-
Again I'm somewhat confused you start saying you think he'll be proven innocent. Then suggest at the end he'll receive punishment.
Simply, do you think he'll get a ban?
GoatandTricycle-
I think Tester is referring to the punishment if the UCI can prove Froome exceeded the permitted dose.
-
I'm somewhat confused you start saying you think he'll be proven innocent
No, I think he probably is innocent. That doesn't alter my opinion that he will probably be found guilty, because the process is much easier for the prosecution than it is for the defence. It will be a miscarriage of justice, but sporting regulation is full of those and everybody who plays the game must accept it. Foot faults, offsides, knock-ons and LBWs are called or missed, the game goes on, and a microscopic examination of 10 different slow motion videos in the following days shows that the umpire/referee was wrong.
In the case of doping, the scales are deliberately tilted because we have decided that it is more important that no guilty athlete goes unpunished than that no innocent athlete does.
fizzy.bleach
gbj_tester
No, my position is that he is likely to be innocent. If this was a criminal matter, there's more than enough out there already, without lab testing Froome, to provide the reasonable doubt which would force a jury to acquit. It's not, though, and UCI only has to make out its case to the comfortable satisfaction of the CAS tribunal, an easier hurdle to get over than "beyond reasonable doubt". Froome's chances are further harmed by the fact that doping is a strict liability offence, so UCI only has to demonstrate that the permitted dose was exceeded, not that it was intentional or even negligent. Froome could offer evidence in mitigation if that case is made out, but it will only reduce his punishment, not overturn the verdict.