tours and part of that dream is standing on the podium . Too many recent victories have been "By the way , we decided to move you up one step on the podium"!

Caisse racers missed out in Paris because of Flandhole and ASO would like to have given Riis shortshift but could not stomach passing the title to Virenque . "

LOts of meat on this carcass for CNF to pick at !

Who pays the Lawyers anyway ? The racers pay to UCI and so they are entitled to be treated fairly and "Justice delayed is Justice denied !"

Past several years i have not turned up in Paris simply because there is no point seeing a "Victory ceremony that is about to be a FARCE !"

OH by the way , should the discision be Suspension then 4 years please not a "slap on the wrist "waffle !!

You need to brush up on some of the current rules of the sport -also you want 'justice' but also state, "CAN WE HAVE an EARLY HEARING in the interests of the other racers".
Contador can request an expedited hearing from CAS if he wished but surely - in the interest of justice - Contador has the right to be given time to assemble his case.

A 4 year ban can only be imposed if its proven that he 'willfully" doped, which would be almost impossible to ascertain for a clenbuterol positive.

As for who pays - from the CAS website:

R64.4 At the end of the proceedings, the CAS Court Office shall determine the final amount of the cost of arbitration, which shall include the CAS Court Office fee, the administrative costs of the CAS calculated in accordance with the CAS scale, the costs and fees of the arbitrators calculated in accordance with the CAS fee scale, a contribution towards the expenses of the CAS, and the costs of witnesses, experts and interpreters. The final account of the arbitration costs may either be included in the
award or communicated separately to the parties.

R64.5 In the arbitral award, the Panel shall determine which party shall bear the arbitration costs or in which proportion the parties shall share them. As a general rule, the Panel has discretion to grant the prevailing party a contribution towards its legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with the proceedings and, in particular, the costs of witnesses and interpreters. When granting such contribution, the Panel shall take into account the outcome of the proceedings, as well as the conduct and the financial resources of the parties.

 

[sniper]

You need to brush up on some of the current rules of the sport -also you want 'justice' but also state, "CAN WE HAVE an EARLY HEARING in the interests of the other racers".
Contador can request an expedited hearing from CAS if he wished but surely - in the interest of justice - Contador has the right to be given time to assemble his case.

A 4 year ban can only be imposed if its proven that he 'willfully" doped, which would be almost impossible to ascertain for a clenbuterol positive.

As for who pays - from the CAS website:

My bet (though it might be wishfulthinking) is that WADA will use the positive plasticizer test in its appeal. This would explain why they appeal separately from UCI. Also, I remember one of them guys over at WADA saying PLASticizers might be used as secondary evidence in dope-cases.

 

[D-Queued]

...
Who pays the Lawyers anyway ? The racers pay to UCI and so they are entitled to be treated fairly and "Justice delayed is Justice denied !"

...

I hereby authorize the UCI to apply the full UCI portion of my license fees* - from all my years of cycling - towards the CAS appeal of the Contador case. I hereby authorize them to take as long as they like in applying my money towards that cause.

Justice denied makes my fee meaningless. Justice served provides value to the sport.

Dave.

*PS - I will double my total contribution if it were to be applied solely to this case and/or the prosecution of other notorious dopers.

 

[Merckx index]

My bet (though it might be wishfulthinking) is that WADA will use the positive plasticizer test in its appeal. This would explain why they appeal separately from UCI. Also, I remember one of them guys over at WADA saying PLASticizers might be used as secondary evidence in dope-cases.

I've been thinking of that, too. In fact, it might make sense of that statement by a UCI official that UCI was not even pursuing the transfusion theory. Maybe UCI is concentrating on showing that meat contamination is highly implausible, while WADA is focussing on the complementary aspect of showing that transfusion is very plausible. In which case, they would use the DEHP test, if it really exists, and if (as Howman said a while ago) it could be used as supporting evidence. While this is speculation right now, of course, someone has to be pursuing the transfusion option, with or without DEHP test. Someone has to show that is the one of the three alternatives to contamination that Bert can't prove didn't happen.

Suggestion to mods: If it does turn out that UCI and WADA are pursuing very separate evidence trails, maybe this thread could serve as the place to post comments on WADA's strategy, as it unfolds or as we speculate it might be, while the existing thread on Bert's appeal could focus on UCI's case.