 |
 |
 |
 |
Dave Fuentes racing after steroid suspension
Tue, 03/28/2006 - 11:40am
This topic was began by me in this unrelated thread.
I have reposted my comments below for folks to look at and comment upon/judge for themselves. I shouldn't have posted it in an unrelated topic and hope that the original topic will be freed up from any of this 'taint.'
Quote:yeah, I think our break-away was doomed at the Hanford crit.
With a guy who tested positive for steroids in the move, we weren't all that interested in giving him a chance to win.
I'm wondering if he will give back all the prizes won after he tested positive on March 24, 2004? He raced the entirety of that season (2004) while the case underwent examination with our governing body.
He won many races that season (2004) after his positive drug test and collected quite a bit of prize money and merchandise.
Then, in November of that 2004 - he was sanctioned for 2 years RETROACTIVE to the date of his positive steroid test. Hence, he was able to race 3/25/06 ... PLEASE NOTE: in effect he was suspended only for the 2005 season and the first 3 months of this year.
Interesting.
This is what he tested positive for, oxymetholone
Here is the ruling.
- - -
My personal stance on Dave Fuentes racing: (please note this is my personal opinion of the matter and does not reflect the views of my team, my friends, my girlfriend's dog, or ncnca forums)
DOPERS SUCK.
I am in favor of lifetime bans for all people caught using steroids. Please read the ruling linked above to get an idea of how POSITIVE this test was.
Here is an exerpt if you want:
Quote:
4.5 Dr. Podraza, a clinical pharmacologist, testified that Oxymetholone is a Class III rated drug. This drug is not produced naturally in the body. While it cannot be obtained over the counter, it may be obtained over the Internet. ... He testified that the medicine [Oxymetholone] was originally developed for the treatment of anemia, some forms of breast cancer, and some wasting diseases, but that there are much more effective prescriptions for those conditions now. Oxymetholone has no pain killing benefit and is not prescribed for treatment of injuries. He indicated that it would benefit cyclists as it increases red blood cell production, increasing a rider's stamina and recovery time similar to EPO. ...
4.6 The Respondent [Fuentes] testified that on March 24, 2004, during one stage of the race [Redlands], he was involved in a crash and severely injured his shoulder. He was able to finish that stage, but was hampered by the injury. He testified that later that night he took some unknown medication that he had had in his possession for some time. This included
some pills in a black film canister that included some left over from an alleged prescription for a prior cycling injury. He could not recall what those pills were. The next day, March 25, 2004, he was unable to complete the race [dnf] due to the extreme pain. He was randomly selected for drug testing. He raced again on March 28 in the Criterium [amateur] and won that event.
- end quote [emphasis added]
- - -
As for primes during the final 5 laps of a crit ... i think it should be entirely at the discretion of the promoter. As should be allowing riders to participate, or NOT participate in their events.
We all have a choice.
AND SO ~ I would like to take a moment to add more thoughts for consideration. Firstly, I would like to emphasize that I believe that a person should be able to pay a penalty for breaking a rule. For example, if I get a ticket for being a crappy driver (yes, i am), then I expect that I should be able to pay a penalty and that should be the end of it. If my driving is so crappy that it necessitates my license being suspended - well then, I guess I'd have to accept that and not drive around for awhile until i learned how to do it a bit better.
In the instance of Dave Fuentes - he tested positive for steroid use. Did he "know" he was taking the drug? I do not care to hear his explanation of it. That solves nothing. He could be lying, or he could be telling the truth. How can we know? What does it matter hearing either? We must all decide for ourselves what we think/believe about this matter. Did he test positive for steroids? Yes. Read the report on his defense of his actions and weigh the matter for yourself.
This is what Dave Fuentes DID do - he knowingly competed in races when his suspension was in effect. I guess we must all come to our own conclusions about how we feel about that. But, I do think we should all KNOW about it.
Should Dave Fuentes be punished now that his suspension is over with? (again, please note that Fuentes competed for a complete season during one of the 2 years his suspension was retroactively enforced - meaning his only year not racing was 2005 ... yes, his results were 'nullified' for 2004, but he collected many, many dollars worth of promoters prize lists during that 2004/2005 time period. Why is that important? You'll need to decide for yourself if it is. Consider this - what if Fuentes won a fancy set of wheels at a race and the 2nd place rider was a developing junior rider who really, really could have used the wheelset? Would you be irked? Would you not care? You get to decide.)
My personal thoughts are that Dave Fuentes did NOT serve his full suspension. Perhaps my complaint should be with USA Cycling or the US Anti-doping organization and the fact that they enforced a penalty retroactively for a positive test for an anaebolic steroid. And yes, I do think that our sport suffers by such weak action by its governing body.
I believe, strongly, that steroid use should be cause for a ban for life from cycling. I believe that since our sanctioning body (USA Cycling) does so very, very little to stop drug use in our sport - that it falls on us, ALL OF US, to self-police our sport. I believe that it is our responsibility to make sure riders know that if they take steroids to win races, they are losers and will not be allowed to play our game ... ever.
Please look again at some of the side effects of steroid use. Please read about kids committing suicide from steroid use, kids being permanently harmed from steroid use, kids being sucked into steroid use by seeing other use them and excel at a given sport. Please investigate just how easy it is to get steroids in our society. Please consider that we have so very few tools to stop steroid use in our sport. We have virtually NO drug testing and we have ridiculously light sanctions for getting caught using steroids.
In my opinion, we are left to self-police our sport at a grassroots level. How is that done? I don't know. Casey Kerrigan tells us that we, as promoters, cannot refuse entry to a licensed rider not currently under suspension. Fine.
If, however, we could refuse a rider's entry, would it be 'fair' to do so regarding Dave Fuentes? That is for each of us to decide, I guess. My decision would be, "yes." I would refuse Dave Fuentes' entry into a race I promoted because I believe he did not serve his full suspension. I believe he defrauded promoters from hard-fought for sponsorship/prize dollars. And, I believe he took away prizes and results from other cyclists.
This, however, is my personal stance, and may not be of value to the cycling community. However, I do think that this is important enough of an issue to merit serious consideration.
Lastly, in the Hanford criterium there were definitely riders self-policing the peloton in regard to Dave Fuentes. I was one of those riders and openly accept any criticism for my actions. I honestly believe that Dave Fuentes defrauded promoters and racers during his suspension. I honestly do not believe he fulfilled the spirit of a 2-year suspension from our sport's governing body. I honestly believe that he knowingly took steroids to win bike races.
I accept any and all criticism for these stances. I will have to really examine how I feel about competing against Dave Fuentes for the remainder of this year in bike races. I will have to examine how I feel about any sponsor that allows Fuentes to race under their name. This is a very, very difficult issue and i must say that I am confused and disgusted by it. I do pity Dave Fuentes in that he must endure this type of continuing public scrutiny. However, I do believe he took steroids to win races. And I firmly believe steroid use should be cause for lifetime bans from our sport.
This sucks.
michael hernandez
Norcal1 wrote:So basically Mr. Hernandez believes that serving the penalty handed down from the powers at be isn't enough. So Fuentes should have handed himself a self-imposed sanction? When you are driving crappy and get a ticket will you suspend yourself from driving for the period between the ticketing and your court date? Will you send in self-imposed fines each time you speed or roll a stop sign?
I assume Fuentes doped, take it as a compliment that he felt he needed to do it to beat us. Am I worried about him "taking" money? Not at all. NCNCA cycling is nothing but a hobby. The entitlement that exists in this sport is laughable and everyone plays the easy juniors card. Take a look around the junior ranks and tell me they don't have the best sponsors of all-Mom & Dad.
You state you drive like crap. That is dangerous not only to yourself but to the others on the road. Why don't you look up the stats on crappy driving vs. suicide by steroids. It might get you to concentrate on your driving a bit better. Fuentes may have been harming himself but his drug use has little effect on me. Cycling is a hobby have fun, quit taking amateur bike racing so seriously. You, me and 99.9% of the nor-cal racing population have zero impact on the cycling world. Look around at the lack of crowds, do you see anyone interested?
Fuentes served the suspension as handed down by USADA. They are the rule makers/enforcers. Self-police as you and your militia deems necessary but please remember to have some fun. Once again it's a hobby, not a living. If it is a living you made a wrong turn.
...sigh
ah well.
here's hoping we have at least some "impact on the cycling world."
i like this sport and really like hanging out with people in it. if i knew who you were, i'd give you a hug - 'cause brudda, sounds like you need one.
As for Fuentes racing - yes, his suspension is over and yes we'll be racing with him now and presumably in the future. So be it. Like I said in my original post, I do feel sorry for him that he has to endure this public scrutiny into his actions.
And, it would have been really cool if he had never taken the steroids to begin with.
sigh, squared.
signed,
mhernandez[/list]
Mad Axeman wrote:The only thing that has really happened is that Dave is appreantly no longer on the Masters ineligiblity list due to his suspension keeping him out of UCI events.
So I guess Mike will have to come to terms with the situations as it seems we will be seeing a lot of Dave.
I have never known Dave to be a dick, but I may also not be the best judge of character.
Ron
P.S.
Mike = Spindley arm dude wearing flowers and pink socks saying other dude wearing black and red looks like a girl.
Just for the sake of clarity, I don't know Dave to be a dick either... except in the case of doping himself for competition. By definition, that's the move of a dick. I will assume that he is an angel and a gentleman by every other token. : )
No single raindrop believes it is responsible for the flood.
The only thing that has really happened is that Dave is appreantly no longer on the Masters ineligiblity list due to his suspension keeping him out of UCI events.
So I guess Mike will have to come to terms with the situations as it seems we will be seeing a lot of Dave.
I have never known Dave to be a dick, but I may also not be the best judge of character.
Ron
P.S.
Mike = Spindley arm dude wearing flowers and pink socks saying other dude wearing black and red looks like a girl.
This whole topic bothers me :x
What remains as fact is the rules need to be changed.
Mike is very vocal about doping in the sport and its not just because of how it effects himself. I belive to him it is out of respect for competition and the sport he loves and with that I agree.
Mike slams all dopers, not just the local ones. So with that I think he is within reasonable bounds to make his feeling and thoughts on this matter known.
If you know Mike, he is one of the few riders I have meet who actually understands the place of the local racer in the global view. Mike = Fun, Quality Racing, Good Friend. Not somebody to overinflate himself.
I for one think the subject of DF is and should be a closed deal. He paid the price under the rules we had at the time (and still do). We may not be happy with that but it is what it is. And for the record, Dave at the time was a DIII pro.
Only action to change the rules will have any lasting effect on doping local or otherwise.
To stoop to making damaging public assumptions is just a reflection on the person making the claim, not the accused.
Now where did I put my Triple Shot Latte :shock:
Norcal1 wrote:So basically Mr. Hernandez believes that serving the penalty handed down from the powers at be isn't enough. So Fuentes should have handed himself a self-imposed sanction? When you are driving crappy and get a ticket will you suspend yourself from driving for the period between the ticketing and your court date? Will you send in self-imposed fines each time you speed or roll a stop sign?
I assume Fuentes doped, take it as a compliment that he felt he needed to do it to beat us. Am I worried about him "taking" money? Not at all. NCNCA cycling is nothing but a hobby. The entitlement that exists in this sport is laughable and everyone plays the easy juniors card. Take a look around the junior ranks and tell me they don't have the best sponsors of all-Mom & Dad.
You state you drive like crap. That is dangerous not only to yourself but to the others on the road. Why don't you look up the stats on crappy driving vs. suicide by steroids. It might get you to concentrate on your driving a bit better. Fuentes may have been harming himself but his drug use has little effect on me. Cycling is a hobby have fun, quit taking amateur bike racing so seriously. You, me and 99.9% of the nor-cal racing population have zero impact on the cycling world. Look around at the lack of crowds, do you see anyone interested?
Fuentes served the suspension as handed down by USADA. They are the rule makers/enforcers. Self-police as you and your militia deems necessary but please remember to have some fun. Once again it's a hobby, not a living. If it is a living you made a wrong turn.
Wow, someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. You make an awful lot of assumptions about Mr.Hernandez, not to mention the fact that this entire rant is unnecessarily condescending. Fuentes is a dick, period. If it doesn't bother you then don't bother to read posts about the subject. Is your life really that empty and devoid of pleasure that you would willingly donate your precious time to comment on a matter of which you could care less? (notice the way I make a lot of assumptions about you?) ; )
No single raindrop believes it is responsible for the flood.
I agree.
Any man who wears glitter and bella socks while racing is taking this sport entirely too seriously.
So basically Mr. Hernandez believes that serving the penalty handed down from the powers at be isn't enough. So Fuentes should have handed himself a self-imposed sanction? When you are driving crappy and get a ticket will you suspend yourself from driving for the period between the ticketing and your court date? Will you send in self-imposed fines each time you speed or roll a stop sign?
I assume Fuentes doped, take it as a compliment that he felt he needed to do it to beat us. Am I worried about him "taking" money? Not at all. NCNCA cycling is nothing but a hobby. The entitlement that exists in this sport is laughable and everyone plays the easy juniors card. Take a look around the junior ranks and tell me they don't have the best sponsors of all-Mom & Dad.
You state you drive like crap. That is dangerous not only to yourself but to the others on the road. Why don't you look up the stats on crappy driving vs. suicide by steroids. It might get you to concentrate on your driving a bit better. Fuentes may have been harming himself but his drug use has little effect on me. Cycling is a hobby have fun, quit taking amateur bike racing so seriously. You, me and 99.9% of the nor-cal racing population have zero impact on the cycling world. Look around at the lack of crowds, do you see anyone interested?
Fuentes served the suspension as handed down by USADA. They are the rule makers/enforcers. Self-police as you and your militia deems necessary but please remember to have some fun. Once again it's a hobby, not a living. If it is a living you made a wrong turn.
casey wrote:Basically as long as the a rider isn't under suspension and they are entering the proper category they are considered a qualified applicant under the rules.
My interpretation of the rules is that local-yokel clubs can collect money owed to them, whether it's from a bounced check or whatever. So if someone accidentally stole $300 in prize money due to a misunderstanding about their placing ("DQ" instead of "podium"), and they try to register for one of our races, and they hand over a check for $30, we can apply that $30 to his $300 debt. Now he's at ($270). Would you like to race today? Great, that'll be $30 please. If he falls for it 11 times he gets to race.
The race ref would be free to challenge this, and I'd be free to tell all the race volunteers to put down their flags, get in their cars and drive home. Maybe a few hundred ticked off racers, and a few less races on the calendar, will convince USADA to do more than nada.
I mean c'mon really - how could there even be a question about this? The suspension was 3/25/04 and he raced and collected prize money after that. Read the arbitration decision hernando linked to, he says he took some unknown pills from a film canister he just happened to have, which in the world of "unbelievable stories in sport" ranks just after Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction." There's been no public apology and correct me if I'm wrong but this isn't exactly a guy who volunteers his time for the sport, waving an orange flag in the rain. Why is he still here? Does anyone wonder why people think this sport is dirty - when an outwardly unrepentant doper is out there at amateur masters events? Hey kids, here's a good mentor. No REALLY - doping is VERY unusual and you SHOULDN'T do it! Pass the inhaler.
Isn't there a way you can, through usac, suspend riders' licenses when they don't pay up - eg when entry-fee checks bounce, or they don't pay club dues? If so could all of us race promoters request a suspension of his license until he pays back all his prize money?
R4L
I got to race against Mr. Fuentes at Hanford in the 1/2 Pro race a couple days ago. BTW Thank you Velo Promo, The City of Hanford, and everyone else involved with the races for putting on a great event! A big thank you comes from me and my team!
Okay back to Fuentes. You know, a public apology from him for his actions would go a long way. After all he was a professional at the highest level of cycling in our country. But I don't think that will happen. Why? I saw him at registration at Hanford, we looked at each other, I shook my head and walked away. I do not think he has any sort of conscious. I was surprised to see him wearing Maguire Clothing. Personally if I were a club, or elite race team, I would have refused him as a member. Let him race on his own.
You could feel the doping buzz in the air as we lined up at Hanford. Guys were rumbling glancing back and forth trying to locate where he was. Yeah he is a marked man for sure. No one wants any part of him at the races. But that is what I observed so I could be wrong. He missed the break in our race. So at least he did not get the win there, but it's March...
I too believe in giving second chances, but second chances are given to individuals who made a ligitimate mistakes, or paid the full price for their actions. Fuentes did race while under his suspension. Came up with a lame excuse as to why he took that stuff, and yeah it is a serious steroid and one would know if they had it in thier posession - Geeze Fuentes you think were all supid? In his case, I believe it was neither. Karma will get him! Hey why doesn't he write a list of all the promotors he cheated and the guys he beat, taking their prizes from them and "Pay Karma Back" Ohh wait that is another story...
Next time I am in a break and if he is there. I'll just sit on him. I might even taunt him a little. "Are you clean?" "I think there gonna test you after the race" I did not get the chance to do that at Hanford since I made the winning break and he did not. So one for me I guess.
Believe me I am not the only one that thinks this of Mr. Fuentes.
I'll also say I agree with Mike that the rules need to change.
As bad as it is its not like he took a GOLD medal in Athens.
Tyler, per the evendence did it. Had every reason to cheat if you ask me. And I think he did.
Raced after he was suspended. Even promoted a race for himself to race in, that took some brass. Now look at the hordes of people upset with the UCI about the letter surrounding that whole mess. The UCI didn't do anything wrong. They only sent out a letter bringing a current rule into the light.
And more people than not dont only belive him, they love him.
The Magazines are full of pages letting Tyler tell his story.
But how many people have strait up just asked Dave anything connected to this? Sunday I did and I'm ok racing against him. I'm not going to help him win but I wont race to have him lose either.
Levi also, Levi got busted for 'roids' and did a year back in the early 90's.
Now he is one of America's poster boys.
You dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. So if DF goes, they should also. Its only fair.
I raced against all 3 guys, DF -TH -LL. Like them all, I dont like what they did.
This is my personal opinion.
If I continute to hold a grudge against any person who wronged me weather by doping, personal attack or the like it only reflects on my character. Not theirs.
So while I wont soon forget the past I also wont let myself be worsened by bitterness and anger.
Just something to think about.
MS
casey wrote:Fear Itself wrote:
I agree with Michael on this one. I just can't understand the ruling that allowed his ban to go up retroactively. There are plenty of appropriate times to give a rider a break, but this wasn't one of them.
Clearly the members of the appeals court didn't agree with the above. After hearing the appeal the judges on the appeals board must have felt that for some reason a 24 month ban from racing wasn't called for so they gave a lesser ban. The members of the appeals board surely aren't stupid people. They knew that Fuentes kept racing during the time leading up to the appeal hearing. By making the suspension retroactive they knew they were basically handing out a lesser penalty than a full 2 year ban from racing. Who knows why the appeals board felt that a lesser penalty was called for in this case but that must have been the case. I'm not saying that the appeals board was right or wrong just pointing out that there must have been some reasoning that lead to a shorter suspension from racing.
I'm not saying that they're stupid. I certainly don't have all the information i'd need to make a completely informed decision. However, I disagree with their decision anyway based on the single fact of the case.... that he took banned substances.
No single raindrop believes it is responsible for the flood.
-Good to see the peloton ostracize cheaters, since there is no lifetime ban
-We now know his prior victories and results are hollow
-Dave Fuentes has his demons to confront
-It's a compliment to the top guys in the field that Dave knew he could not win without cheating
-Everyone deserves a 2nd chance, but they don't necessarily deserve the compasion of their peers.
-I hope he, and "the molester" for that matter, will find a different sport because I don't want to line up with them.
Fear Itself wrote:
I agree with Michael on this one. I just can't understand the ruling that allowed his ban to go up retroactively. There are plenty of appropriate times to give a rider a break, but this wasn't one of them.
Clearly the members of the appeals court didn't agree with the above. After hearing the appeal the judges on the appeals board must have felt that for some reason a 24 month ban from racing wasn't called for so they gave a lesser ban. The members of the appeals board surely aren't stupid people. They knew that Fuentes kept racing during the time leading up to the appeal hearing. By making the suspension retroactive they knew they were basically handing out a lesser penalty than a full 2 year ban from racing. Who knows why the appeals board felt that a lesser penalty was called for in this case but that must have been the case. I'm not saying that the appeals board was right or wrong just pointing out that there must have been some reasoning that lead to a shorter suspension from racing.
WarrenG wrote:Mike, et al, I agree that cheaters should be treated as cheaters until they make restitution, admit their mistake, and try very hard to earn the respect of their fellow competitors.
When all is said and done, we are competing against ourselves, our potential, our past performances, and our goals. I've raced against guys who were cheaters just as you have, but the cheaters don't determine my race performance, or whether I'm racing at the limits of my potential. Only I do that, along with my friends and other fellow competitors I respect.
Whatever your performance, you will always know you did it fairly, without resorting to cheating, and that feeling will be with you long after any race.
-Warren Geissert
I agree with Michael on this one. I just can't understand the ruling that allowed his ban to go up retroactively. There are plenty of appropriate times to give a rider a break, but this wasn't one of them. All that being said, feeling desperate enough to take performance enhancers, actually researching the product and then following through with purchase, and then taking the banned substance and racing...... there are just so many premeditated steps involved in that process. What are you thinking about the moment you decide "I'm going to do it"? Do people think that they'll get to experience some type of feeling that comes with the glory of winning a race that they aren't experiencing otherwise?
For me, racing is a personal thing. Taking enhancers means that you remove your soul from racing and that you only care about what others are doing. That must be such a sad place to reside..... I truly feel for those who have found themselves in such a dark place.
No single raindrop believes it is responsible for the flood.
Mike, et al, I agree that cheaters should be treated as cheaters until they make restitution, admit their mistake, and try very hard to earn the respect of their fellow competitors.
When all is said and done, we are competing against ourselves, our potential, our past performances, and our goals. I've raced against guys who were cheaters just as you have, but the cheaters don't determine my race performance, or whether I'm racing at the limits of my potential. Only I do that, along with my friends and other fellow competitors I respect.
Whatever your performance, you will always know you did it fairly, without resorting to cheating, and that feeling will be with you long after any race.
-Warren Geissert
Richard Brockie wrote:Thanks for the clarification Casey.
This serves to highlight the inconsistency in the process outlined by Michael. My personal take on an appropriate way to prevent this situation in future is for a rider to be prevented from racing when appealing a positive test result.
This is not unprecedented - in the criminal court system a suspect is held in jail pending trial. To extend the analogy, posting bail could be equivalent to the rider paying the costs of the escrow account. Ie, the rider under suspicion agrees to certain restrictions to be allowed to race pending their appeal.
Remember that USAC operates as part of the USOC. The USOC is a federally authorized monopoly for the reason of dealing with the Olympics. Since the USOC is authorized by federal law it operates under federal law. Part of the law the USOC operates under includes lots of athlete protections to protect the right of an athlete to participate in their sport. The right of an athlete can only be taken away after going through the proper due process procedure. The USOC has to approve each national governing body's due process procedure. It would not be a simple thing ( and maybe not allowed under the federal law that authorizes the USOC to exist) to change the rules to say someone appealing a suspension can't race until after the appeal is over.
Thanks for the clarification Casey.
This serves to highlight the inconsistency in the process outlined by Michael. My personal take on an appropriate way to prevent this situation in future is for a rider to be prevented from racing when appealing a positive test result.
This is not unprecedented - in the criminal court system a suspect is held in jail pending trial. To extend the analogy, posting bail could be equivalent to the rider paying the costs of the escrow account. Ie, the rider under suspicion agrees to certain restrictions to be allowed to race pending their appeal.
Amazing how many athletes "allegedly" take things unknowingly. To compete at the level y'all are competing at, you know probably everything to the gram that goes into your body. The big time professional athletes are the funniest when it comes to this subject - they have a nutritionist, personal trainer(s), strict training regimens, etc., and then they decide, "Ahh what the hell, I'll take this pill even though I have no idea what it is because, well, I'm sure it's okay and will help me."
Give me a freakin' break. Lame. All I can say is karma is a beotch.
Seems to me as a race promoter you should be able to reserve the right to address this issue how you see fit. When we promoted our race, we indicated that we would be following NORBA guidelines but then added a few specific rules ourselves. I know, that goes outside the USAC box so forget my suggestion.
Basically as long as the a rider isn't under suspension and they are entering the proper category they are considered a qualified applicant under the rules.
Note it was the USADA that made the decision to make the Fuentes suspension from the date he tested positive ( ie basically letting him race one year of the two year suspension). USAC really doesn't play a role in drug testing or the suspension/appeal process any more. All of that has been turned over to the USADA or WADA.
Now something USAC could do is pass a rule that all prizes won by a rider appealing a suspension be paid into an escrow account. If the rider wins their appeal then they get their prizes. If the rider loses their appeal then the prizes are forfeited ( probably to USAC or some independent group since there might appear to be a conflict in USAC getting the forfeited prizes).
From reading the 2006 rules on entry, I am guessing that Casey is referring to this rule:
1G9. Limitations. Except for invitational races, the organizer must provide an equal opportunity for all qualified applicants to participate without discrimination.
The question is, who is a qualified applicant? I am part of a promoting Club which held a race won by Fuentes, the result of which was voided retrospectively. How we deal with and our options in this situation has already prompted a discussion among our organising committee for our event this year.
Personally, I agree with Michael Hernandez above that Fuentes served the latter part of his suspension, but what about the early part? In effect he did not serve it and therefore to state that his suspension is complete would be erroneous. Would this make Fuentes a disqualified applicant by rule 1G9?