http://www.eurosport.com/cycling/sport_sto976482.shtml

Does this mean that other cyclist who may have cheated have a better chance to race again?

It's hard to convict if all you have is rumor and innuendo.

It's hard to convict if all you have is rumor and innuendo.


So is the UCI not going to bring down any suspensions and let it up to each individual's cyling federation?

So is the UCI not going to bring down any suspensions and let it up to each individual's cyling federation?

That would be SOP...

They have threatened to appeal some cases if they don't go their way, we will see what comes of it...

Silas

the UCI needs to create an independent disciplinary body - at the moment, a rider's own federation makes the decision - no likely conflict of interest there, then....

It's hard to convict if all you have is rumor and innuendo.

It's called circumstantial evidence. I believe "rumor and innuendo" is something entirely different, what would be called "hearsay" in US courts. But since no one (as far as I know) has testified, I don't think you could say that the evidence is rumor and innuendo.

It's called circumstantial evidence. I believe "rumor and innuendo" is something entirely different, what would be called "hearsay" in US courts. But since no one (as far as I know) has testified, I don't think you could say that the evidence is rumor and innuendo.

And in US courts, you can convict on circumstantial evidence.

the UCI needs to create an independent disciplinary body - at the moment, a rider's own federation makes the decision - no likely conflict of interest there, then....


Someone who got what I was getting at!! :thumbsup:

And in US courts, you can convict on circumstantial evidence.

In fairness to Botero we do not know the strength of the circumstantial evidence so it is hard to judge the case, although there seems little doubt that having the national governing body rule on the case introduces a conflict of interest that should not be permitted.

the UCI needs to create an independent disciplinary body - at the moment, a rider's own federation makes the decision - no likely conflict of interest there, then....

Would that even be independent though?

Until WADA came around, the UCI had no interest in stopping doping either...

And if WADA took over the disciplinary proceedings, too many would be crying that they are not independent either.

Just some food for thought,

Silas

What circumstantial evidence? Botero has admitted he worked with Fuentes and Labarta at Kelme. He is just disputing what their assistance involved.

Since he successfully got an exemption for high testoterone levels I suspect there was at least one large payment at that time.

the UCI needs to create an independent disciplinary body - at the moment, a rider's own federation makes the decision - no likely conflict of interest there, then....Let's get WADA to do it--that'll save us the inconvenience of trials, and we'll never have to put up with acquittals.

Seriously, though, what is the conflict of interest? Co-nationality hardly seems like a sufficient answer. Whatever interest Columbians have in keeping Botero on the road, don't the nationals of other countries have an equivalent interest in getting him off? Sure, let's transfer Landis's case to the Spanish federation, they're independent, aren't they? And with translators readily available, Landis shouldn't complain if he's required to present his defense to arbiters who don't speak his language.

What circumstantial evidence? Botero has admitted he worked with Fuentes and Labarta at Kelme. He is just disputing what their assistance involved.

Since he successfully got an exemption for high testoterone levels I suspect there was at least one large payment at that time.The fact that Botero had an association with Fuentes and Labart is, by itself, precisely what is meant by circumstantial evidence, but perhaps that's what you're saying. Same with using Fuentes as his expert witness in a previous proceeding. Circumstantial evidence is certainly admissible, and sometimes determinative. Association in and of itself, however, seldom is and seldom, if ever, should be determinative.

Fuentes obviously has good reason not to testify against riders, but if that kind of direct evidence is missing from the case, that is an evidentiary shortcoming that an arbiter in fairness must consider. Before we jump to the conclusion that the Columbian arbiters were corrupt, it seems fair to consider the likelihood that the case against Botero suffered from some quite significant weaknesses.

"Seriously, though, what is the conflict of interest?"

The national governing body justifies it's existence (or at least it's budget) in large part by the performance of it's top athletes. Not to mention, that corporate sponsorship is obviously more interested in top performing sport. What does the federation gain by finding one of its premier athletes guilty of doping? Nothing. What's it lose? Potentially alot.

"Co-nationality hardly seems like a sufficient answer."

It's not. See above. In the US, USA cycling doesn't rule on doping cases anymore, they are all referred to the USADA. I think this in large part came out of the doping problems surrounding US track and field, where there were multiple occurrences of positive doping tests that were ignored.

The national governing body justifies it's existence (or at least it's budget) in large part by the performance of it's top athletes. Not to mention, that corporate sponsorship is obviously more interested in top performing sport. What does the federation gain by finding one of its premier athletes guilty of doping? Nothing. What's it lose? Potentially alot.Sure, that I understand, but as you say, that does not qualify as a disqualifying conflict, and if it did, then in any instance involving an arbiter from a cycling country so should non-co-nationality, and there's practically nobody who is without conflict. And even that conflict hardly is sufficient to justify accusing every co-national arbiter of corruption, as some here seem willing to do.

Sure, that I understand, but as you say, that does not qualify as a disqualifying conflict,

It should. We have plenty of examples of national federations either ignoring known doping cases of their athletes or worse.

If you have been following the doping situation in cycling since '98 or so I think it is pretty clear that the national federations (or regional in some cases) are really the final arbitors on how doping is handled. Clearly the French took a proactive and aggressive stance very early (and their cycling suffered for this), in places like Italy and Spain their federations still appear to be largely indifferent to fighting doping. Germany seems to have taken a tough stance in the wake of Puerto.

The most fair way to resolve this inequality and conflict of interest is simply to have doping cases handled by independent arbitration panels.

The sporting organizations have to follow the WADA code of conduct. Plain and simple. So if there is evidence that someone has been using a banned substance, they will be banned. If there is no evidence, they won't. It is up to WADA labs to provide that evidence. If they can't, that's WADA's problem, not the governing body for the sport. If the sports organizations don't follow through with a ban after an athlete is clearly guilty, then they can lose their UCI affiliation, as well as there IOC affiliation. You want your athletes at the Olympics so you follow the rules. To say there is a conflict of interest is stupid.

Lets keep in mind that the only evidence that anybody has on these athlete's is a code name used in a taped phone conversation. Hardly enough to nail someone. No one is going to get done on this, people (Ulle) will lose a pile of money. But no one will be banned.

And what's "independent" about having Landis's case assigned, for example, to a panel with no Americans but with a Spaniard and a German? Nothing, they have an equivalent, but in this case opposite, stake in the outcome to the American arbiter. These "independent" panels don't eliminate the conflict, they simply substitute a different conflict. The substituted conflict may be more palatable to some because it inclines toward convictions rathers than acquittals, but that to me is not an appropriate measure of the desirability of a reform. As your example of the French federation demonstrates, it is not co-nationality that precludes successful self-regulation, but commitment to doping prohibition. Dick Pound demonstrates every day that zealous commitment to that goal is not necessarily a good thing. If the Spanish and Italian federations are reluctant to ruin careers over doping charges, well, I do not concede their approach is wrong.

And what's "independent" about having Landis's case assigned, for example, to a panel with no Americans but with a Spaniard and a German? As your example of the French federation demonstrates, it is not co-nationality that precludes successful self-regulation, but commitment to doping prohibition. If the Spanish and Italian federations are reluctant to ruin careers over doping charges, well, I do not concede their approach is wrong.

I'm not sure where you got hung-up on co-nationality, but my point never had anything to do with co-nationality. It was simply that there is an obvious conflict of interest when you have the organization responsible for promoting/regulating a sport also arbitrating on doping issues. To go one step above the national federation, simply look at how things were when the UCI rather than WADA was in charge of doping enforcement. It was simply a free-for-all.

The fact that Botero was cleared by the Columbian Federation previously for high testosterone b/c Fuentes testified that he had naturally high levels shows how absurd the situation can be.

. So if there is evidence that someone has been using a banned substance, they will be banned. If there is no evidence, they won't. It is up to WADA labs to provide that evidence.

Except in the Puerto case there are no drug tests. With the current situation the same evidence could get you a doping conviction in one country but not another simply based on the stance the federation in question has taken toward doping. If the doping cases were handled by independent arbitration panels then this would reduce the chance of such situations.

I'm not sure where you got hung-up on co-nationality, but my point never had anything to do with co-nationality. It was simply that there is an obvious conflict of interest when you have the organization responsible for promoting/regulating a sport also arbitrating on doping issues. To go one step above the national federation, simply look at how things were when the UCI rather than WADA was in charge of doping enforcement. It was simply a free-for-all.OK, I can see arbiters drawn from or named by an organization other than the national federation. Who names the arbiters is key, as if I were an athlete, I'd have no faith in either UCI or WADA as the selecting organization.

The fact that Botero was cleared by the Columbian Federation previously for high testosterone b/c Fuentes testified that he had naturally high levels shows how absurd the situation can be.Maybe, but the reliability and significance of the testosterone tests doesn't seem entirely beyond debate either.