B
Bill C
Guest
I don't like it, but I can't see any other objective and just way out
unless CAS rules for ASO in this:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/jun06/jun29news
Nataf will base its argumentation on Article 28 of the Tour de France
rules, which states, "An organiser has the right to refuse a team or a
member of a team whose presence is susceptible of blemishing the image
of cycling, of the organiser or of the race." This regulation is
slightly different to the UCI article 2.6.036, according to which "a
licence holder or a team may be excluded from a race if he/it seriously
blemishes the image of cycling or of the race", in that persons even
susceptible of tainting the image of the event may be refused.
This is a really tough one because nothing has been adjudicated and
the investigation is ongoing. No one has been found guilty yet, and I
haven't seen formal charges brought against any of the racers named, so
I couldn't, in good conscience, exclude them.
If there was a way to recompense those who don't end up being, at
least, formally charged for the damage done to their incomes, and
reputations then I'd say put them on paid leave for the race, but
missing the race really is like taking the season away from some of
these teams and riders.They've made a massive investment in preparing
for this and unless they are willing to charge them before the race
then they need to let them race.
Misconduct deserves a fair hearing before being punished, and in this
case suspending them now would be punishment that far outweighs
allegations, and that's what they are at this point.
Maybe pretty damned solid allegations with serious circumstantial
evidence, but I just couldn't suspend them until they were at least
formally charged.
Bill C
unless CAS rules for ASO in this:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/jun06/jun29news
Nataf will base its argumentation on Article 28 of the Tour de France
rules, which states, "An organiser has the right to refuse a team or a
member of a team whose presence is susceptible of blemishing the image
of cycling, of the organiser or of the race." This regulation is
slightly different to the UCI article 2.6.036, according to which "a
licence holder or a team may be excluded from a race if he/it seriously
blemishes the image of cycling or of the race", in that persons even
susceptible of tainting the image of the event may be refused.
This is a really tough one because nothing has been adjudicated and
the investigation is ongoing. No one has been found guilty yet, and I
haven't seen formal charges brought against any of the racers named, so
I couldn't, in good conscience, exclude them.
If there was a way to recompense those who don't end up being, at
least, formally charged for the damage done to their incomes, and
reputations then I'd say put them on paid leave for the race, but
missing the race really is like taking the season away from some of
these teams and riders.They've made a massive investment in preparing
for this and unless they are willing to charge them before the race
then they need to let them race.
Misconduct deserves a fair hearing before being punished, and in this
case suspending them now would be punishment that far outweighs
allegations, and that's what they are at this point.
Maybe pretty damned solid allegations with serious circumstantial
evidence, but I just couldn't suspend them until they were at least
formally charged.
Bill C