Originally Posted by
Cat4Lifer
If an agency starts with an idea taking PEDs is against the rules and those who are caught taking PEDs in violation of the
rules will be stripped of any victories gotten during the time in which they were using PEDs, why would an agency be
agreeable to allowing tainted victories to stand? The message USADA seems to me to be sending is: we know you cheated
1999-2003, but we'll go against our idea of punishing cheats in this case, if you’ll just admit that we are correct when we
say you cheated and used PEDs.
What would motivate an agency to go against its supposed mission of punishing so-called cheats, if the evidence is so "overwhelming"?
The issue is whether the charges involve doping plus a cover up or just doping. The message is that the alleged cover up trumps the statute of limitations, which would protect results older than eight years.
I don't know the regulation that defines the situations in which the statute of limitations apply. Can anyone cite that?