The Court of Arbitration for Sport has issued a two-year ban for Jan
Ullrich, to run from August 22, 2011. In addition, all his results
from May 2005 until his retirement in February 2007 are annulled,
including his third-place overall finish in the 2005 Tour de France.
| The Court of Arbitration for Sport has issued a two-year ban for Jan
| Ullrich, to run from August 22, 2011. In addition, all his results
| from May 2005 until his retirement in February 2007 are annulled,
| including his third-place overall finish in the 2005 Tour de France.
> | The Court of Arbitration for Sport has issued a two-year ban for Jan
> | Ullrich, to run from August 22, 2011. In addition, all his results
> | from May 2005 until his retirement in February 2007 are annulled,
> | including his third-place overall finish in the 2005 Tour de France.
Davey Crockett wrote:
> Followed by VDB
> In article
> <04f2d55a-abab-4c73-9428-7b8dca6aa...@t24g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> "derFah...@gmail.com" <derfah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 10, 2:37 pm, Simply Fred <n...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> > > > Followed by VDB
> > > The vampires will follow you beyond the grave.
> > what's the penalty if you can't get yourself above-ground to be
> > available for a blood sample?
> They dig up your remains and try them in front of CAS,
> where they sweeten the room with your presence.
> --
> Old Fritz
Here's another point against the UCI. In the Ullrich case, they asked
for a lifetime ban for a multiple offence, which the CAS refused as
the other offense was non-sporting related. Since that CAS decision
clearly follows the rules, it implies that the UCI has taken the role
of prosecutor in trying to obtain the maximum sanction possible.
However, that is not the UCI's role: as the governing body of cycling
its function is to represent everyone, including the riders.
Once again, this shows that current anti-doping practice has become an
inquisition.
ilan wrote:
> Here's another point against the UCI. In the Ullrich case, they asked
> for a lifetime ban for a multiple offence, which the CAS refused as
> the other offense was non-sporting related. Since that CAS decision
> clearly follows the rules, it implies that the UCI has taken the role
> of prosecutor in trying to obtain the maximum sanction possible.
> However, that is not the UCI's role: as the governing body of cycling
> its function is to represent everyone, including the riders.
> Once again, this shows that current anti-doping practice has become an
> inquisition.
> ilan wrote:
>> Here's another point against the UCI. In the Ullrich case, they asked
>> for a lifetime ban for a multiple offence, which the CAS refused as
>> the other offense was non-sporting related. Since that CAS decision
>> clearly follows the rules, it implies that the UCI has taken the role
>> of prosecutor in trying to obtain the maximum sanction possible.
>> However, that is not the UCI's role: as the governing body of cycling
>> its function is to represent everyone, including the riders.
>> Once again, this shows that current anti-doping practice has become an
>> inquisition.
> On 15/02/2012 14:44, Steve Freides wrote:> ilan wrote:
> >> Here's another point against the UCI. In the Ullrich case, they asked
> >> for a lifetime ban for a multiple offence, which the CAS refused as
> >> the other offense was non-sporting related. Since that CAS decision
> >> clearly follows the rules, it implies that the UCI has taken the role
> >> of prosecutor in trying to obtain the maximum sanction possible.
> >> However, that is not the UCI's role: as the governing body of cycling
> >> its function is to represent everyone, including the riders.
> >> Once again, this shows that current anti-doping practice has become an
> >> inquisition.
