| |
Main
Date: 03 Aug 2007 12:15:37
From: Bill C
Subject: 3rd doping offense
|
Less than half a season for a third offense in MLB:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/08/03/bc.bba.tigers.perezsusp.ap/index.html
DETROIT (AP) -- Tigers infielder Neifi Perez was suspended for 80
games Friday after testing positive for a third time for a banned
stimulant.
Nope, Cycling isn't being subjected to selective prosecution and
cutting it's own throat, nope, not at all.
Let's face reality here. Cycling is the (insert discriminated against
sterotype here) of sport. Wada say they are all guilty because of who
they are.
Garbage applied to society, garbage applied to sport. Where's
cycling's NAACP to take a stand against garbage?
Bill C
|
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 05:46:34
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: 3rd doping offense
|
On Aug 8, 8:02 am, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Aug 8, 7:44 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 8, 7:23 am, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > dumbass,
>
> > > i know you are a torch-bearer for the blue-collar guy, and like the
> > > guy with a hammer who sees everything as a nail, you imagine a riders
> > > union will fix the sport.
>
> > > but you are laughably stupid. with respect to the umpires unions, what
> > > do you think will happen ? i can tell you, ultimately the leagues will
> > > get their way.
>
> > > this reminds me of when the umpires threatened to resign en-masse a
> > > few years ago.
>
> > > (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_32_223/ai_55450230)
>
> > > "resignations were designed to force baseball to immediately negotiate
> > > a new labor contract to replace the one that expires December 31. But
> > > the league called the umpires' bluff. By the time the umpires decided
> > > to rescind their resignations, 25 minor league umpires had been hired
> > > for big-league duty, and the league had accepted the resignations of
> > > 22 current umpires."
>
> > > at least in pro-leagues the athletes work for the league which is the
> > > revenue generator. for the owners it is not in their interest to beat
> > > up their own investment. besides when it comes to really important
> > > matters (compensation) the owners always get their way over the
> > > players unions.
>
> > > in cycling it's the race that generates money (ie. the ASO), the teams
> > > and the UCI don't.
>
> > > the riders can form a union to oppose unfavorable policies of the
> > > teams or the UCI, but both the riders and teams are ultimately
> > > dependent on the ASO for their livelihood. yet they don't work for the
> > > ASO.
>
> > > so what if the riders have better protection from being fired by their
> > > team or from being suspended by the UCI ? the ASO is still in a
> > > position to pick who it wants to invite to the tour.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > If the ASO was forced to run with scrubs, while the riders, teams,
> > and politicians were all screaming in the press then ASO wouldn't have
> > any money for long no matter what races they have.
>
> dumbass,
>
> you could argue last year's race was run with scrubs, with all the top
> dogs: basso, ullrich, hamilton, vino, heras, excluded before the
> start.
>
> in 2008 a list of scrubs would include vino, rasmussen, hamilton,
> heras, basso, vino, landis, mayo- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, if the union stuck together it would have to have run with
uncontracted, non-union riders, and banned riders. I can't see them
doing that. Sandy would have a better handle on whether the other
unions, particulary in France would support them and refuse services
to the races, or possibly combine them with their other protests.
Very few who crossed the picket lines in football, amybe a dozen,
ever got a shot at the NFL again. Same for the scab umpires, but I
don't even think 3 of them were hired later. The umpires union didn't
stick together behind those who quit, and did negotiate to bring the
ones they wanted back.
It'd be awfully hard for the ASO to, all of a sudden, build their
races around riders they'd trashed as doping scum. Could be a bit of a
PR problem.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 16:01:27
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: 3rd doping offense
|
Dans le message de news:1186577194.602472.3980@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Aug 8, 8:02 am, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Aug 8, 7:44 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 8, 7:23 am, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> dumbass,
>>
>>>> i know you are a torch-bearer for the blue-collar guy, and like the
>>>> guy with a hammer who sees everything as a nail, you imagine a
>>>> riders union will fix the sport.
>>
>>>> but you are laughably stupid. with respect to the umpires unions,
>>>> what do you think will happen ? i can tell you, ultimately the
>>>> leagues will get their way.
>>
>>>> this reminds me of when the umpires threatened to resign en-masse a
>>>> few years ago.
>>
>>>> (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_32_223/ai_55450230)
>>
>>>> "resignations were designed to force baseball to immediately
>>>> negotiate a new labor contract to replace the one that expires
>>>> December 31. But the league called the umpires' bluff. By the time
>>>> the umpires decided to rescind their resignations, 25 minor league
>>>> umpires had been hired for big-league duty, and the league had
>>>> accepted the resignations of 22 current umpires."
>>
>>>> at least in pro-leagues the athletes work for the league which is
>>>> the revenue generator. for the owners it is not in their interest
>>>> to beat up their own investment. besides when it comes to really
>>>> important matters (compensation) the owners always get their way
>>>> over the
>>>> players unions.
>>
>>>> in cycling it's the race that generates money (ie. the ASO), the
>>>> teams and the UCI don't.
>>
>>>> the riders can form a union to oppose unfavorable policies of the
>>>> teams or the UCI, but both the riders and teams are ultimately
>>>> dependent on the ASO for their livelihood. yet they don't work for
>>>> the ASO.
>>
>>>> so what if the riders have better protection from being fired by
>>>> their team or from being suspended by the UCI ? the ASO is still
>>>> in a position to pick who it wants to invite to the tour.- Hide
>>>> quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> If the ASO was forced to run with scrubs, while the riders, teams,
>>> and politicians were all screaming in the press then ASO wouldn't
>>> have any money for long no matter what races they have.
>>
>> dumbass,
>>
>> you could argue last year's race was run with scrubs, with all the
>> top dogs: basso, ullrich, hamilton, vino, heras, excluded before the
>> start.
>>
>> in 2008 a list of scrubs would include vino, rasmussen, hamilton,
>> heras, basso, vino, landis, mayo- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> No, if the union stuck together it would have to have run with
> uncontracted, non-union riders, and banned riders. I can't see them
> doing that. Sandy would have a better handle on whether the other
> unions, particulary in France would support them and refuse services
> to the races, or possibly combine them with their other protests.
> Very few who crossed the picket lines in football, amybe a dozen,
> ever got a shot at the NFL again. Same for the scab umpires, but I
> don't even think 3 of them were hired later. The umpires union didn't
> stick together behind those who quit, and did negotiate to bring the
> ones they wanted back.
> It'd be awfully hard for the ASO to, all of a sudden, build their
> races around riders they'd trashed as doping scum. Could be a bit of a
> PR problem.
> Bill C
Before labor issues, the real problem is that by the mutual declaration of
war, UCI and ASO virtually assured that the winner would become the
near-monopolist of the sport. In order to benefit from that position, ASO
will seek more money, thus entrenching its position. What has helped has
been the inordinate attention given to the TdF. 5 or more years ago, it was
the main French race, a giant in Europe, but here people followed the
national division races much more closely. Since the enormous increase in
scandals, the scandal factor has increased attention to the race, and to the
detriment of national level (Continental, if you insist) racing. Scandals
make news, advertisers get more exposure, and whether it's bad or good news,
visual impressions (how they count and manage revenue production) increase.
So long as the mystique of TdF accretes, it will have inordinate power over
all racing components. To be better, it must diminish. To be more
profitable, it must be more sensational. And sensational in any sense will
do.
As to labor, the racers' union is very transient. Remember that typical
contracts are 1 year minimum, and there are plenty. Individual performance
is a key to hiring, and no employer wants to hire a malcontent. So the
individual's self interest and lack of courage is magnified when
agglomerated broadly. I have repeated - the basic legality of the form
contract is not tenable more than 70% of fundamental terms in most European
legal structures. But UCI is Swiss, and can mandate as it likes.
From the broad perspective of labor relations, typical workers identify with
unions strongly. However, as almost all jobs are regulated by industry-wide
collective conventions, one can't escape unions. And when the greater part
of unions (representing those with small incomes) are asked to support union
demands of significantly higher paid bike racers (guys playing little boys'
games), they do not supply much energy.
To summarize
- BAD organizations in cycling
- cowardly riders
- class warfare
--
--
Sandy
--
Si les autres parties du monde ont des singes ; l'Europe a des Français.
Cela se compense.
[Arthur Schopenhauer]
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 12:02:09
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: 3rd doping offense
|
On Aug 8, 7:44 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Aug 8, 7:23 am, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > dumbass,
>
> > i know you are a torch-bearer for the blue-collar guy, and like the
> > guy with a hammer who sees everything as a nail, you imagine a riders
> > union will fix the sport.
>
> > but you are laughably stupid. with respect to the umpires unions, what
> > do you think will happen ? i can tell you, ultimately the leagues will
> > get their way.
>
> > this reminds me of when the umpires threatened to resign en-masse a
> > few years ago.
>
> > (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_32_223/ai_55450230)
>
> > "resignations were designed to force baseball to immediately negotiate
> > a new labor contract to replace the one that expires December 31. But
> > the league called the umpires' bluff. By the time the umpires decided
> > to rescind their resignations, 25 minor league umpires had been hired
> > for big-league duty, and the league had accepted the resignations of
> > 22 current umpires."
>
> > at least in pro-leagues the athletes work for the league which is the
> > revenue generator. for the owners it is not in their interest to beat
> > up their own investment. besides when it comes to really important
> > matters (compensation) the owners always get their way over the
> > players unions.
>
> > in cycling it's the race that generates money (ie. the ASO), the teams
> > and the UCI don't.
>
> > the riders can form a union to oppose unfavorable policies of the
> > teams or the UCI, but both the riders and teams are ultimately
> > dependent on the ASO for their livelihood. yet they don't work for the
> > ASO.
>
> > so what if the riders have better protection from being fired by their
> > team or from being suspended by the UCI ? the ASO is still in a
> > position to pick who it wants to invite to the tour.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> If the ASO was forced to run with scrubs, while the riders, teams,
> and politicians were all screaming in the press then ASO wouldn't have
> any money for long no matter what races they have.
dumbass,
you could argue last year's race was run with scrubs, with all the top
dogs: basso, ullrich, hamilton, vino, heras, excluded before the
start.
in 2008 a list of scrubs would include vino, rasmussen, hamilton,
heras, basso, vino, landis, mayo
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 04:44:49
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: 3rd doping offense
|
On Aug 8, 7:23 am, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com >
wrote:
>
> dumbass,
>
> i know you are a torch-bearer for the blue-collar guy, and like the
> guy with a hammer who sees everything as a nail, you imagine a riders
> union will fix the sport.
>
> but you are laughably stupid. with respect to the umpires unions, what
> do you think will happen ? i can tell you, ultimately the leagues will
> get their way.
>
> this reminds me of when the umpires threatened to resign en-masse a
> few years ago.
>
> (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_32_223/ai_55450230)
>
> "resignations were designed to force baseball to immediately negotiate
> a new labor contract to replace the one that expires December 31. But
> the league called the umpires' bluff. By the time the umpires decided
> to rescind their resignations, 25 minor league umpires had been hired
> for big-league duty, and the league had accepted the resignations of
> 22 current umpires."
>
> at least in pro-leagues the athletes work for the league which is the
> revenue generator. for the owners it is not in their interest to beat
> up their own investment. besides when it comes to really important
> matters (compensation) the owners always get their way over the
> players unions.
>
> in cycling it's the race that generates money (ie. the ASO), the teams
> and the UCI don't.
>
> the riders can form a union to oppose unfavorable policies of the
> teams or the UCI, but both the riders and teams are ultimately
> dependent on the ASO for their livelihood. yet they don't work for the
> ASO.
>
> so what if the riders have better protection from being fired by their
> team or from being suspended by the UCI ? the ASO is still in a
> position to pick who it wants to invite to the tour.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Look up how well Baseball's adventure with scab umpires went, and how
football did with replacement players. It went about as you'd expect
it would.
A strong union isn't going to solve everything, by any stretch of the
imagination, but it would begin to provide balance that's missing.
If the ASO was forced to run with scrubs, while the riders, teams,
and politicians were all screaming in the press then ASO wouldn't have
any money for long no matter what races they have. Davey's repeatedly
pointed out that they both could do quite nicely without Wada and the
UCI, and the only thing that would really change would be the Olympics
and "World Championships".
Ask the AAU what happened to them, and their stranglehold on sports
in the US when people got sick of their shit. They're an afterthought
now pretty much.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 10:27:35
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: 3rd doping offense
|
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 04:44:49 -0700, Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:
>On Aug 8, 7:23 am, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> dumbass,
>>
>> i know you are a torch-bearer for the blue-collar guy, and like the
>> guy with a hammer who sees everything as a nail, you imagine a riders
>> union will fix the sport.
>>
>> but you are laughably stupid. with respect to the umpires unions, what
>> do you think will happen ? i can tell you, ultimately the leagues will
>> get their way.
>>
>> this reminds me of when the umpires threatened to resign en-masse a
>> few years ago.
>>
>> (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_32_223/ai_55450230)
>>
>> "resignations were designed to force baseball to immediately negotiate
>> a new labor contract to replace the one that expires December 31. But
>> the league called the umpires' bluff. By the time the umpires decided
>> to rescind their resignations, 25 minor league umpires had been hired
>> for big-league duty, and the league had accepted the resignations of
>> 22 current umpires."
>>
>> at least in pro-leagues the athletes work for the league which is the
>> revenue generator. for the owners it is not in their interest to beat
>> up their own investment. besides when it comes to really important
>> matters (compensation) the owners always get their way over the
>> players unions.
>>
>> in cycling it's the race that generates money (ie. the ASO), the teams
>> and the UCI don't.
>>
>> the riders can form a union to oppose unfavorable policies of the
>> teams or the UCI, but both the riders and teams are ultimately
>> dependent on the ASO for their livelihood. yet they don't work for the
>> ASO.
>>
>> so what if the riders have better protection from being fired by their
>> team or from being suspended by the UCI ? the ASO is still in a
>> position to pick who it wants to invite to the tour.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
>Look up how well Baseball's adventure with scab umpires went, and how
>football did with replacement players. It went about as you'd expect
>it would.
> A strong union isn't going to solve everything, by any stretch of the
>imagination, but it would begin to provide balance that's missing.
> If the ASO was forced to run with scrubs, while the riders, teams,
>and politicians were all screaming in the press then ASO wouldn't have
>any money for long no matter what races they have. Davey's repeatedly
>pointed out that they both could do quite nicely without Wada and the
>UCI, and the only thing that would really change would be the Olympics
>and "World Championships".
In the absence of a powerful rider's union it is impossible to assume that the
riders agree with the terms of their employment. Yeah, they keep cashing the
checks, but that isn't the same thing. All of the rules, including doping are
presented to the riders from some foreign agency without any concern for the
opinion of the peloton. We have coerced pledges and other shakedowns that are
legally and morally meaningless and the riders mostly shut up and pedal. With a
meaningful union for the riders we can accept that whatever doping rules are
agreed to are fair to the riders and that a violation would be an offense
against the peloton. Maybe it's more blue collarism, but I consider that more
morally compelling than the opinions of an overtrained yup with a Colnago or the
easily outraged outrage Mr. Pound.
> Ask the AAU what happened to them, and their stranglehold on sports
>in the US when people got sick of their shit. They're an afterthought
>now pretty much.
I heard of them. A long time ago.
Ron
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 11:23:45
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: 3rd doping offense
|
On Aug 6, 9:09 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Aug 5, 10:19 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I agree with everything except the last paragraph. What you are
> > ignoring, that doesn't exist in cycling, is a very strong union
> > representing the athletes that has collectively bargained the doping
> > and "cheating" rules, penalties, and procedures. I would have no
> > problem with that being applied to cycling and booting Wada and the
> > rest. Everything in the sports is challenged and evaluated every few
> > years in the new labor agreements and if cycling actually had a
> > vialble, strong union, I don't think anyone would object to that route
> > except Wada, the UCI, and the Teams themselves.
> > You still are pretty simple for someone who spends so much time in
> > academia, as the last paragraph makes pretty clear.
> > You've pretty much missed every point that a lot of us have been
> > making. There are both labor relations issues, and juridicial issues
> > in this and neither are served at the level of any decent standard of
> > western culture that can be applied.
> > It's a lot closer to Boss Tweed, anti-union skullcrackers, and trying
> > to get just treatment in a "company town" when your complaint is the
> > company, but all of that somehow makes us chamois sniffers.
> > You really are a simple, simple, person in a very complex world.
> > Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about, but it's the
> umpires this time:
>
> http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7097508
> Quoted:
>
> After the NBA acknowledged last month that the FBI is investigating
> referee Tim Donaghy for betting on games, baseball officials reviewed
> how they monitor their umpires. The commissioner's office asked major
> and minor league umps to sign authorizations for the background
> checks, and both the major league union and the Association of Minor
> League Umpires told their members not to sign the forms.
>
> "We are committed to fulfilling our obligation to maintain the
> integrity of the game, but Major League Baseball also has a
> responsibility to do what's in the best interest of the sport and its
> fans - and that is to not engage in knee-jerk, misguided witch hunts
> against the umpires without fair negotiations," the WUA said in a
> statement.
>
> This type of protection doesn't exist for anyone, in any capacity, in
> cycling and that's a bad thing.
> Accountablility and checks and balances.
> Bill C
dumbass,
i know you are a torch-bearer for the blue-collar guy, and like the
guy with a hammer who sees everything as a nail, you imagine a riders
union will fix the sport.
but you are laughably stupid. with respect to the umpires unions, what
do you think will happen ? i can tell you, ultimately the leagues will
get their way.
this reminds me of when the umpires threatened to resign en-masse a
few years ago.
(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_32_223/ai_55450230)
"resignations were designed to force baseball to immediately negotiate
a new labor contract to replace the one that expires December 31. But
the league called the umpires' bluff. By the time the umpires decided
to rescind their resignations, 25 minor league umpires had been hired
for big-league duty, and the league had accepted the resignations of
22 current umpires."
at least in pro-leagues the athletes work for the league which is the
revenue generator. for the owners it is not in their interest to beat
up their own investment. besides when it comes to really important
matters (compensation) the owners always get their way over the
players unions.
in cycling it's the race that generates money (ie. the ASO), the teams
and the UCI don't.
the riders can form a union to oppose unfavorable policies of the
teams or the UCI, but both the riders and teams are ultimately
dependent on the ASO for their livelihood. yet they don't work for the
ASO.
so what if the riders have better protection from being fired by their
team or from being suspended by the UCI ? the ASO is still in a
position to pick who it wants to invite to the tour.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 22:49:17
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: 3rd doping offense
|
In article
<1186572225.925034.39460@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com >,
"amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote:
> "resignations were designed to force baseball to immediately negotiate
> a new labor contract to replace the one that expires December 31. But
> the league called the umpires' bluff. By the time the umpires decided
> to rescind their resignations, 25 minor league umpires had been hired
> for big-league duty, and the league had accepted the resignations of
> 22 current umpires."
The NBA decided a few years ago that their referee
corps could be manned by journeymen, rather than
masters. In the old way, the referees had latitude to
talk with the coaches and player, to laugh and joke
with them; and to persuade the contestants that their
interests were protected. David Stern changed to a
system where referees were `anonymous' and
'unapproachable' and `objective'. The result is players
and coaches who are ignored as human beings, who feel
they must take matters into their own hands, who resort
to outrageous behavior, who are assessed heavy
penalties, and finally indictment of a referee for
taking money to influence the score of games. Referees
need to be recognizable and recognized by the public
for doing a good job maintaining fair play.
Too much control of officials by the league leads to
badly managed games, and the bad management is
immediately perceived by spectators.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 18:09:01
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: 3rd doping offense
|
On Aug 5, 10:19 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
>
> I agree with everything except the last paragraph. What you are
> ignoring, that doesn't exist in cycling, is a very strong union
> representing the athletes that has collectively bargained the doping
> and "cheating" rules, penalties, and procedures. I would have no
> problem with that being applied to cycling and booting Wada and the
> rest. Everything in the sports is challenged and evaluated every few
> years in the new labor agreements and if cycling actually had a
> vialble, strong union, I don't think anyone would object to that route
> except Wada, the UCI, and the Teams themselves.
> You still are pretty simple for someone who spends so much time in
> academia, as the last paragraph makes pretty clear.
> You've pretty much missed every point that a lot of us have been
> making. There are both labor relations issues, and juridicial issues
> in this and neither are served at the level of any decent standard of
> western culture that can be applied.
> It's a lot closer to Boss Tweed, anti-union skullcrackers, and trying
> to get just treatment in a "company town" when your complaint is the
> company, but all of that somehow makes us chamois sniffers.
> You really are a simple, simple, person in a very complex world.
> Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about, but it's the
umpires this time:
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7097508
Quoted:
After the NBA acknowledged last month that the FBI is investigating
referee Tim Donaghy for betting on games, baseball officials reviewed
how they monitor their umpires. The commissioner's office asked major
and minor league umps to sign authorizations for the background
checks, and both the major league union and the Association of Minor
League Umpires told their members not to sign the forms.
"We are committed to fulfilling our obligation to maintain the
integrity of the game, but Major League Baseball also has a
responsibility to do what's in the best interest of the sport and its
fans - and that is to not engage in knee-jerk, misguided witch hunts
against the umpires without fair negotiations," the WUA said in a
statement.
This type of protection doesn't exist for anyone, in any capacity, in
cycling and that's a bad thing.
Accountablility and checks and balances.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 06:54:52
From:
Subject: Re: 3rd doping offense
|
On Aug 3, 1:36 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Aug 3, 4:19 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > I totally agree that cycling is cutting its own throat. Throwing
> > > Rasmussen out while he was leading the tour without any proof of
> > > doping would be akin to Baseball throwing Barry Bonds out while one
> > > home run away from the record. How can this be good for the sport?
>
> > > I really think the reason for this is that cycling has alot of fans
> > > who are wanna-bes who think that they could be something if not for
> > > doping (especially in America). Baseball and football have alot of
> > > fans who are simply fans with no illusions that they are the next babe
> > > Ruth or Jim Brown.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > It sure doesn't take long riding with a real national/UCI level talent
> > to make it really clear that it's not the just, or at all, the dope.
> > Most of those folks could drop the vast majority of us on a recovery
> > ride.
> > Bill C
>
> dumbasses,
>
> rasmussen wasn't canned by the master fatties and 12k dreamers, he was
> fired by his team because of suspicious behavior.
>
> of course the move wasn't good for the sport, but the tour winner
> being wrapped up in a doping case is even worse for the sport (though
> that might happen anyway).- Hide quoted text -
Yeah, Alberto Contador is being convicted in the press of having
initials of AC. Very powerful those initials.
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 19:19:14
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: 3rd doping offense
|
On Aug 5, 9:21 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2:49 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 4, 12:38 pm, Simon Brooke <si...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Except we don't yet know - and neither, as far as we know, do they -
> > > whether or not he violated his contract. The only evidence that he did is
> > > one man's word.
>
> > > --
> > > si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke)http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
>
> > > ;; Perl ... is the Brittney Spears of programming - easily accessible
> > > ;; but, in the final analysis, empty of any significant thought
> > > ;; Frank Adrian on Slashdot, 21st July 2003- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > There is a ton of civil law to adjudicate contract disputes which
> > provide the full protections that anyone would be allowed, as opposed
> > to the doping Kangaroo Court system.
> > I don't see this as being any different than a guy on the assembly
> > line lying to his boss. They think there are grounds for terminating
> > his contract, and they did. He has the full protection of the legal
> > system in this case to dispute that decision if he chooses.
> > That's really all anyone can expect. If it's found they fired him
> > without cause I'm sure that there will be compensation awarded to him.
>
> dumbass,
>
> as an obsever what i see is that baseball (and all pro sports) have a
> well defined system and an infallible commissoner.
>
> part of the new problem of doping control in cycling is that even the
> first violation results in a severe and potentially career ending
> penalty and all doping violations are treated the same.
>
> it has the effect of perpetuating the mentality that doping is "evil"
> - it must be since the penalty is so harsh - when it's simply an issue
> of breaking the agreed upon rules of the game.
>
> when someone in MLB or the NFL tests positive there is a clear outcome
> and it gets dealt with immediately, and there aren't endless appeals
> and trials and hearings and a bewildering zoo of gov. bodies, ADAs.
> Olympic committees, judges and prosecutors.
>
> and there is consistency. but when there is a severe or unforeseen
> problem like puerto there is a commissoner who can step in and make a
> sane ruling which is unchallenged. that's what happened in the NBA
> after the artest brawl.
>
> after puerto basso and ullrich were cleared by their nat'l
> federations, as were botero and sevilla (who are racing), but it was
> CONI and the german cops that re-opened the investigations that led to
> them being found guilty. a year after the fact there still isn't
> closure on most of the 70 or so riders implicated in puerto, a problem
> which might be coming home to roost in the form of contador.
>
> instead of a boss cycling is run by an inept confederacy of committees
> and bureaucrats.
>
> if i was the mythical cycling commissoner after puerto i would look at
> the puerto evidence that was available, talk to a few other cycling
> insiders (riders, managers, docs), come up with a list of who i
> thought was involved and suspend them all 6 months.
>
> hysteria-prone chamois-sniffers like you would write on rbr comparing
> me to stalin or mao and call my actions ethnic-cleansing or heretic-
> burning and how i was destroying the sport for my personal gain. but
> fans would know when a problem arose it was dealt with swiftly and
> would not have to be revisited a year from now and they could
> concentrate on the competition instead of the doping circus.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree with everything except the last paragraph. What you are
ignoring, that doesn't exist in cycling, is a very strong union
representing the athletes that has collectively bargained the doping
and "cheating" rules, penalties, and procedures. I would have no
problem with that being applied to cycling and booting Wada and the
rest. Everything in the sports is challenged and evaluated every few
years in the new labor agreements and if cycling actually had a
vialble, strong union, I don't think anyone would object to that route
except Wada, the UCI, and the Teams themselves.
You still are pretty simple for someone who spends so much time in
academia, as the last paragraph makes pretty clear.
You've pretty much missed every point that a lot of us have been
making. There are both labor relations issues, and juridicial issues
in this and neither are served at the level of any decent standard of
western culture that can be applied.
It's a lot closer to Boss Tweed, anti-union skullcrackers, and trying
to get just treatment in a "company town" when your complaint is the
company, but all of that somehow makes us chamois sniffers.
You really are a simple, simple, person in a very complex world.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 01:21:46
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: 3rd doping offense
|
On Aug 4, 2:49 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Aug 4, 12:38 pm, Simon Brooke <si...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Except we don't yet know - and neither, as far as we know, do they -
> > whether or not he violated his contract. The only evidence that he did is
> > one man's word.
>
> > --
> > si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke)http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
>
> > ;; Perl ... is the Brittney Spears of programming - easily accessible
> > ;; but, in the final analysis, empty of any significant thought
> > ;; Frank Adrian on Slashdot, 21st July 2003- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> There is a ton of civil law to adjudicate contract disputes which
> provide the full protections that anyone would be allowed, as opposed
> to the doping Kangaroo Court system.
> I don't see this as being any different than a guy on the assembly
> line lying to his boss. They think there are grounds for terminating
> his contract, and they did. He has the full protection of the legal
> system in this case to dispute that decision if he chooses.
> That's really all anyone can expect. If it's found they fired him
> without cause I'm sure that there will be compensation awarded to him.
dumbass,
as an obsever what i see is that baseball (and all pro sports) have a
well defined system and an infallible commissoner.
part of the new problem of doping control in cycling is that even the
first violation results in a severe and potentially career ending
penalty and all doping violations are treated the same.
it has the effect of perpetuating the mentality that doping is "evil"
- it must be since the penalty is so harsh - when it's simply an issue
of breaking the agreed upon rules of the game.
when someone in MLB or the NFL tests positive there is a clear outcome
and it gets dealt with immediately, and there aren't endless appeals
and trials and hearings and a bewildering zoo of gov. bodies, ADAs.
Olympic committees, judges and prosecutors.
and there is consistency. but when there is a severe or unforeseen
problem like puerto there is a commissoner who can step in and make a
sane ruling which is unchallenged. that's what happened in the NBA
after the artest brawl.
after puerto basso and ullrich were cleared by their nat'l
federations, as were botero and sevilla (who are racing), but it was
CONI and the german cops that re-opened the investigations that led to
them being found guilty. a year after the fact there still isn't
closure on most of the 70 or so riders implicated in puerto, a problem
which might be coming home to roost in the form of contador.
instead of a boss cycling is run by an inept confederacy of committees
and bureaucrats.
if i was the mythical cycling commissoner after puerto i would look at
the puerto evidence that was available, talk to a few other cycling
insiders (riders, managers, docs), come up with a list of who i
thought was involved and suspend them all 6 months.
hysteria-prone chamois-sniffers like you would write on rbr comparing
me to stalin or mao and call my actions ethnic-cleansing or heretic-
burning and how i was destroying the sport for my personal gain. but
fans would know when a problem arose it was dealt with swiftly and
would not have to be revisited a year from now and they could
concentrate on the competition instead of the doping circus.
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 00:48:58
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: 3rd doping offense
|
On Aug 4, 1:57 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
> In article
> <1186168537.522905.311...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
> Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Less than half a season for a third offense in MLB:
>
> Half a season is eighty-ONE games.
> Perez is a utility player for a team vying for a championship.
> The team will bring up players or maybe trade.
> He will not be missed.
>
> >http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/08/03/bc.bba.tiger...
>
> > DETROIT (AP) -- Tigers infielder Neifi Perez was suspended for 80
> > games Friday after testing positive for a third time for a banned
> > stimulant.
>
> > Nope, Cycling isn't being subjected to selective prosecution and
> > cutting it's own throat, nope, not at all.
> > Let's face reality here. Cycling is the (insert discriminated against
> > sterotype here)
>
> whipping boy
>
> > of sport. Wada say they are all guilty because of who
> > they are.
> > Garbage applied to society, garbage applied to sport. Where's
> > cycling's NAACP to take a stand against garbage?
>
> --
> Michael Press
NOPe. yawl keep missing the poitn with all this moralizing.
THIS IS ENTERTAINMENT AND MONEY.
perez is battting .175, Mayo is at career's end..
Bond is selling tickets tickets beer SF black power...
ASO decided they wanted Discovery not Denmark following Moroad's
defeat.
I say the French/Italians bet on Discovery.
Yawl want to make out that Prudhomme/ASO are upright guys: BS! never
were never will be.
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 00:34:10
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: 3rd doping offense
|
his team went public in stating unequivacably that the team did not
want to throw him out!
|
| |
Date: 04 Aug 2007 11:49:03
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: 3rd doping offense
|
On Aug 4, 12:38 pm, Simon Brooke <si...@jasmine.org.uk > wrote:
>
> Except we don't yet know - and neither, as far as we know, do they -
> whether or not he violated his contract. The only evidence that he did is
> one man's word.
>
> --
> si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke)http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
>
> ;; Perl ... is the Brittney Spears of programming - easily accessible
> ;; but, in the final analysis, empty of any significant thought
> ;; Frank Adrian on Slashdot, 21st July 2003- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is a ton of civil law to adjudicate contract disputes which
provide the full protections that anyone would be allowed, as opposed
to the doping Kangaroo Court system.
I don't see this as being any different than a guy on the assembly
line lying to his boss. They think there are grounds for terminating
his contract, and they did. He has the full protection of the legal
system in this case to dispute that decision if he chooses.
That's really all anyone can expect. If it's found they fired him
without cause I'm sure that there will be compensation awarded to him.
I agree with Amit that the team may well suspect that there are
bigger negatives to come in the future, but acting on that fear should
put them in a dicey legal situation if there is any justice. You have
to have due legal cause to take an action, fear of a future problem
isn't likely to hold up in a labor court.
That's why Mike Vick, even though the negative publicity is massive,
is still employed and being payed while the legalities run their
course. He's basically been given a paid vacation because that's the
best they can do to contain the negatives without losing a massive
lawsuit.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 04 Aug 2007 05:57:46
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: 3rd doping offense
|
In article
<1186168537.522905.311560@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com >,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:
> Less than half a season for a third offense in MLB:
Half a season is eighty-ONE games.
Perez is a utility player for a team vying for a championship.
The team will bring up players or maybe trade.
He will not be missed.
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/08/03/bc.bba.tigers.perezsusp.ap/index.html
>
> DETROIT (AP) -- Tigers infielder Neifi Perez was suspended for 80
> games Friday after testing positive for a third time for a banned
> stimulant.
>
> Nope, Cycling isn't being subjected to selective prosecution and
> cutting it's own throat, nope, not at all.
> Let's face reality here. Cycling is the (insert discriminated against
> sterotype here)
whipping boy
> of sport. Wada say they are all guilty because of who
> they are.
> Garbage applied to society, garbage applied to sport. Where's
> cycling's NAACP to take a stand against garbage?
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 21:37:53
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: 3rd doping offense
|
On Aug 3, 5:05 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> I guess you missed my earlier posts during the Tour agreeing that his
> team did the right thing, same as happened to Ulrich, for the same
> reason.
unlike you, i believe the people in the sport know a bit more than
what we read in cnews and velonews.
the original puerto evidence against ullrich and basso was
circumstantial, but it's telling when neither was willing to take a
DNA test which could clear them.
people within their respective teams probably knew they were using
fuentes, but it wasn't until they were implicated publicly were they
forced to fire them.
it doesn't make sense that two top teams would fire the two most
likely tour winners when as you claim there is "no evidence of
doping".
they were forced to because they felt it was likely that more evidence
surrounding puerto would become public.
(ie. getting caught is heavily punished)
> As far as I'm concerned Rasmussen's firing wasn't doping related it
> was violation of contract related.
that's the line they took. any decent team will back up their riders
when they make minor violations. they could've fought it - rasmussen
stomped the final mtn. stage - they were about to win the tour!
a tour win would've been rabobank's biggest ever achievement.
that they so quickly pulled rasmussen AND fired him without any
protest is telling.
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 21:24:28
From: kaiser
Subject: Re: 3rd doping offense
|
His team threw him out, not "they".
On Aug 3, 12:53 pm, mcahill...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Aug 3, 3:15 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Less than half a season for a third offense in MLB:
>
> >http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/08/03/bc.bba.tiger...
>
> > DETROIT (AP) -- Tigers infielder Neifi Perez was suspended for 80
> > games Friday after testing positive for a third time for a banned
> > stimulant.
>
> > Nope, Cycling isn't being subjected to selective prosecution and
> > cutting it's own throat, nope, not at all.
> > Let's face reality here. Cycling is the (insert discriminated against
> > sterotype here) of sport. Wada say they are all guilty because of who
> > they are.
> > Garbage applied to society, garbage applied to sport. Where's
> > cycling's NAACP to take a stand against garbage?
> > Bill C
>
> I totally agree that cycling is cutting its own throat. Throwing
> Rasmussen out while he was leading the tour without any proof of
> doping would be akin to Baseball throwing Barry Bonds out while one
> home run away from the record. How can this be good for the sport?
>
> I really think the reason for this is that cycling has alot of fans
> who are wanna-bes who think that they could be something if not for
> doping (especially in America). Baseball and football have alot of
> fans who are simply fans with no illusions that they are the next babe
> Ruth or Jim Brown.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Aug 2007 11:29:23
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: 3rd doping offense
|
kaiser wrote:
> His team threw him out, not "they".
It was pressure from "they" on the sponsors.
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 14:05:21
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: 3rd doping offense
|
On Aug 3, 4:36 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Aug 3, 4:19 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > I totally agree that cycling is cutting its own throat. Throwing
> > > Rasmussen out while he was leading the tour without any proof of
> > > doping would be akin to Baseball throwing Barry Bonds out while one
> > > home run away from the record. How can this be good for the sport?
>
> > > I really think the reason for this is that cycling has alot of fans
> > > who are wanna-bes who think that they could be something if not for
> > > doping (especially in America). Baseball and football have alot of
> > > fans who are simply fans with no illusions that they are the next babe
> > > Ruth or Jim Brown.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > It sure doesn't take long riding with a real national/UCI level talent
> > to make it really clear that it's not the just, or at all, the dope.
> > Most of those folks could drop the vast majority of us on a recovery
> > ride.
> > Bill C
>
> dumbasses,
>
> rasmussen wasn't canned by the master fatties and 12k dreamers, he was
> fired by his team because of suspicious behavior.
>
> of course the move wasn't good for the sport, but the tour winner
> being wrapped up in a doping case is even worse for the sport (though
> that might happen anyway).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I guess you missed my earlier posts during the Tour agreeing that his
team did the right thing, same as happened to Ulrich, for the same
reason.
As far as I'm concerned Rasmussen's firing wasn't doping related it
was violation of contract related.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 04 Aug 2007 17:38:29
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: 3rd doping offense
|
in message <1186175121.625231.217090@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >, Bill C
('tritonrider@verizon.net') wrote:
> On Aug 3, 4:36 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Aug 3, 4:19 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > I totally agree that cycling is cutting its own throat. Throwing
>> > > Rasmussen out while he was leading the tour without any proof of
>> > > doping would be akin to Baseball throwing Barry Bonds out while one
>> > > home run away from the record. How can this be good for the sport?
>>
>> > > I really think the reason for this is that cycling has alot of fans
>> > > who are wanna-bes who think that they could be something if not for
>> > > doping (especially in America). Baseball and football have alot of
>> > > fans who are simply fans with no illusions that they are the next
>> > > babe Ruth or Jim Brown.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > It sure doesn't take long riding with a real national/UCI level talent
>> > to make it really clear that it's not the just, or at all, the dope.
>> > Most of those folks could drop the vast majority of us on a recovery
>> > ride.
>>
>> rasmussen wasn't canned by the master fatties and 12k dreamers, he was
>> fired by his team because of suspicious behavior.
>>
>> of course the move wasn't good for the sport, but the tour winner
>> being wrapped up in a doping case is even worse for the sport (though
>> that might happen anyway).- Hide quoted text -
>
> I guess you missed my earlier posts during the Tour agreeing that his
> team did the right thing, same as happened to Ulrich, for the same
> reason.
> As far as I'm concerned Rasmussen's firing wasn't doping related it
> was violation of contract related.
Except we don't yet know - and neither, as far as we know, do they -
whether or not he violated his contract. The only evidence that he did is
one man's word.
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Perl ... is the Brittney Spears of programming - easily accessible
;; but, in the final analysis, empty of any significant thought
;; Frank Adrian on Slashdot, 21st July 2003
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 20:36:17
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: 3rd doping offense
|
On Aug 3, 4:19 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> > I totally agree that cycling is cutting its own throat. Throwing
> > Rasmussen out while he was leading the tour without any proof of
> > doping would be akin to Baseball throwing Barry Bonds out while one
> > home run away from the record. How can this be good for the sport?
>
> > I really think the reason for this is that cycling has alot of fans
> > who are wanna-bes who think that they could be something if not for
> > doping (especially in America). Baseball and football have alot of
> > fans who are simply fans with no illusions that they are the next babe
> > Ruth or Jim Brown.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> It sure doesn't take long riding with a real national/UCI level talent
> to make it really clear that it's not the just, or at all, the dope.
> Most of those folks could drop the vast majority of us on a recovery
> ride.
> Bill C
dumbasses,
rasmussen wasn't canned by the master fatties and 12k dreamers, he was
fired by his team because of suspicious behavior.
of course the move wasn't good for the sport, but the tour winner
being wrapped up in a doping case is even worse for the sport (though
that might happen anyway).
|
| | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 19:16:56
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: 3rd doping offense
|
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:36:17 -0000, "amit.ghosh@gmail.com"
<amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote:
>On Aug 3, 4:19 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> > I totally agree that cycling is cutting its own throat. Throwing
>> > Rasmussen out while he was leading the tour without any proof of
>> > doping would be akin to Baseball throwing Barry Bonds out while one
>> > home run away from the record. How can this be good for the sport?
>>
>> > I really think the reason for this is that cycling has alot of fans
>> > who are wanna-bes who think that they could be something if not for
>> > doping (especially in America). Baseball and football have alot of
>> > fans who are simply fans with no illusions that they are the next babe
>> > Ruth or Jim Brown.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> It sure doesn't take long riding with a real national/UCI level talent
>> to make it really clear that it's not the just, or at all, the dope.
>> Most of those folks could drop the vast majority of us on a recovery
>> ride.
>> Bill C
>
>dumbasses,
>
>rasmussen wasn't canned by the master fatties and 12k dreamers, he was
>fired by his team because of suspicious behavior.
That would be mostly because of the shrieking mob with pitchforks and torches
outside Rabobank doors. Most of which mob lacks the will, courage and decency to
be a fatty master.
Ron
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 13:19:38
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: 3rd doping offense
|
On Aug 3, 3:53 pm, mcahill...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Aug 3, 3:15 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Less than half a season for a third offense in MLB:
>
> >http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/08/03/bc.bba.tiger...
>
> > DETROIT (AP) -- Tigers infielder Neifi Perez was suspended for 80
> > games Friday after testing positive for a third time for a banned
> > stimulant.
>
> > Nope, Cycling isn't being subjected to selective prosecution and
> > cutting it's own throat, nope, not at all.
> > Let's face reality here. Cycling is the (insert discriminated against
> > sterotype here) of sport. Wada say they are all guilty because of who
> > they are.
> > Garbage applied to society, garbage applied to sport. Where's
> > cycling's NAACP to take a stand against garbage?
> > Bill C
>
> I totally agree that cycling is cutting its own throat. Throwing
> Rasmussen out while he was leading the tour without any proof of
> doping would be akin to Baseball throwing Barry Bonds out while one
> home run away from the record. How can this be good for the sport?
>
> I really think the reason for this is that cycling has alot of fans
> who are wanna-bes who think that they could be something if not for
> doping (especially in America). Baseball and football have alot of
> fans who are simply fans with no illusions that they are the next babe
> Ruth or Jim Brown.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It sure doesn't take long riding with a real national/UCI level talent
to make it really clear that it's not the just, or at all, the dope.
Most of those folks could drop the vast majority of us on a recovery
ride.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 12:53:20
From:
Subject: Re: 3rd doping offense
|
On Aug 3, 3:15 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> Less than half a season for a third offense in MLB:
>
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/08/03/bc.bba.tiger...
>
> DETROIT (AP) -- Tigers infielder Neifi Perez was suspended for 80
> games Friday after testing positive for a third time for a banned
> stimulant.
>
> Nope, Cycling isn't being subjected to selective prosecution and
> cutting it's own throat, nope, not at all.
> Let's face reality here. Cycling is the (insert discriminated against
> sterotype here) of sport. Wada say they are all guilty because of who
> they are.
> Garbage applied to society, garbage applied to sport. Where's
> cycling's NAACP to take a stand against garbage?
> Bill C
I totally agree that cycling is cutting its own throat. Throwing
Rasmussen out while he was leading the tour without any proof of
doping would be akin to Baseball throwing Barry Bonds out while one
home run away from the record. How can this be good for the sport?
I really think the reason for this is that cycling has alot of fans
who are wanna-bes who think that they could be something if not for
doping (especially in America). Baseball and football have alot of
fans who are simply fans with no illusions that they are the next babe
Ruth or Jim Brown.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Aug 2007 15:32:47
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: 3rd doping offense
|
> I totally agree that cycling is cutting its own throat. Throwing
> Rasmussen out while he was leading the tour without any proof of
> doping would be akin to Baseball throwing Barry Bonds out while one
> home run away from the record. How can this be good for the sport?
Umm... count me as one strike in favor of consistency on that one! If
baseball has evidence that Bonds has been cheating then yes, by all means,
suspend him one run shy of the record.
Anyone who believes that Rasmussen being tossed out of the 'tour was simply
a "normal" result of prior sins doesn't have their head screwed on straight.
It was quite obviously to set an example for others to see. Show that they
don't care they're not just going after the defenseless little guy; that
they'll take you down whenever and wherever they can.
Ultimately, if it does clean up the sport, it's good for the sport. But what
Cycling really needs is a new PR firm. It's ridiculous that we get BAD
publicity because our programs to catch cheating work. Isn't that what
they're supposed to do? Are we otherwise to assume that the old days, when
nobody was caught, that it was an indication things were cleaner?
We're on the right track. And we should be EXPECTING to catch cheaters, and
question things when we don't. In my opinion, any sport that isn't catching
many cheaters isn't doing a very good job of trying.
Meantime, ASO should be patting the UCI on the back for its efforts to find
those doping, and say publicly that those efforts are finding people because
they're WORKING.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 09:20:51
From: David B.
Subject: Re: 3rd doping offense
|
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> If baseball has evidence that Bonds has been cheating then yes, by all means,
> suspend him one run shy of the record.
If? The evidence is clear (excuse the pun). Barry doesn't deny doping.
He denies knowing he was doping. He maintains his suppliers were
lying to him about the stuff he was taking. He wouldn't have touched
the stuff if he'd only known what it really was. He's the victim in
this situation. We shouldn't punish the victim.
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 11:54:28
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: 3rd doping offense
|
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 09:20:51 -0400, "David B." <BikeMan@twcny.rr.com > wrote:
>Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> If baseball has evidence that Bonds has been cheating then yes, by all means,
>> suspend him one run shy of the record.
>
>If? The evidence is clear (excuse the pun). Barry doesn't deny doping.
> He denies knowing he was doping. He maintains his suppliers were
>lying to him about the stuff he was taking.
Told him is was an iron shot, no doubt.
> He wouldn't have touched
>the stuff if he'd only known what it really was. He's the victim in
>this situation. We shouldn't punish the victim.
Of course.
Ron
|
|
