WADAwatch found an interesting Reuters article, which offers some analysis of how the CAS tribunal operates. Read the full article for more details.
The article is entitled:
"Landis appeal throws spotlight on sports court"
In it they make this comment:
"Landis can perhaps draw more comfort from the fact that CAS has frequently sided against sporting bodies that failed to follow proper test procedures or correctly enact anti-doping legislation."
Given the known 'points of uncertainty' (not to be confused with 'measurement uncertainty') that were prevalent in this case, it is very much a case of an appeal that calls into question the entire embodiment of what WADA represents, how it presents itself, and how it intends to rectify what may be innocent oversights, or natural evolution, of a young and growing system.
Yet the system must be fair, as the CAS tribunal has repeatedly noted, both in past litigations before WADA, and in recent ones. As the CAS stated in the Landaluce case (somewhat similar conditions to Mr Landis' case):
117. In any case, the present decision does not constitute a declaration of innocence of Mr Landaluce with regard to the antidoping rules. Mr Landaluce merely benefits from a rule that is formal and yet fundamental, which aims to guarantee the rights of persons subject to doping control tests.
IF the world asks 'when will cyclists learn they cannot get away with doping?', then the world has to respond in asking "When are the laboratories that are accredited by WADA going to learn THEIR lessons?".
Fair is fair... and formal... and fundamental... with guarantees...
Watch! WADA
..........@..........WADAwatch
No comments:
Post a Comment