boysa wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 2:54 pm
Ok, that makes sense. I would ask, however, what matters more: what the rules intend to do or what they actually do? Contador
was allowed to race, and it resulted in a terrible scenario. I would argue we are heading for an even worse situation.
In that case isn't it incumbent upon the authorities who both write and enforce the rules to do a better job at it, especially when they had the Contador example to guide them? They have had over six years since the Contador situation happened. What have they done in the mean time to ensure that there wasn't a repeat of it? Obviously they did nothing and they are now busy pointing fingers at all of the other parties involved.
Like it or not, Froome and Sky are merely doing what the rules allow them to do. You may not like, and I don't like it but, in a legal sense as far as the WADA and UCI rules, they are doing nothing wrong. The one party who can be shown to have done something in contravention of the rules is the UCI itself who allowed news of Froome's AAF to leak out and become public knowledge. The athlete is entitled to confidentiality in AAF matters until the issue is fully adjudicated. Froome and Sky, should they win, will have good grounds to sue the heck out of the UCI for damage to their reputations.
This all stinks but the authorities have got to do a better job themselves to bolster their own credibility. Their history in this is not good, being complicit in the Armstrong/USPS doping activities, and they are not improving on that much, imo.
