Матыцин о вопросе увольнения Гануса: «Надеюсь, будут приняты разумные решения. У нас одна задача – повышение эффективности работы РУСАДА»

Допинговых проблем в стране по-прежнему хватает, никак не могут решить вопрос с ВФЛА, а наше спортивное начальство озабочено одним: как отправить в отставку единственного функционера, способного толково наладить работу РУСАДА.
А кто работать-то будет? Исинбаева что ли? Или у Позднякова безработный родственник объявился, что он так рвёт и мечет против Гануса?

Исинбаева занята, она конституции пишет...

После увольнения Гануса РУСАДА снова станет оксимороном....

Тут все просто - если не увольнять Гануса, надо сливать Позднякова...
Бурханыч может не понять.

Завязывай уже со своей демагогией для убогих: не пытайся обосравшийся МОК выставить глупее себя - что ты там напереводил для себя и думаешь об том вообще никого не колышит.

Ну, лезешь тут у нас пока лишь только ты - я-то у себя дома в своей стране.

Ну, сам напросился, теперь тазиком под собой ты не обойдешься, потребуется большая бадья: внимательно читай п.34 решения КАС:
"The Appellant’s submissions concerning the preliminary issues, in essence, may be
summarized as follows:
– The Appealed Decision imposes a sanction on the Appellant.
The Appealed Decision “excludes” the Appellant from any participation in all
future Olympic Games. Therefore, it imposes an actual sanction on the Appellant
in the form of a life ban. Such a sanction is akin to a disqualification of an athlete
from the Olympic Games or a suspension under the WADA Code. The Appealed
Decision has the nature and the inherent characteristics of a sanction and is
perceived as such by the Appellant and the world. Even if one were to accept that
the Appealed Decision has elements of both an eligibility rule and a sanction, it
would nevertheless operate as, and have the effect of, a disciplinary sanction.
– The Appealed Decision is a “decision”.
The Appealed Decision is not only a mere “measure” or “declaration of intent”
indicating “in advance” that it would “not invite” the Appellant to all future
Olympic Games, as alleged by the IOC. It is a binding resolution “excluding” the
Appellant from the Games. The Respondent cannot now “rewrite” the Appealed
Decision by claiming that it never sought to “exclude” the Appellant from future
Olympic Games and that it only meant to declare its intent not to accept a future
application for his participation therein. In any case, even if the Appealed Decision
is considered a “declaration of intent” (quod non), that measure would be illegal
under Articles 28 of the Swiss Civil Code (SCC) and Articles 5 and 7 of the Federal
Act on Cartels and other Restraints of Competition (the “LCart”) and would be
abusive for violating the principle of good faith.
– The Appealed Decision lacks a proper legal basis and, as a result, the decision must
be set aside.
Since the Appealed Decision imposes a sanction, it must be based on a clear and
proper legal basis. Such a legal basis is required even if one were to characterize
the Appealed Decision as one based on an eligibility rule (quod non), given that
the decision would still operate as, and have the effect of, a disciplinary sanction.
There is, however, no proper legal basis for the sanction against the Appellant and,
therefore, the principle of legality is breached, because:
(i) Rule 44 of the Olympic Charter does not apply to the Appellant. That rule
only applies to athletes. The Respondent attempts to “adjust” Rule 44 so
that it would apply to the present situation. However, applying Rule 44 in
that manner would clearly run against the legislator’s intentions. Moreover,
no other rule in the Olympic Charter or any provision of the WADA Code
constitute a proper legal basis for the Appealed Decision."

Как же я тебя могу перещеголять, ведь в русле анекдота это я тот пациент у доктора, который советует "вот и вы говорите": твое пустое хвастливое балабольство им и остается - ты не можешь и одного раза за ночь, не то что 7.))