Valjvec says he's innocent...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valj...news_headlines

What's strange is that McQuaid explained the UCI had given the riders
30 days to explain why their blood values were odd...so one would
assume that Valjavec would have been able to fix the mix-up about his
illness he's now going on about ?

On Tue, 04 May 2010 20:06:14 +0200, Keith wrote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valj...news_headlines

What's strange is that McQuaid explained the UCI had given the riders
30 days to explain why their blood values were odd...so one would
assume that Valjavec would have been able to fix the mix-up about his
illness he's now going on about ?

Same problems with another innocent, Pellizotti :
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/pell...news_headlines

So was McQuaid lying when he said the riders were given 30 days to
explain themselves ? Why would he ?

Keith wrote:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valj...news_headlines

What's strange is that McQuaid explained the UCI had given the riders
30 days to explain why their blood values were odd...so one would
assume that Valjavec would have been able to fix the mix-up about his
illness he's now going on about ?

I wonder what will happen when someone takes them to court about this
"passport".

On Wed, 05 May 2010 10:52:16 +0200, Betty Munro wrote:

Keith wrote:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valj...-innocence-in-
biological-passport-case?cid=OTC-RSS&attr=news_headlines

What's strange is that McQuaid explained the UCI had given the riders
30 days to explain why their blood values were odd...so one would
assume that Valjavec would have been able to fix the mix-up about his
illness he's now going on about ?

I wonder what will happen when someone takes them to court about this
"passport".

You mean to a real court, not the CAS pretend make-believe court? The UCI
will almost surely lose. A doping infraction without the slightest
indication of the product used or a precise time frame in which it was
used is almost certainly too shaky to stand real legal scrutiny. I can't
imagine being fired for "looking stoned" without detecting THC in my
system.

On Wed, 05 May 2010 19:13:50 GMT, Kyle Legate wrote:

On Wed, 05 May 2010 10:52:16 +0200, Betty Munro wrote:

Keith wrote:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valj...-innocence-in-
biological-passport-case?cid=OTC-RSS&attr=news_headlines

What's strange is that McQuaid explained the UCI had given the riders
30 days to explain why their blood values were odd...so one would
assume that Valjavec would have been able to fix the mix-up about his
illness he's now going on about ?

I wonder what will happen when someone takes them to court about this
"passport".

You mean to a real court, not the CAS pretend make-believe court? The UCI
will almost surely lose. A doping infraction without the slightest
indication of the product used or a precise time frame in which it was
used is almost certainly too shaky to stand real legal scrutiny. I can't
imagine being fired for "looking stoned" without detecting THC in my
system.

Don't know the country that would hold court (Switzerland?), but as a
condition of employment, it would probably survive in most states in
the USA. If, as many athletes are, they are actually contractors and
not employees, they would be well outside any employment issues at all
and abiding by the passport would simply be a contractual issue with
locked in arbitration. CAS pretty much serves that purpose. Not part
of most labor law in the US, states or fed. This is why most
professional athletes have a real union.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...