BDoughtie wrote:
So I was reading the paper today and read that article, and my jaw kinda dropped. The defense is basically "well of course you caught me red handed now, but because you didnt earlier", I should be free. Now the weird thing in all of this is that, somehow someway, it sounds like that is a very legit defense argument (according to the article). We have a weird and sometimes fucked up legal system, when essential the "bad" guy can admit wrong doing, but because he wasnt caught earlier or because others didnt try harder to know about the cheating, he's allowed to be free. Sounds like it's a sound legal defense mechanicism, but man oh man there are some weird "legal" justifications defendents are allowed to use.
Their argument is not that he's 'innocent' because USPS and the government should have known, but rather that the six year statute of limitations should begin earlier than 2010 (when FL filed his case) because they should have known about the doping.
It would be good to see the original contract between Tailwind Sports and USPS to see if there is any specific language about not doping. Tailwind says there wasn't. USPS now says that Tailwind agreed to "play by the rules". Not quite as specific as not doping, though easily construed to include it.
Last edited by:
Kay Serrar: Feb 26, 13 18:56