Archive for justcycling.myfastforum.org Just Cycling
 


       justcycling.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Cycling Forum
Slapshot 3

Pellizotti to Quit Cycling

From CN.....

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/d...lizotti-says-hes-quitting-cycling

Quote:
Banned Italian hits out at "poorly managed" UCI

Following the Court of Arbitration for Sport's decision to uphold an appeal by the UCI to ban Franco Pellizotti for two years, the Italian claims he wants "nothing more of cycling".

In an interview with Spanish cycling website Ciclismo a Fondo, Pellizotti has hit out at the sport's governing body claiming it's "poorly managed, with the leadership continuing to do what they want, applying rules as they wish."

Pellizotti was identified as a rider of interest by the UCI's Biological Passport before last year's Giro d'Italia but was then cleared by the Italian Olympic Committee in October.

The man known as ‘Il Delfino' says at that point in proceedings, he believed that the matter would be dropped.

"I'm disappointed with the sport and with justice," he said. "I do not accept this penalty, but what I can do? This is the cycle... The leaders do what they want and will continue because they are allowed to do so. They are powerful, very strong and nobody says anything against them. I just cannot do anything."

Pellizotti's legal team had requested an urgent verdict and the arbitrators took just five days to reach their decison. His ban is expected to last until May 2012. Fellow Italian Pietro Caucchioli was also given a ban, with CAS confirming the two-year suspension issued by the Italian Olympic Committee.

As an extra penalty, CAS has cancelled all of Pelizotti's results from May 17, 2009. He will lose his second place at the Giro d'Italia (he finished third but Danilo Di Luca was subsequently disqualified for doping), his stage victory at the Tour de France and his king of the mountains jersey. He has also been fined 115,000 Euro.

The 33-year-old says he is now walking away from the sport.

"I leave it all, I don't want to know anything more of cycling," Pellizotti said. "Not because of my age or for the time, even though it's two years, it's because I am tired."
HuwB

Big discussion on the TAS ruling from the Rai team in last night's pre Tirreno show.
Not a happy bunch. Much of their venom was directed at Contador.
The "great injustice" being that Pellizotti had got the boot without failing a test,
yet Bertie is riding around, winning races, probably doing the Giro, having failed a test.
Spain also got a special mention, in comparison to Italian efforts.

Not surprised that Franco is walking away. What amounts to a 3 year ban, big fine etc. pointless to wait around to ride a season or two at a lower level. Better to find employment and start paying the bills.
Biosphere

Contador had better be careful

As an extra penalty, CAS has cancelled all of Pelizotti’s results from May 17, 2009.

That's a 3 year ban! They were watching him for the best part of a year before they told him.

I don't know what to think regarding the passport, but I think it probably works for those that can't afford good "consultants", but for those that can afford the advice, it may well be a useful tool for keeping an exemplary profile. I do think trying to attack the science is probably a flawed defence strategy when scientists are the jury. Not saying they'll get it right and if you believe you're innocent then it's all you can attack, but . . .

The two outstanding passport cases will be interesting to see how they go.
Mrs John Murphy

I wonder what kind of reaction Dertie will get from the fans on the road if he does turn up in Italy.

While the UK press is pretty silent when it comes to criticising the Dertie case, (has Harmon even mentioned it?), the ES feed I've been listening to has spent a lot of time discussing and criticising the Spanish authorities.

Does FP have to repay his prize money?
kathy

HuwB wrote:
i
Spain also got a special mention, in comparison to Italian efforts.
.


Buat the Italians cleared Pellizotti! Rolling Eyes  Rolling Eyes  Rolling Eyes
Mrs John Murphy

And so what? Despite being 'cleared' he wasn't allowed to ride, unlike your boy who is having the red carpet laid out for him.

I didn't see the Italian prime minister tweeting that FP was innocent.

Spare me the Spanish victimhood.
SlowRower

MJM - Are you aware of the specific reason why FP wasn't riding despite being cleared by his national Federation? I don't know if you're asking because you don't know or as a debating tactic!

Was FP suspended by his team, for example? Obviously, Berto's not going to be suspended by his team, because he is the team to all intents and purposes.

Or do the Italians maintain suspensions even for riders they'v cleared until the appeals process has run its course?

Or are "passport" offences different in the rule book vs normal test failures in that the affected rider is suspended by the UCI until the appeals process is complete.

etc

There is certainly a difference in FP's and Berto's treatment, and it would be interesting to know who has been preventing FP riding since being originally cleared.
Mrs John Murphy

I don't know the reason, other than the fact that one set of riders are Spanish and the others are non-Spanish riders.

You can contrast the way that FP, TV etc have been treated after being 'cleared' and the way in which Dertie and Piti were treated.

As I recall FP was sacked by Leaky after being banned initially and wasn't hired despite being 'cleared' the same goes for TV.

Meanwhile, Piti is allowed to train with his team while banned (against UCI rules) while Dertie is welcomed with open arms.

It seems pretty clear that there are rules and attitudes towards doping in Europe and North America, and then there are Iberian rules and attitudes.
Biosphere

SlowRower wrote:
. . .  and it would be interesting to know who has been preventing FP riding since being originally cleared.


AFAIK, it's a mix of Liquigas originally pulling him from racing, the CONI ban, Liquigas letting his contract lapse, and presumably no team willing to take him on to their roster this year whilst CAS appeal pending. If he had Contador's profile then something like this might have been more likely.

http://nyvelocity.com/content/toto/2011/toto-turns-221
SlowRower

Interesting - Whilst there are differences in the appraoches of different Federations, the key difference here appears to be that FP was considered expendable by Leaky whereas Bert and Valverde weren't by their teams.
Slapshot 3

Biosphere wrote:
SlowRower wrote:
. . .  and it would be interesting to know who has been preventing FP riding since being originally cleared.


AFAIK, it's a mix of Liquigas originally pulling him from racing, the CONI ban, Liquigas letting his contract lapse, and presumably no team willing to take him on to their roster this year whilst CAS appeal pending. If he had Contador's profile then something like this might have been more likely.

http://nyvelocity.com/content/toto/2011/toto-turns-221


There are differences between Berto and Pellizotti's treatment and I suggest it's more to do with the passport than anything else. The UCI could not afford to see a passport case fail at any level that was why they had to appeal the quashing of it by the Italians. The passport has been the UCI's flagship and if they can't guarantee prosecution with it then it's pointless, even fat Pat McTwat understands that one. This gives it a significant boost, Franco is no pointless Domestique.

Contadors case on the other hand was a positive for a specific drug that obviously has not shown up on the passport therefore McTwat can do everything he wants to hush it up, ignore it and demand payment in kind.  

I would hope and suspect that if Contador's case had been passport related he would be hammered the same as anyone else and if it had been passport related there would be bugger all RFEC could have done.
Biosphere

SlowRower wrote:
Interesting - Whilst there are differences in the appraoches of different Federations, the key difference here appears to be that FP was considered expendable by Leaky whereas Bert and Valverde weren't by their teams.


Well he's older and they have the new generation of Nibali, Sagan and Oss and the 2nd coming of Basso. Team manager's public statement was that there wasn't room for him in team. I'm sure the other stuff didn't help.

Regarding national attitudes. Riis isn't Spanish and Zomnegan seems happy enough to have Contador race cos he wants the profile for the Giro. As Mr. S keeps reminding us, it's all about the . . .
SlowRower

Slapshot 3 wrote:
There are differences between Berto and Pellizotti's treatment and I suggest it's more to do with the passport than anything else.


I'd have to disagree here. Both were cleared by their national feds, so were free to race, but in order to race, you need a team to pick you.

The difference is that FP's team stood him down, whereas Berto's didn't. FP was free to race from a legal perspective, but his team didn't want him to.

If the UCI don't appeal Berto's case then we could sensibly conclude that the passport is more important to the UCI than a "humble" test failure. (I guess the suspicious aspect of Bert's failure couldn't form part of a legal case, as the link to a transfusion is sketchy from a legal viewpoint.)
SlowRower

[quote="Biosphere:180949"]
SlowRower wrote:
Well he's older and they have the new generation of Nibali, Sagan and Oss and the 2nd coming of Basso. Team manager's public statement was that there wasn't room for him in team. I'm sure the other stuff didn't help.

Regarding national attitudes. Riis isn't Spanish and Zomnegan seems happy enough to have Contador race cos he wants the profile for the Giro. As Mr. S keeps reminding us, it's all about the . . .


Indeed. FP's real crime is to be too old and not fast enough. Unforgiveable in a team packed with stars, unfortunately
Slapshot 3

SlowRower wrote:
Slapshot 3 wrote:
There are differences between Berto and Pellizotti's treatment and I suggest it's more to do with the passport than anything else.


I'd have to disagree here. Both were cleared by their national feds, so were free to race, but in order to race, you need a team to pick you.

The difference is that FP's team stood him down, whereas Berto's didn't. FP was free to race from a legal perspective, but his team didn't want him to.

If the UCI don't appeal Berto's case then we could sensibly conclude that the passport is more important to the UCI than a "humble" test failure. (I guess the suspicious aspect of Bert's failure couldn't form part of a legal case, as the link to a transfusion is sketchy from a legal viewpoint.)


As Bio suggests Liquigas have a vast store of superstars to pick from so doing the "right thing" for them was easy.

Both feds cleared them but the UCI response was instant in Franco's case they were appealing no matter what. The UCI are being selective and the passport is key to what they are doing
SlowRower

Slapshot 3 wrote:
Both feds cleared them but the UCI response was instant in Franco's case they were appealing no matter what. The UCI are being selective and the passport is key to what they are doing


Didn't know the UCI appealed FP's case immediately. Agree, therefore that Passport irregularities are more important to UCI than other violations.

How about this for a conspiracy then...

Leaky and the UCI in cahoots - Expendable FP thrown to the wolvesby Leaky  in exchange for other Leaky riders not having their passports examined too closely by the UCI.

The UCI looks tough. Leaky look tough. Leaky's younger heavy artillery keep performing and everyone is happy. Except Franco.
Mrs John Murphy

So where does this leave say TV at AG2R who has also been cleared but is unable to ride.

BTW can anyone remember at what point Disco sacked Basso?

Bio - Riis may not be Spanish but his own reputation when it comes to doping and having dopers on his teams shows that he is not that bothered when it comes to the rules.

AZ is an odd one - he was willing to bend over backwards for the Uniballer and then got very cross over the annulled stage.

I suspect that if the UCI/WADA don't appeal then we will start seeing every national fed say 'what is good for the goose is good for the gander' and will start acquitting everyone no matter how spurious their stories are.
Boogerd_Fan

Looks like they found their 'big name' scapegoat, after we all laughed at the relative unknown nature of the first set of named riders caught on the passport featured no-one in particular...
Nolte

Mrs John Murphy wrote:


BTW can anyone remember at what point Disco sacked Basso?



i think April 2007
Biosphere

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
So where does this leave say TV at AG2R who has also been cleared but is unable to ride.


Waiting. He is the yet to be CASsed passport case I mentioned above.

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
BTW can anyone remember at what point Disco sacked Basso?


When CONI reopened investigation and he fessed up immediately.

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
Bio - Riis may not be Spanish but his own reputation when it comes to doping and having dopers on his teams shows that he is not that bothered when it comes to the rules.


That's the point I'm making. Lines on a map don't always demarcate attitudes to doping.

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
AZ is an odd one - he was willing to bend over backwards for the Uniballer and then got very cross over the annulled stage.


Probably because TUE was then becoming a bigger story that the Giro

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
I suspect that if the UCI/WADA don't appeal then we will start seeing every national fed say 'what is good for the goose is good for the gander' and will start acquitting everyone no matter how spurious their stories are.


They have to appeal - strict liability is finished if they don't.

Boogerd Fan wrote:
Looks like they found their 'big name' scapegoat, after we all laughed at the relative unknown nature of the first set of named riders caught on the passport featured no-one in particular...


I wonder if that comes back to the point I made above, that "smaller" riders are less likely to have the medical backing to manipulate their passport numbers. I read that attention is now turning to looking for evidence of blood withdrawal rather than re infusion as the perturbations to the blood parameters are harder to mask on withdrawal.
Boogerd_Fan

Bio that would make some sense, a smaller team/inexperienced riders doing it "ricco" style overcook their doses more frequently.
Slapshot 3

Biosphere wrote:
Mrs John Murphy wrote:
I suspect that if the UCI/WADA don't appeal then we will start seeing every national fed say 'what is good for the goose is good for the gander' and will start acquitting everyone no matter how spurious their stories are.


They have to appeal - strict liability is finished if they don't.



....and that may be the end game in the Contador case.

I went to a doping conference in Edinburgh a few years back sponsored by SportScotland. It was part of our development programe and some of the information that came out was pretty interesting. Anyway at a Q&A session someone quizzed the UKAD guy about strict liability, primarily they used the Alain Baxter story as the basis of the question. I'll assume most of us know the story. If strict liability had not existed Baxter would have been cleared.

The discussion ended up with the statement from the UKAD guy that Strict Liability would eventually disappear when someone had the money to challenge it. It wouldn't matter what it was for, different preparations of a medicine in two different countries like the Baxter case or a minute amount of Clenbuterol in a sample that could be linked to cross contamination.

I'll go back to what I said earlier, Francos case was a passport case and that made all the difference
kathy

SlowRower wrote:
Interesting - Whilst there are differences in the appraoches of different Federations, the key difference here appears to be that FP was considered expendable by Leaky whereas Bert and Valverde weren't by their teams.


Precisely.  Must say i'll be sorry Pellizotti won't be riding anymore.  I always found him an exciting rider.

I see Di Luca is riding again in TA, despite failing about three dope tests in recent years - Has he taken out Spanish nationality? Rolling Eyes
SlowRower

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
So where does this leave say TV at AG2R who has also been cleared but is unable to ride.


I read - can't find the link, unfortunately - that TV had been re-instated by his team following being cleared by his Federation. The quote from the DS was along the lines of "We had no choice - there is no reason to justify not re-employing him. It's an employment law issue."

If this quote is correct then it strongly suggests that the team have taken the action to suspend him and they are not happy about him being cleared, so even if not technically suspended any more, I guess he'll just keep getting not selected.

If teams are making the decisions then there will be no consistency as such - each team will do what it considers best to promote its own interests, within the framework of local laws. I wonder which country's employment laws apply. All EU registered teams would presumably have the same laws, but teams registered elsewhere may be able to legitmately play by other rules re suspending riders following adverse findings etc.

Not specifically related to TV, but I also read that there are no absolutes re what consitutes an adverse passport reading, so there is subjectivity about who gets "fingered" and who doesn't. Whoever makes the decision has huge power in this respect; do we know if the sanctioning decision is made initially by the UCI or WADA?
SlowRower

Slapshot 3 wrote:
The discussion ended up with the statement from the UKAD guy that Strict Liability would eventually disappear when someone had the money to challenge it.


The British lifetime ban from the OGs for dopers having served a two year ban will go fairly soon as well, I would guess. The ban has already been downgraded from a ban following any doping sanction to be exlictly one for two year bans - the BOA has to get Christine O back in somehow!

When Dwayne Chamber's application for an injunction against the BOA's ban was rejected in 2008, it was because he requested the injunction several months after he knew he'd be needing it. Thus, the application for the injunction was invalid, not the merits of his case. (Injunctions need to be applied as soon as practical after the need has been identified.) The judge made it clear that there was merit in the case and that a similar one brought properly in the future could be successful.

That would cause a few microphones to be swallowed by the BBC athletics commentators.
Bartali

kathy wrote:
I see Di Luca is riding again in TA, despite failing about three dope tests in recent years - Has he taken out Spanish nationality? Rolling Eyes


No, he's still Italian ... which I guess is why he suffered a ban!  Rolling Eyes
kathy

But I thought it was supposed to be two strikes and you're out!
Bartali

Fair point ... I assume the first one didn't count as he didn't fail a test?

What's happening in the Mozzie case?  That seems really odd - as far as I know he hasn't even had his B sample tested?  What's the inside story there?
MS

I'm tired of indignant declarations when these guys get busted. They knew the game they were playing and it caught up with them. At least have the dignity to play it like the others who get caught and either take the punishment and return or quietly ride into the sunset.
Guiness

Bartali wrote:
Fair point ... I assume the first one didn't count as he didn't fail a test?


Bingo! Only two doping offences after he served a three-month suspension in the 'Oil for Drugs' affair.
Mrs John Murphy

Bartali wrote:
kathy wrote:
I see Di Luca is riding again in TA, despite failing about three dope tests in recent years - Has he taken out Spanish nationality? Rolling Eyes


No, he's still Italian ... which I guess is why he suffered a ban!  Rolling Eyes


Which is more than most Spanish riders suffer.
HuwB

I think the other issue here is the amount of resources the UCI put into this single case, to rebutt CONI's findings and their clearing of Pellizotti.
All cycling's scientific big wigs gave evidence.
On this case, it is clear that the bio passport would stand or fall.
So the UCI were always going to prosecute here with far more fervor than any other individual case.

As a result Franco got hit harder than a rider testing positive for EPO, for instance.

I'm am not entirely happy with a set of publicly hidden statistics warranting harsher punishment than positive "A" and "B" samples.

I also think that the UCI now has little option but to pursue a full sanctioning of Contador, or else suffer the repercussions of another Italian backlash.
SlowRower

HuwB wrote:
I also think that the UCI now has little option but to pursue a full sanctioning of Contador, or else suffer the repercussions of another Italian backlash.


I'd agree with this except if the UCI gets genuine legal advice that their appeal would most likely fail. Not appealing is better than having an appeal chucked out, I'd say, as no legal precendent would be created. A failed appeal might legitimise the "steak" defence or create a minimum threshold for failures where no minimum currently exists, which might not be a price worth paying to keep the Italians happy for a relatively short period of time.

If such legal advice was given then it would need to be disclosed. To not appeal and not make it clear exactly why would be the worst of all worlds, I'd say. (So this is probably what will happen!)

Rightly or wrongly, the legal world appears to cut riders more slack than the "clean cycling at all costs" lobby would like, so I think it would be wise to set expectations relative to the legal world in which we exist. (And should the BBC be reading this, please tell Alison Curbishley that life bans for a first doping offence are not going to happen, no matter how many times she says it's what she wants and that she'd sooner Dwayne Chambers wasn't competing any more!)
Slapshot 3

HuwB wrote:
I think the other issue here is the amount of resources the UCI put into this single case, to rebutt CONI's findings and their clearing of Pellizotti.
All cycling's scientific big wigs gave evidence.
On this case, it is clear that the bio passport would stand or fall.
So the UCI were always going to prosecute here with far more fervor than any other individual case.



This is exactly what I've been suggesting, they had to hammer this one with everything they had even at the risk of failure, the passport would have died completely had Pellizotti been cleared.

Quote:

I also think that the UCI now has little option but to pursue a full sanctioning of Contador, or else suffer the repercussions of another Italian backlash.


I disagree, I don't think the UCI have the bollox to go for it because they can't come out squeaky clean, they tried to hush it up remember. I don't believe that they could faithfully go to the UCI with that in Contador's defensive bag.

I think they will hope that WADA will take it on more resources, less potential for embarrassment, that sort of thing, however, as I said in an earlier post, Contador has enough money to challenge "Strict Liability" especially if the Spanish authorities back him. Whatever happens, It's not done yet but I can't even hypothesise how it will pan out.
Biosphere

WADA's take

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/w...llizotti-and-caucchioli-decisions
SlowRower

Biosphere wrote:
WADA's take

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/w...llizotti-and-caucchioli-decisions


Interesting link off this one about TV...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/v...cing-with-turkish-team-manisaspor

He did race again for AG2R but did not have his contract renewed and is now racing for a Turkish team.

Thus, it seems clear that what happens after being cleared by the national federation is the same, irrespective of nationality - the rider can race until and unless the "clear" verdict is overturned by CAS, so long as there's a team that wants said rider on their active roster. This decision will be primarily driven by the rider's commercial value to their current or potential future team.
Biosphere

SlowRower wrote:
Interesting link off this one about TV...


Hadn't spotted that. I think you've sussed the rules and it seems that national feds clearing riders is not exactly an Iberian phenomenon.
Mrs John Murphy

Slapshot 3 wrote:
HuwB wrote:
I think the other issue here is the amount of resources the UCI put into this single case, to rebutt CONI's findings and their clearing of Pellizotti.
All cycling's scientific big wigs gave evidence.
On this case, it is clear that the bio passport would stand or fall.
So the UCI were always going to prosecute here with far more fervor than any other individual case.



This is exactly what I've been suggesting, they had to hammer this one with everything they had even at the risk of failure, the passport would have died completely had Pellizotti been cleared.

Quote:

I also think that the UCI now has little option but to pursue a full sanctioning of Contador, or else suffer the repercussions of another Italian backlash.


I disagree, I don't think the UCI have the bollox to go for it because they can't come out squeaky clean, they tried to hush it up remember. I don't believe that they could faithfully go to the UCI with that in Contador's defensive bag.

I think they will hope that WADA will take it on more resources, less potential for embarrassment, that sort of thing, however, as I said in an earlier post, Contador has enough money to challenge "Strict Liability" especially if the Spanish authorities back him. Whatever happens, It's not done yet but I can't even hypothesise how it will pan out.


Sorry but I have to disagree with you.

Contador has done nothing to challenge strict liability. For one basic reason - he has yet to demonstrate that the clen in his system came from the beef. All we have as proof is his word - no sample, no receipt, no evidence.

To challenge strict liability he would need to have demonstrated firstly that the beef was tainted and only from there would he be able to argue that he was not responsible for the positive test.
Biosphere

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
. . . Contador has done nothing to challenge strict liability . . .


Agreed and that's why WADA or UCI have to appeal to CAS or else it's finished as an adjudicating principle.

For information (from WADA)

What is strict liability?
The principle of strict liability is applied in situations where urine/blood samples collected from an athlete have produced adverse analytical results.
It means that each athlete is strictly liable for the substances found in his or her bodily specimen, and that an anti-doping rule violation occurs whenever a prohibited substance (or its metabolites or markers) is found in bodily specimen, whether or not the athlete intentionally or unintentionally used a prohibited substance or was negligent or otherwise at fault.

Where does this principle come from?
Prior to the January 1, 2004, implementation of the World Anti-Doping Code (Code)—the core document that provides the framework for harmonized anti-doping policies, rules, and regulations within sports organizations and among public authorities—, the principle of strict liability had been applied by the International Olympic Committee in its Anti-Doping Code as well as by the vast majority of pre-Code anti-doping sports rules. In accordance with WADA’s stakeholders’ wishes, the Code continues to apply the same principle.

Is there any flexibility to take into consideration the circumstances or intention of the athlete?
Yes, there is flexibility when a sanction is being considered.
The rule is the starting point so that, while an anti-doping rule violation occurs regardless of the athlete’s intention, there is flexibility in the sanctioning process to consider the circumstances.

How is the principle put into practice?
If the sample came from an in-competition test, then the results of the athlete for that competition are automatically invalidated. This rule helps to establish fairness for the other athletes in the competition.
As relates to subsequent sanctions (Art. 10 of the Code), the athlete has the possibility to avoid or reduce sanctions if he or she can establish to the satisfaction of the tribunal how the substance entered his or her system, demonstrate that he or she was not at fault or significant fault or in certain circumstances did not intend to enhance his or her sport performance. This means that the burden of proof is on the athlete.
The strict liability principle set forth in the Code has been consistently upheld in the decisions of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and the Swiss Federal Court.

Did WADA make any change in relation to the strict liability principle as part of the revised World Anti-Doping Code that took effect on January 1, 2009?
No. The strict liability principle remains in the Code.
As consistently confirmed by CAS, the strict liability rule for the finding of a prohibited substance in an athlete's specimen, with a possibility that sanctions may be modified based on specified criteria, provides a reasonable balance between effective anti-doping enforcement for the benefit of all clean athletes and fairness in the exceptional circumstance where a prohibited substance entered an athlete’s system through no fault or negligence on the athlete’s part

Even if he wins CAS appeal (which appears unlikely given the apparent lack of proof to demonstrate his innocence), it seems inevitable to me he loses last years Tour title.
SlowRower

Biosphere wrote:
Hadn't spotted that. I think you've sussed the rules and it seems that national feds clearing riders is not exactly an Iberian phenomenon.


I wouldn't disagree with MJM that the Spanish do seem to take a more sympathetic approach than other nations though. The Spanish doping authorities do have a political angle to deal with, so it may be inappropriate to direct our ire solely at them. If the PM is Twittering his support for Berto, one can only imagine what goes on behind the scenes.

Berto's "defence" seems laughable to me, but he can afford much better legal advice than I can. I guess the case will ultimately hinge on some technical interpretation of strict liability which won't make much sense to the layman, with the result that the arguments rumble on for some time yet. The only definitive result would be for CAS to overturn the Spanish not-guilty verdict, as "Test positive = ban because of strict liability" is a position that is well understood. Anything else will leave a lot of questions unanswered.
       justcycling.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Cycling Forum
Page 1 of 1