| |
Main
Date: 28 Apr 2007 16:15:01
From: benjo maso
Subject: Excellent news
|
Excellent news for the anti-doping hunters. Their tireless efforts are
beginning to have effects. The german research bureau IFM has calculated
that international TV viewing figures for cycling races have dropped 47 %
within a year.The main victim was the Ronde van Vlaanderen (77 %). According
to the bureau, it means that the commercial value of cycling dropped 52 %
since last season, a trend which will continue in the next few month. The
main reason? Doping scandals, like Floyd Landis in the Tour, the operation
Puerto, etc. Well done, mister Pound and friends! Just another little effort
and cycling is saved!
Benjo
|
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 17:40:19
From: ilan
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On Apr 28, 4:15 pm, "benjo maso" <benjo.m...@chello.nl > wrote:
> Excellent news for the anti-doping hunters. Their tireless efforts are
> beginning to have effects. The german research bureau IFM has calculated
> that international TV viewing figures for cycling races have dropped 47 %
> within a year.The main victim was the Ronde van Vlaanderen (77 %). According
> to the bureau, it means that the commercial value of cycling dropped 52 %
> since last season, a trend which will continue in the next few month. The
> main reason? Doping scandals, like Floyd Landis in the Tour, the operation
> Puerto, etc. Well done, mister Pound and friends! Just another little effort
> and cycling is saved!
>
> Benjo
Thanks, but I already read this message, it was leaked to L'Equipe.
-ilan
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 18:26:18
From: Nev Shea
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
"benjo maso" <benjo.maso@chello.nl > wrote in
news:59h376F2kt18kU1@mid.individual.net:
> Excellent news for the anti-doping hunters. Their tireless efforts are
> beginning to have effects. The german research bureau IFM has
> calculated that international TV viewing figures for cycling races
> have dropped 47 % within a year.The main victim was the Ronde van
> Vlaanderen (77 %). According to the bureau, it means that the
> commercial value of cycling dropped 52 % since last season, a trend
> which will continue in the next few month. The main reason? Doping
> scandals, like Floyd Landis in the Tour, the operation Puerto, etc.
> Well done, mister Pound and friends! Just another little effort and
> cycling is saved!
This is also excellent news for the cycling fans that remain. It means
that Dick Pound is going to have to find another target for his crusade
because he won't get much press coverage for busting more cyclists. So
now that he has perfected his "methods", he can move on to a bigger, more
high profile target. Look out, soccer!
Bad news in the short term for riders, because this should mean lower
sponsorship dollars available for a while. But things will return to
normal soon enough, and with Pound focusing on a bigger target he won't
have time to come back after the little fish.
NS
WADA strategic planning office
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 15:24:23
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
In article <59h376F2kt18kU1@mid.individual.net >,
"benjo maso" <benjo.maso@chello.nl > wrote:
> Excellent news for the anti-doping hunters. Their tireless efforts are
> beginning to have effects. The german research bureau IFM has calculated
> that international TV viewing figures for cycling races have dropped 47 %
> within a year.The main victim was the Ronde van Vlaanderen (77 %). According
> to the bureau, it means that the commercial value of cycling dropped 52 %
> since last season, a trend which will continue in the next few month. The
> main reason? Doping scandals, like Floyd Landis in the Tour, the operation
> Puerto, etc. Well done, mister Pound and friends! Just another little effort
> and cycling is saved!
Hey Benjo:
I'll be a fan of pro cycling right down to the point when it devolves to
Cat 1s racing industrial park criteriums for a pair of nice sunglasses.
But I've realized that my true enjoyment of the sport comes from being a
participant, a volunteer, a follower of local amateurs, and the go-to
guy in my club for bizarre mechanical concepts.
I think this is a major difference in how cycling works in North America
and Europe. Here, it's almost entirely a participant sport, plus a
remnant of spectators who watch the Tour post-Lance.
In Europe, it's totally normal to be a cycling fan who doesn't have any
interest in actually riding other than a shopping bike to the market.
In a way, this makes North American cycling a little more robust: as the
Euro pro circuit rips itself apart over a combination of power politics
and doping scandals that now seem to be a witch hunt featuring actual
witches, the effects on this side of the water are peripheral at best.
Meanwhile, the growth of local grassroots cycling is so vigorous that
the big complaints are the field sizes. If present trends continue, we
will probably have to split the Cat 4 and Cat 5 fields, which have
traditionally raced as a 4/5 pack in almost all local races. Either
that, or field limits.
I don't think the quantity of amateur bike racing is quite where it is
in Europe yet, but amateurism has a lot to recommend it.
I'm cheering for Krabbé,
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 15:23:05
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
benjo maso wrote:
> Excellent news for the anti-doping hunters. Their tireless efforts are
> beginning to have effects. The german research bureau IFM has calculated
> that international TV viewing figures for cycling races have dropped 47 %
> within a year.The main victim was the Ronde van Vlaanderen (77 %). According
> to the bureau, it means that the commercial value of cycling dropped 52 %
> since last season, a trend which will continue in the next few month. The
> main reason? Doping scandals, like Floyd Landis in the Tour, the operation
> Puerto, etc. Well done, mister Pound and friends! Just another little effort
> and cycling is saved!
>
>
>
> Benjo
>
>
AFAIK, it has not hurt American football or baseball. Obviously I
have no way to know how this plays out on European TV, or how you draw
cause and effect.
Maybe they're all mesmerized by the election in France.
Best,
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
|
| | |
Date: 04 May 2007 03:13:05
From: Tuschinski
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On May 4, 3:51 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> You still don't understand American ideas of justice do you? Hopefully
> you'll discover the hard way why we prefer to assume innocent until guilt is
> proven beyond a doubt.
Tom, the European legal system is going from the same premises.
|
| | |
Date: 03 May 2007 08:24:40
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On May 3, 2:22 am, "SandM" <h90...@hotmail.commie > wrote:
> Is it illegal to have your blood stored someplace ?
please! at a place that's not a recognized medical facility ?
if they were storing blood for some legitimate reason why didn't they
say so at the outset or even declare it in advance ?
|
| | | |
Date: 04 May 2007 01:51:37
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
<amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1178205878.989275.88190@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On May 3, 2:22 am, "SandM" <h90...@hotmail.commie> wrote:
>
>> Is it illegal to have your blood stored someplace ?
>
> please! at a place that's not a recognized medical facility ?
>
> if they were storing blood for some legitimate reason why didn't they
> say so at the outset or even declare it in advance ?
You still don't understand American ideas of justice do you? Hopefully
you'll discover the hard way why we prefer to assume innocent until guilt is
proven beyond a doubt.
|
| | | |
Date: 03 May 2007 12:17:56
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On 3 May 2007 08:24:40 -0700, "amit.ghosh@gmail.com"
<amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote:
>please! at a place that's not a recognized medical facility ?
>
>if they were storing blood for some legitimate reason why didn't they
>say so at the outset or even declare it in advance ?
Try to be calm about this. At least in the U.S. storing blood at a
doctor's office is perfectly OK, as long as they document that the
relevant FDA or JCAHO guidelines are met. Depending on their practice,
it may even make sense. Is Europe completely different (other than
where the guidelines come from)?
And while we both may agree that all that blood, whether from football
players or bicycle racers, is suspicious, that is a separate issue
from what people say when a prosecutor is on one side and their
personal counsel is on the other.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 13:20:38
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On Apr 30, 4:11 pm, Tony Rall <t...@almaden.ibm.com > wrote:
> Simon Brooke wrote:
> > The blood is evidence, yes. But it's not evidence against specific
> > individuals until it's been identified as belonging to those specific
> > individuals. And (with the exception of Ullrich) that has not happened.
>
> Even then it's not evidence. It's certainly not illegal to have your
> blood stored by some third party. And I don't believe it's against any
> cycling rules.
>
> It is only suspicious. Those with stored blood are likely planning to
> do something against the rules (and quite likely have done such in the
> past).
>
> But identifying the blood donors does not prove anything.
>
> --
> Tony Rall
i was using an old version. the newer rules are very clear about this:
chapt II. item 15 :
http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Rules/14ant-E.pdf
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 16:37:14
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On 30 Apr 2007 13:20:38 -0700, "amit.ghosh@gmail.com"
<amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote:
>i was using an old version. the newer rules are very clear about this:
>
>chapt II. item 15 :
>
>http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Rules/14ant-E.pdf
>
I disagree with your interpretation altogether, if your cite is the
controlling document.
First, the part I assume you are referring to says that it applies to
a rider or the rider's support personnel. That is a first and clear
barrier to be cleared. Has Fuentes been shown to have that
relationship in this case to any specific rider? It is almost a
logical loop - if Fuentes can be shown to have helped them blood dope,
then he is a support personnel. If not, he isn't. But if you prove the
act, you don't need the 'suspicion'.
Then it is to be in connection to an event or training - that is a
major hurdle with the Puerto blood. What event? Training when? Got a
nexus here to hang a rider and his career from? Oh, yes, 'everyone'
presumes it to be the case, at a minimum for training. Get the horse
and rope. Group rates for entire teams.
The other sections aren't relevant to this discussion or speak
specifically to a rider's possession, not that of other people.
To mix metaphors, I don't see you have a bagel from the above source,
not for Puerto.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 13:15:45
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On Apr 30, 4:11 pm, Tony Rall <t...@almaden.ibm.com > wrote:
> Simon Brooke wrote:
> > The blood is evidence, yes. But it's not evidence against specific
> > individuals until it's been identified as belonging to those specific
> > individuals. And (with the exception of Ullrich) that has not happened.
>
> Even then it's not evidence. It's certainly not illegal to have your
> blood stored by some third party. And I don't believe it's against any
> cycling rules.
As I mentioned before, the intention to cheat is treated the same as
the offense.
article 6 :
http://www.uci.ch/english/about/rules_2004/ch14.pdf
|
| | | |
Date: 03 May 2007 08:18:20
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On May 3, 12:06 pm, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
> On 3 May 2007 07:51:50 -0700, "amit.gh...@gmail.com"
>
> <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >a lot of things aren't illegal, but they aren't allowed within the
> >rules of a sport.
>
> Which would go back to the issue of 'illegal' and 'criminals' - not
> the terms I introduced. The true illegalities are generally some form
> of fraud in the competition, but I'm not sure how that holds if the
> fraud was pervasive among the winners and well known among the
> competition, and in some parts of the U.S. a barely veiled reference
> to fraud as it impacts others with interest, which largely appear to
> be gamblers, legal or illegal in their own right.
it's just a qustion of the rules. if you can't or won't enforce the
rules when you are pretty certain they are being broken you should
just change the rules.
on the otherhand practicing medicine in an office in madrid or
trafficking drugs might be against the law.
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 May 2007 11:32:28
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On 3 May 2007 08:18:20 -0700, "amit.ghosh@gmail.com"
<amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote:
>it's just a qustion of the rules. if you can't or won't enforce the
>rules when you are pretty certain they are being broken you should
>just change the rules.
And that's where we part ways. I think 'pretty certain' is a poor
level of certainty for enforcing the rules. I'm pretty certain that
you were doing something on the back straight, so I'm relegating you.
Gee, that would make officiating so much more fun, until the mob
forms. Getting the motor to agree to agree with me doesn't make the
infraction any more geniune. And it makes the job of all the other
officials that much harder, sooner or later.
I think I'm tapping into why Dick is enjoying this so much. And he
mixes that sense of outrage and righteousness into his comments so
well...
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 16:24:10
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On 30 Apr 2007 13:15:45 -0700, "amit.ghosh@gmail.com"
<amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote:
>As I mentioned before, the intention to cheat is treated the same as
>the offense.
Too far afield. You are mixing a presumption that they intended to
cheat, however unanimous it may be among observors, with proof of an
intention to cheat. IMO even having a drug in a your own refrigerator
could mean very little, but having a non-drug in someone else's
refrigerator is 'proof' of very little.
BTW, the Ox-Bow kit has three ropes, with a horse and saddle option,
so with the level of 'proof' you are willing to accept, I suggest at
the least grabbing two more people randomly off the street. Making
them bike racers would almost make it justified.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 19:05:15
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On Apr 29, 5:00 pm, Simon Brooke <s...@jasmine.org.uk > wrote:
> in message
> But the
> presence of code-names on the backs of (Fuentes' own) business cards do
> not identify any individual cyclists. The Spanish police made guesses as
> to who was represented by the code names, but neither Fuentes nor anyone
> else has confirmed those guesses. Some cyclists certainly paid money to
> Fuentes - but not all the services which Fuentes offered to cyclists were
> against the rules. So evidence of payments, and evidence of visits to
> Fuentes premises, is not in itself evidence of cheating.
>
Yes, like i said. unless you walk in on basso with the needle in his
arm you cannot prove cheating under the rules as they are written. DNA
testing and matching is not part of the doping control protocol and
circumstantial evidence in the form of payments and coded
communications and visits aren't grounds for a sanction.
basso could clear him name did a DNA test, but hey, i understand. who
want to go through that kind of humiliation ?
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 09:39:58
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
in message <1177898715.190832.203850@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >,
amit.ghosh@gmail.com ('amit.ghosh@gmail.com') wrote:
> On Apr 29, 5:00 pm, Simon Brooke <s...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:
>> in message
>
>> But the
>> presence of code-names on the backs of (Fuentes' own) business cards do
>> not identify any individual cyclists. The Spanish police made guesses as
>> to who was represented by the code names, but neither Fuentes nor anyone
>> else has confirmed those guesses. Some cyclists certainly paid money to
>> Fuentes - but not all the services which Fuentes offered to cyclists
>> were against the rules. So evidence of payments, and evidence of visits
>> to Fuentes premises, is not in itself evidence of cheating.
>
> Yes, like i said. unless you walk in on basso with the needle in his
> arm you cannot prove cheating under the rules as they are written. DNA
> testing and matching is not part of the doping control protocol and
> circumstantial evidence in the form of payments and coded
> communications and visits aren't grounds for a sanction.
>
> basso could clear him name did a DNA test, but hey, i understand. who
> want to go through that kind of humiliation ?
Well, he has to, now, so we will see.
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
---===***<<< This space to let! >>>***===---
Yes! You, too, can SPAM in the Famous Brooke Rotating .sig!
---===***<<< Only $300 per line >>>***===---
|
| | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 17:19:40
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On Apr 29, 2:01 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com >
> That's *not* the reason for recreational drug use laws.
whatever, this is not relevenat to the discussion.
> > a more apt analogy would be a person stealing from their job or an
> > executive faking their company's earnings.
>
> For which they're often greatly rewarded, moving on to a new company where
> the process repeats. Being a "corporate raider" is considered prestigious.
> As long as a few influential people benefit financially along the way, it
> seems such people will always have the help they need to do it again.
> > like person using a recreational drug which can only harm the user.
>
> > a more apt analogy would be a person stealing from their job or an
> > executive faking their company's earnings.
dumbass,
don't try to comment if you don't know what you're talking about. a
corporate raider like in "wall street" is a guy doing a legal but
prhaps hostile form of business.
guys who "cheat" or steal get jail time and lose the trust of
investors. they don't get rewarded. not after they are caught.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 20:59:50
From: Steven L. Sheffield
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On 4/29/07 6:19 PM, in article
1177892380.489621.225880@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com,
"amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2:01 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com>
>
>> That's *not* the reason for recreational drug use laws.
>
> whatever, this is not relevenat to the discussion.
>
>>> a more apt analogy would be a person stealing from their job or an
>>> executive faking their company's earnings.
>>
>> For which they're often greatly rewarded, moving on to a new company where
>> the process repeats. Being a "corporate raider" is considered prestigious.
>> As long as a few influential people benefit financially along the way, it
>> seems such people will always have the help they need to do it again.
>
> don't try to comment if you don't know what you're talking about. a
> corporate raider like in "wall street" is a guy doing a legal but
> prhaps hostile form of business.
Doping is the equivalent of someone making money by insider trading ... Like
Ivan Boesky.
> guys who "cheat" or steal get jail time and lose the trust of
> investors. they don't get rewarded. not after they are caught.
Like Ivan Boesky
--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot flahute dot com [foreword] slash
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 22:48:31
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On 29 Apr 2007 17:19:40 -0700, "amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com >
wrote:
>On Apr 29, 2:01 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com>
>
>> That's *not* the reason for recreational drug use laws.
>
>whatever, this is not relevenat to the discussion.
>
>> > a more apt analogy would be a person stealing from their job or an
>> > executive faking their company's earnings.
>>
>> For which they're often greatly rewarded, moving on to a new company where
>> the process repeats. Being a "corporate raider" is considered prestigious.
>> As long as a few influential people benefit financially along the way, it
>> seems such people will always have the help they need to do it again.
>> > like person using a recreational drug which can only harm the user.
>>
>> > a more apt analogy would be a person stealing from their job or an
>> > executive faking their company's earnings.
>
>dumbass,
>
>don't try to comment if you don't know what you're talking about. a
>corporate raider like in "wall street" is a guy doing a legal but
>prhaps hostile form of business.
>
>guys who "cheat" or steal get jail time and lose the trust of
>investors. they don't get rewarded. not after they are caught.
Dumbass -
Why are y'all using a metaphor when it takes more words than to describe the
actual thing itself. He says it's a drug law violation, you're claiming that
it's sporting fraud.
Ron
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 01:58:57
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
>> > a more apt analogy would be a person stealing from their job or an
>> > executive faking their company's earnings.
>>
>> For which they're often greatly rewarded, moving on to a new company
>> where
>> the process repeats. Being a "corporate raider" is considered
>> prestigious.
>> As long as a few influential people benefit financially along the way, it
>> seems such people will always have the help they need to do it again.
>> > like person using a recreational drug which can only harm the user.
>>
>> > a more apt analogy would be a person stealing from their job or an
>> > executive faking their company's earnings.
>
> dumbass,
>
> don't try to comment if you don't know what you're talking about. a
> corporate raider like in "wall street" is a guy doing a legal but
> prhaps hostile form of business.
>
> guys who "cheat" or steal get jail time and lose the trust of
> investors. they don't get rewarded. not after they are caught.
As Spock would say, Double-dumb-ass on you.
The executive dressing up corporate earnings so they look better on paper is
definitely in the "wall street" category. Much of what went on at Enron
wasn't even illegal at the time. It was considered creative and even, in a
perverse way, realistic. Somehow it got past the GAAP (generally accepted
accounting practices) test.
from http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2006/1106/infocus/p14.htm
"the practice of public accounting has become similar to tax practice, with
clients demanding and accountants providing expertise on ways to avoid the
substantive requirements of GAAP while remaining in technical compliance."
Obviously, Enron eventually crossed the line and a few people got caught and
sentenced. But only a few. The majority certainly didn't get jail time, nor
did they have their ill-gotten gains returned to investors. Nor did their
crimes even significantly taint their very close friends, the Bush family.
Aside from Enron, the airline industry has guys who have cooked the books
prior to breaking up a company or sending it into bankruptcy, and then move
on to another airline company and try the process again. The financial gain,
to them, is huge. The cost to the employees and the reputation of the
company is even greater.
My use of "corporate raider" was probably a poor choice, as it is probably
too-narrowly defined.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 08:45:41
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 01:58:57 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<mikej1@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
>The executive dressing up corporate earnings so they look better on paper is
>definitely in the "wall street" category. Much of what went on at Enron
>wasn't even illegal at the time. It was considered creative and even, in a
>perverse way, realistic. Somehow it got past the GAAP (generally accepted
>accounting practices) test.
The core area that led to the prison time, the transactions around the
related companies were clearly and always illegal. The key individuals
responsible took advantage of too much chuminess between long-term
audit partners and their client, but the bottom line was that they
misrepresented the structure, the relationships and the transactions
between Enron and the related entities.
A better example would be the series of pushing-the-envelope tax
strategies that, if criminally prosecuted and enforced, would have
closed one or more of the surviving 'big eight/six/four'.
Unfortunately, large company audits arguably could not survive the
combination of Sarbanes-Oxley and having only three audit firms to
choose from.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 07:06:11
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
In article <B3cZh.1595$RX.67@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net >,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
> >> > a more apt analogy would be a person stealing from their job or an
> >> > executive faking their company's earnings.
> >>
> >> For which they're often greatly rewarded, moving on to a new company
> >> where
> >> the process repeats. Being a "corporate raider" is considered
> >> prestigious.
> >> As long as a few influential people benefit financially along the way, it
> >> seems such people will always have the help they need to do it again.
> >> > like person using a recreational drug which can only harm the user.
> >>
> >> > a more apt analogy would be a person stealing from their job or an
> >> > executive faking their company's earnings.
> >
> > dumbass,
> >
> > don't try to comment if you don't know what you're talking about. a
> > corporate raider like in "wall street" is a guy doing a legal but
> > prhaps hostile form of business.
> >
> > guys who "cheat" or steal get jail time and lose the trust of
> > investors. they don't get rewarded. not after they are caught.
>
> As Spock would say, Double-dumb-ass on you.
I'm sure that was Ben Franklin.
> The executive dressing up corporate earnings so they look better on paper is
> definitely in the "wall street" category. Much of what went on at Enron
> wasn't even illegal at the time. It was considered creative and even, in a
> perverse way, realistic. Somehow it got past the GAAP (generally accepted
> accounting practices) test.
>
> from http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2006/1106/infocus/p14.htm
> "the practice of public accounting has become similar to tax practice, with
> clients demanding and accountants providing expertise on ways to avoid the
> substantive requirements of GAAP while remaining in technical compliance."
>
> Obviously, Enron eventually crossed the line and a few people got caught and
> sentenced. But only a few. The majority certainly didn't get jail time, nor
> did they have their ill-gotten gains returned to investors. Nor did their
> crimes even significantly taint their very close friends, the Bush family.
I have two questions:
1) how much did these people gain from causing their company to go
bankrupt? Wouldn't they have been better off just turning a profit?
2) how many degrees of separation are permissible before I am not damned
with the sins of my friends? I'm just trying to figure out who I should
break off relations with, lest they turn out to be a criminal.
> Aside from Enron, the airline industry has guys who have cooked the books
> prior to breaking up a company or sending it into bankruptcy, and then move
> on to another airline company and try the process again. The financial gain,
> to them, is huge. The cost to the employees and the reputation of the
> company is even greater.
Most airlines don't need an LBO or fraud to suck, financially speaking.
> My use of "corporate raider" was probably a poor choice, as it is probably
> too-narrowly defined.
Yes. The classic "corporate raider" uses two tactics: leveraged buyouts
for the initial purchase of the company (which essentially loads the
debt of the purchase cost onto the asset purchased; you may recognize
this tactic from your own life: you mortgaged your house), and
rearranging the company for resale. This usually involves laying off a
bunch of people, selling off divisions to related companies, and
otherwise finding ways to make the company more attractive for resale.
A substantial reason why external "raiders" come in to pull these latter
tactics is that they are specialists at this sort of management, while
most CEOs have the goal of longer-term management of a company. The
normal, longer-term CEO may simply be incompetent and running the
company into the ground, or they may not have the stomach for the
layoffs and sell-offs that have a chance of making the company more
profitable.
When the LBO guys don't get there soon enough, you have something like
Cannondale, where they actually went bankrupt for a while until Pegasus
moved in, bought cheap, dumped the hopeless motorsports division on ATK
(who I think snapped it up for the ATV plans and tooling), and returned
to making bicycles.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 15:43:30
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On Apr 29, 6:15 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Apr 29, 5:45 pm, "benjo maso" <benjo.m...@chello.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Simon Brooke" <s...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote in message
>
> >news:6rcfg4-kt3.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
>
> > > in message <1177788576.783214.275...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Bill C
> > > ('tritonri...@verizon.net') wrote:
>
> > >> On Apr 28, 3:18 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >>> you are saying those who are fighting doping should stop because the
> > >>> negative publicity is affecting the sport... well yeah, and the SEC
> > >>> inestigating Enron hurt investor confidence, because it should.
>
> > >> How about actually proving something. Yeah, out of all the Puerto
> > >> mess they got Ullrich. Nice.
>
> > > Indeed. Anyone who is found guilty of doping faces a two year suspension
> > > (and a further two years out of the Pro Tour). Ivan Basso was suspended
> > > before last year's TdF, and we've already heard that he's suspended from
> > > this year's TdF. So as far as the premier event is concerned, he's already
> > > served the full suspension before a shred of evidence against him has been
> > > proven. So if - if - his DNA doesn't match the blood in the bag which is
> > > labelled with a name that is not the name of his dog, who is going to
> > > compensate him for his earnings in those two years which should have been
> > > the peak of his career? Who is going to compensate him for the damage to
> > > his reputation?
>
> > > What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
>
> > Patrick Levefere, sports director of Vandenbroucke, Museeuw, etc., said on
> > belgian TV that human rights must be temporarlily set aside in the fight
> > against doping , "like in the war on terror". Maybe they can put Basso in
> > Guantanamo Bay ...
>
> > Benjo.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> And it seems that many here who condemn Guantanamo, would support that
> for cyclists accused.
> Bill C
dumbass,
in madrid there are bags of blood which means there are riders who are
intending to cheat. there is also other information that connects
certain riders to fuentes. but there is nothing in the rules designed
to handle such a situation. DNA tests for blood matching aren't in the
WADA protocol.
not only are the dopers ahead of the dope testers, they are also ahead
of the rulebook writers.
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 09:44:45
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
in message <1177886610.793110.43150@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
amit.ghosh@gmail.com ('amit.ghosh@gmail.com') wrote:
> On Apr 29, 6:15 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> And it seems that many here who condemn Guantanamo, would support that
>> for cyclists accused.
>
> in madrid there are bags of blood which means there are riders who are
> intending to cheat.
Which means there are some people who intended to cheat at some sport.
Possibly some of them are cyclists, but (apart from Ullrich) we do not
know this.
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Wise man with foot in mouth use opportunity to clean toes.
;; the Worlock
|
| | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 15:31:17
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On Apr 29, 2:49 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
> In article
> <1177824567.028168.146...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 29, 1:04 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <1177796645.616434.171...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > in these cases riders can always resort to absurd arguments like :
> > > > "storing my blood in an apartment in madrid doesn't indicate an
> > > > intention to cheat" or "the trunkful of EPO is for my mother-in-law"
> > > > and a large percetnage of cycling fans actually buy it.
>
> > > No, they do not. They mostly do not want doping crusades to
> > > interfere with bicycle races.
>
> > dumbass,
>
> > you are giving dick poud more credit than he deserves.
>
> Where did I attribute any of this to Dick Pound necessarily.
>
> > the innuendo of doping crusaders like dick pound, and even full on
> > verbal assault cannot cause the suspension of a rider or even launch
> > an investigation.
>
> How do you know?
dumbass,
there is not an instance where "innuendo" or "accusations" have
launced a doping investigation.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 15:30:00
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On Apr 29, 4:52 pm, Simon Brooke <s...@jasmine.org.uk > wrote:
> On Fuentes' evidence, the majority of the people whose blood was stored
> were professional footballers. How many of them were suspended/are being
> prosecuted?
>
> What evidence do we have that any of that blood belongs to any specific
> rider except Ullrich?
>
> The blood is evidence, yes. But it's not evidence against specific
> individuals until it's been identified as belonging to those specific
> individuals. And (with the exception of Ullrich) that has not happened.
dumbass,
that is exactly what i would argue:
that i paid fuentes $50,000 a yr for a training program and visited
madrid to have my vitamin levels checked. and that pasta for the
buffala really was pasta. because hey, the gov. body doesn't have to
power to force me to take a DNA test and even though i am innocent and
could clear my name with a simple DNA test, i refuse to on ethical
grounds.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 15:23:25
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On Apr 29, 4:47 pm, Simon Brooke <s...@jasmine.org.uk > wrote:
> Ivan Basso was suspended
> before last year's TdF, and we've already heard that he's suspended from
> this year's TdF. So as far as the premier event is concerned, he's already
> served the full suspension before a shred of evidence against him has been
> proven.
dumbass,
he hasn't been sanctioned by the sport. he has only been suspended by
his team. in theory he is free to race.
> So if - if - his DNA doesn't match the blood in the bag which is
> labelled with a name that is not the name of his dog, who is going to
> compensate him for his earnings in those two years which should have been
> the peak of his career? Who is going to compensate him for the damage to
> his reputation?
of course it's his blood. but DNA tests aren't part of the WADA
protocol. ullrich only got hosed because of the criminal case in
germany.
|
| | | |
Date: 02 May 2007 23:22:37
From: SandM
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
<amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1177885405.564035.42040@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 29, 4:47 pm, Simon Brooke <s...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > Ivan Basso was suspended
> > before last year's TdF, and we've already heard that he's suspended from
> > this year's TdF. So as far as the premier event is concerned, he's
already
> > served the full suspension before a shred of evidence against him has
been
> > proven.
>
> dumbass,
>
> he hasn't been sanctioned by the sport. he has only been suspended by
> his team. in theory he is free to race.
>
> > So if - if - his DNA doesn't match the blood in the bag which is
> > labelled with a name that is not the name of his dog, who is going to
> > compensate him for his earnings in those two years which should have
been
> > the peak of his career? Who is going to compensate him for the damage to
> > his reputation?
>
> of course it's his blood. but DNA tests aren't part of the WADA
> protocol. ullrich only got hosed because of the criminal case in
> germany.
>
Is it illegal to have your blood stored someplace ? Don't they need to prove
that it contains illegal substances ? Just because some lab has Basso's
blood does not mean that he doped. Obviously, the strong inference is why
else would it be there. But hey, the Euros have a different Justice system.
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 May 2007 03:28:30
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
"SandM" <h90943@hotmail.commie > wrote in message
news:st6dnaW4y_6fyaTbnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> Is it illegal to have your blood stored someplace ? Don't they need to
> prove
> that it contains illegal substances ? Just because some lab has Basso's
> blood does not mean that he doped. Obviously, the strong inference is why
> else would it be there. But hey, the Euros have a different Justice
> system.
You're missing the point. Most of them won't be charged with anything
criminal. Besides there's not the level of proof that would stand up in a
court.
What is happening is that WADA and the UCI have decided that they will
simply proclaim guilt through association and circumstantial evidence and no
one can stop them from doing that.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 03 May 2007 10:35:05
From: Fred Pan
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
>> that it contains illegal substances ? Just because some lab has Basso's
>> blood does not mean that he doped. Obviously, the strong inference is why
>> else would it be there. But hey, the Euros have a different Justice
>> system.
>
> You're missing the point. Most of them won't be charged with anything
> criminal. Besides there's not the level of proof that would stand up in a
> court.
>
> What is happening is that WADA and the UCI have decided that they will
> simply proclaim guilt through association and circumstantial evidence and
> no one can stop them from doing that.
>
To me the big problem is all these guys say keep saying that they don't know
Fuentes and never had any dealings with him, but now it seams that at least
Ullrich's blood appears to be found in Fuentes' fridge. That would
**appear** to prove at the very least that they lied about knowing or having
dealings with him. However, of course, I guess if you never actually meet
with the Fuentes and always use some intermediary to give him the blood,
technically they be telling the truth.
Either way it's a pretty far stretch to say, "well I donated my blood at the
local blood bank, I have no idea how it got in Fuentes' fridge."
In my mind if these guys having been saying all along that they don't know
Fuentes and have never had any dealings with him and their blood is in his
fridge, it's close enough to call them guilty. If they were using him for
legitimate purposes and not doping they should have stated that up front..
-Fred
|
| | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 15:15:27
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On Apr 29, 5:45 pm, "benjo maso" <benjo.m...@chello.nl > wrote:
> "Simon Brooke" <s...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:6rcfg4-kt3.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > in message <1177788576.783214.275...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Bill C
> > ('tritonri...@verizon.net') wrote:
>
> >> On Apr 28, 3:18 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> you are saying those who are fighting doping should stop because the
> >>> negative publicity is affecting the sport... well yeah, and the SEC
> >>> inestigating Enron hurt investor confidence, because it should.
>
> >> How about actually proving something. Yeah, out of all the Puerto
> >> mess they got Ullrich. Nice.
>
> > Indeed. Anyone who is found guilty of doping faces a two year suspension
> > (and a further two years out of the Pro Tour). Ivan Basso was suspended
> > before last year's TdF, and we've already heard that he's suspended from
> > this year's TdF. So as far as the premier event is concerned, he's already
> > served the full suspension before a shred of evidence against him has been
> > proven. So if - if - his DNA doesn't match the blood in the bag which is
> > labelled with a name that is not the name of his dog, who is going to
> > compensate him for his earnings in those two years which should have been
> > the peak of his career? Who is going to compensate him for the damage to
> > his reputation?
>
> > What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
>
> Patrick Levefere, sports director of Vandenbroucke, Museeuw, etc., said on
> belgian TV that human rights must be temporarlily set aside in the fight
> against doping , "like in the war on terror". Maybe they can put Basso in
> Guantanamo Bay ...
>
> Benjo.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
And it seems that many here who condemn Guantanamo, would support that
for cyclists accused.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 06:28:16
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On Apr 29, 9:11 am, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
> On 28 Apr 2007 22:29:27 -0700, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Apr 29, 1:04 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <1177796645.616434.171...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > in these cases riders can always resort to absurd arguments like :
> >> > "storing my blood in an apartment in madrid doesn't indicate an
> >> > intention to cheat" or "the trunkful of EPO is for my mother-in-law"
> >> > and a large percetnage of cycling fans actually buy it.
>
> >> No, they do not. They mostly do not want doping crusades to
> >> interfere with bicycle races.
>
> >dumbass,
>
> >you are giving dick poud more credit than he deserves.
>
> >the innuendo of doping crusaders like dick pound, and even full on
> >verbal assault cannot cause the suspension of a rider or even launch
> >an investigation.
>
> >positive tests and police raids which turn up doping evidence (ie.
> >real evidence of cheating) on the other hand can.
>
> Some guy named Floyd has had positive tests that I really can't consider to be
> evidence of cheating. Not him cheating anyway.
dumbass,
what's exceptional about the floyd case is the vigor with which he's
fighting it.
do you forget those early statements about as an athlete he has
"naturally high testosterone"? oh how we laughed.
i believe -- the latest results for exogenous testosterone use that
is. but those tests are not grounds for suspension, so we have another
OJ case.
he is betting he can scrutinize the procedure enough to find some
technicality that will clear him.
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 01:59:41
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
<amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1177853296.228448.181410@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> do you forget those early statements about as an athlete he has
> "naturally high testosterone"? oh how we laughed.
Yeah, damned fool somehow doesn't know that several scientific studies said
the same thing.
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 11:43:11
From: Dan Gregory
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> <amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1177853296.228448.181410@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> do you forget those early statements about as an athlete he has
>> "naturally high testosterone"? oh how we laughed.
>
> Yeah, damned fool somehow doesn't know that several scientific studies said
> the same thing.
>
>
Was that the one who told him it was the beer?
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 01:58:06
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
<amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1177853296.228448.181410@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> what's exceptional about the floyd case is the vigor with which he's
> fighting it.
Yeah, he ought to go belly up because some low-life ignorant fool such as
yourself believes him guilty.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 10:17:07
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On 29 Apr 2007 06:28:16 -0700, "amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com >
wrote:
>On Apr 29, 9:11 am, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On 28 Apr 2007 22:29:27 -0700, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 29, 1:04 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >> In article
>> >> <1177796645.616434.171...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> >> "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > in these cases riders can always resort to absurd arguments like :
>> >> > "storing my blood in an apartment in madrid doesn't indicate an
>> >> > intention to cheat" or "the trunkful of EPO is for my mother-in-law"
>> >> > and a large percetnage of cycling fans actually buy it.
>>
>> >> No, they do not. They mostly do not want doping crusades to
>> >> interfere with bicycle races.
>>
>> >dumbass,
>>
>> >you are giving dick poud more credit than he deserves.
>>
>> >the innuendo of doping crusaders like dick pound, and even full on
>> >verbal assault cannot cause the suspension of a rider or even launch
>> >an investigation.
>>
>> >positive tests and police raids which turn up doping evidence (ie.
>> >real evidence of cheating) on the other hand can.
>>
>> Some guy named Floyd has had positive tests that I really can't consider to be
>> evidence of cheating. Not him cheating anyway.
>
>dumbass,
>
>what's exceptional about the floyd case is the vigor with which he's
>fighting it.
Not what a guy does if it's a fair cop.
>do you forget those early statements about as an athlete he has
>"naturally high testosterone"? oh how we laughed.
I remember a guy being asked questions that he could not possibly answer who was
dumb enough to try to answer them.
>i believe -- the latest results for exogenous testosterone use that
>is. but those tests are not grounds for suspension, so we have another
>OJ case.
>
>he is betting he can scrutinize the procedure enough to find some
>technicality that will clear him.
The people performing the procedure have been extraordinarily accomodating in
providing procedural fuckups and blatant, clearly stated declarations of
incompetence. I mean really, here are people who cannot copy a number from a jar
onto a piece of paper and get it right, or even make a correction in the
accepted manner and you want me to believe they can measure isotope ratios!?!
NOTHING Floyd has ever said is as obviously false as the statements by the
director of the LNDD: "It's foolproof. This analysis tells the difference
between endogenous and exogenous," "No error is possible in isotopic readings."
I cannot accept any evidence or testimony presented by such a buffoon. How can
you believe anything from an idiot like that?
Let's just break this down to the bottom line and you tell me which is more
credible:
Floyd - somebody in the lab fucked up.
Jacques - "No error is possible."
One of these guys is saying something that cannot be true, the other's statement
is obviously possible and given the lab fuckups we know about not improbable.
Ron
Ron
Effect pedal demo's up at http://www.soundclick.com/ronsonicpedalry
|
| | |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 22:37:28
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On Apr 28, 6:16 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Apr 28, 5:44 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 28, 3:29 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 28, 3:18 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 28, 1:52 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Hey Steve
> > > > > I don't think you can even begin to compare the way US pro sports
> > > > > have treated doping and the disaster that is being inflicted on
> > > > > cycling. It's just a brutal constant drumbeat that they are ALL doping
> > > > > scumbags that we haven't caught yet. If you repeat any lie loud enough
> > > > > and long enough people beging to believe it.
>
> > > > dumbass,
>
> > > > the situation doesn't change because you and the other jock-sniffers
> > > > like benjo are so eager to coddle the athletes.
>
> > > > the doping problem is self-inflicted, cycling is a sport that
> > > > apparently can't take care of itself and made the concious decision to
> > > > become WADA compliant at a time when the many of the big stars
> > > > depended doping. i wouldn't call them scumbags -- they are just doing
> > > > what is considered customary in their profession.
>
> > > > even a boy scout with lean palmares like andreu admitted to using
> > > > EPO.
>
> > > > it's not a case or lies and unjust practices like you keep crying
> > > > about. puerto uncovered all the cicumstantial evidence of doping.
> > > > payments, photos, bags of blood. so there was no doubt in my mind that
> > > > the ullrich dna would come back a match.
>
> > > > > With the fanbase and television ratings shrinking drastically the
> > > > > sponsors are going to start pulling out and it's due IMO to the
> > > > > crusade, and I mean that word in it's nastiest sense, by Pound in
> > > > > particular and a handful of overzealous prosecutors. There's been more
> > > > > tabloid type smearing and garbage for less results in cycling than in
> > > > > anything but the Duke rape case.
>
> > > > except all the doping cases are catching guilty riders. except in the
> > > > case of puerto it didn't yield one of three ways a rider can be
> > > > declared guilty : positve tests, admission or guilt or posession of
> > > > doping substances.
>
> > > > you are saying those who are fighting doping should stop because the
> > > > negative publicity is affecting the sport... well yeah, and the SEC
> > > > inestigating Enron hurt investor confidence, because it should.
>
> > > How about actually proving something. Yeah, out of all the Puerto
> > > mess they got Ullrich. Nice.
> > > You could just as easily use your arguments to defend selectively
> > > prosecuting minorities, racial profiling, etc...
> > > Injustice and selective enforcement, along with attacks based around
> > > stereotypes being promoted by those in authority are garbage and I'm
> > > shocked that you are arguing in favor of them.
> > > Bill C
>
> > dumbass,
>
> > a fundamental problem in your conceptualization is that you cannot
> > distinguish between the criminal justice system and the system for
> > enforcing the rules of the sport.
>
> > the criminal cases arising from OP was stopped dead because it was
> > determined that the actions were not considered to be aganst spanish
> > law. but if anyone looks at the evidence it is clear that many of the
> > named riders were doping. but cheating in cycling isn't against the
> > LAW, so that case will never be built. if one were to examine the
> > evidence of each case by case you would have a solid case for almost
> > all of the named riders.
>
> > sure, some rider's names were thrown into the mix just because they
> > were in fuentes' rolodex, but for most of the named riders there is
> > solid evidence that they were communicating with fuentes, visiting his
> > clinic and paying him for doping services.
>
> > that is why no one was the least bit surprised that ullrich's dna
> > matched the madrid blood bags.
>
> > unfortunately the puerto evidence cannot be used to sanction a rider
> > unless you can: get them to admit to doping, find them positive or
> > actually catch them with a trunkful of drugs.
>
> > so by your reckoning the '98 festina riders, millar or rumsas should
> > also not be sanctioned, since those riders never tested positve or
> > actually had drugs in their possession.
>
> > in these cases riders can always resort to absurd arguments like :
> > "storing my blood in an apartment in madrid doesn't indicate an
> > intention to cheat" or "the trunkful of EPO is for my mother-in-law"
> > and a large percetnage of cycling fans actually buy it. that is why
> > observers are cynical (though, the proposed revisions to the WADA code
> > would change this).- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> So the core of your argument is that the standard for destroying
> someone's life and career should be much lower for, say, taking cold
> medicine, and the penalty greater than a first time offense for heroin
> or cocaine which usually just gets you probation and community service
> but leaves you employed and NOT ripped in the world wide press?
> I think destroying a career is much worse than a court deciding to
> give a person a chance, for a criminal violation with a "continued
> without a finding", or similar decision which is common.
> The peanalties imposed upon riders would NEVER be imposed in a court,
> and that's based on US courts who are in a "Drug War".
> Bill C
dumbass,
as a try to understand what you're actually trying to say i will say
this :
your analogy is flawed. drug use in cycling is CHEATING, which is not
like person using a recreational drug which can only harm the user.
a more apt analogy would be a person stealing from their job or an
executive faking their company's earnings.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 22:00:33
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
in message <1177825048.511841.14160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
amit.ghosh@gmail.com ('amit.ghosh@gmail.com') wrote:
> dumbass,
>
> as a try to understand what you're actually trying to say i will say
> this :
>
> your analogy is flawed. drug use in cycling is CHEATING, which is not
> like person using a recreational drug which can only harm the user.
>
> a more apt analogy would be a person stealing from their job or an
> executive faking their company's earnings.
Doping (drug use of blood doping) most certainly is cheating. But the
presence of code-names on the backs of (Fuentes' own) business cards do
not identify any individual cyclists. The Spanish police made guesses as
to who was represented by the code names, but neither Fuentes nor anyone
else has confirmed those guesses. Some cyclists certainly paid money to
Fuentes - but not all the services which Fuentes offered to cyclists were
against the rules. So evidence of payments, and evidence of visits to
Fuentes premises, is not in itself evidence of cheating.
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Women are from Venus. Men are from Mars. Lusers are from Uranus.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 11:01:21
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
> as a try to understand what you're actually trying to say i will say
> this :
>
> your analogy is flawed. drug use in cycling is CHEATING, which is not
> like person using a recreational drug which can only harm the user.
That's *not* the reason for recreational drug use laws. The rationale is
that society at large, as well as specific people aside from the actual
user, are harmed from recreational drug use. The idea is that drug dealers
are bad people, many bad things happen when people try to support a habit,
etc. Protecting the individual from him or herself is far down the list of
reasons we supposedly have laws against recreational drugs.
> a more apt analogy would be a person stealing from their job or an
> executive faking their company's earnings.
For which they're often greatly rewarded, moving on to a new company where
the process repeats. Being a "corporate raider" is considered prestigious.
As long as a few influential people benefit financially along the way, it
seems such people will always have the help they need to do it again.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
<amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1177825048.511841.14160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 28, 6:16 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Apr 28, 5:44 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 28, 3:29 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Apr 28, 3:18 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Apr 28, 1:52 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > Hey Steve
>> > > > > I don't think you can even begin to compare the way US pro
>> > > > > sports
>> > > > > have treated doping and the disaster that is being inflicted on
>> > > > > cycling. It's just a brutal constant drumbeat that they are ALL
>> > > > > doping
>> > > > > scumbags that we haven't caught yet. If you repeat any lie loud
>> > > > > enough
>> > > > > and long enough people beging to believe it.
>>
>> > > > dumbass,
>>
>> > > > the situation doesn't change because you and the other
>> > > > jock-sniffers
>> > > > like benjo are so eager to coddle the athletes.
>>
>> > > > the doping problem is self-inflicted, cycling is a sport that
>> > > > apparently can't take care of itself and made the concious decision
>> > > > to
>> > > > become WADA compliant at a time when the many of the big stars
>> > > > depended doping. i wouldn't call them scumbags -- they are just
>> > > > doing
>> > > > what is considered customary in their profession.
>>
>> > > > even a boy scout with lean palmares like andreu admitted to using
>> > > > EPO.
>>
>> > > > it's not a case or lies and unjust practices like you keep crying
>> > > > about. puerto uncovered all the cicumstantial evidence of doping.
>> > > > payments, photos, bags of blood. so there was no doubt in my mind
>> > > > that
>> > > > the ullrich dna would come back a match.
>>
>> > > > > With the fanbase and television ratings shrinking drastically
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > sponsors are going to start pulling out and it's due IMO to the
>> > > > > crusade, and I mean that word in it's nastiest sense, by Pound in
>> > > > > particular and a handful of overzealous prosecutors. There's been
>> > > > > more
>> > > > > tabloid type smearing and garbage for less results in cycling
>> > > > > than in
>> > > > > anything but the Duke rape case.
>>
>> > > > except all the doping cases are catching guilty riders. except in
>> > > > the
>> > > > case of puerto it didn't yield one of three ways a rider can be
>> > > > declared guilty : positve tests, admission or guilt or posession of
>> > > > doping substances.
>>
>> > > > you are saying those who are fighting doping should stop because
>> > > > the
>> > > > negative publicity is affecting the sport... well yeah, and the SEC
>> > > > inestigating Enron hurt investor confidence, because it should.
>>
>> > > How about actually proving something. Yeah, out of all the Puerto
>> > > mess they got Ullrich. Nice.
>> > > You could just as easily use your arguments to defend selectively
>> > > prosecuting minorities, racial profiling, etc...
>> > > Injustice and selective enforcement, along with attacks based around
>> > > stereotypes being promoted by those in authority are garbage and I'm
>> > > shocked that you are arguing in favor of them.
>> > > Bill C
>>
>> > dumbass,
>>
>> > a fundamental problem in your conceptualization is that you cannot
>> > distinguish between the criminal justice system and the system for
>> > enforcing the rules of the sport.
>>
>> > the criminal cases arising from OP was stopped dead because it was
>> > determined that the actions were not considered to be aganst spanish
>> > law. but if anyone looks at the evidence it is clear that many of the
>> > named riders were doping. but cheating in cycling isn't against the
>> > LAW, so that case will never be built. if one were to examine the
>> > evidence of each case by case you would have a solid case for almost
>> > all of the named riders.
>>
>> > sure, some rider's names were thrown into the mix just because they
>> > were in fuentes' rolodex, but for most of the named riders there is
>> > solid evidence that they were communicating with fuentes, visiting his
>> > clinic and paying him for doping services.
>>
>> > that is why no one was the least bit surprised that ullrich's dna
>> > matched the madrid blood bags.
>>
>> > unfortunately the puerto evidence cannot be used to sanction a rider
>> > unless you can: get them to admit to doping, find them positive or
>> > actually catch them with a trunkful of drugs.
>>
>> > so by your reckoning the '98 festina riders, millar or rumsas should
>> > also not be sanctioned, since those riders never tested positve or
>> > actually had drugs in their possession.
>>
>> > in these cases riders can always resort to absurd arguments like :
>> > "storing my blood in an apartment in madrid doesn't indicate an
>> > intention to cheat" or "the trunkful of EPO is for my mother-in-law"
>> > and a large percetnage of cycling fans actually buy it. that is why
>> > observers are cynical (though, the proposed revisions to the WADA code
>> > would change this).- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> So the core of your argument is that the standard for destroying
>> someone's life and career should be much lower for, say, taking cold
>> medicine, and the penalty greater than a first time offense for heroin
>> or cocaine which usually just gets you probation and community service
>> but leaves you employed and NOT ripped in the world wide press?
>> I think destroying a career is much worse than a court deciding to
>> give a person a chance, for a criminal violation with a "continued
>> without a finding", or similar decision which is common.
>> The peanalties imposed upon riders would NEVER be imposed in a court,
>> and that's based on US courts who are in a "Drug War".
>> Bill C
>
>
> dumbass,
>
> as a try to understand what you're actually trying to say i will say
> this :
>
> your analogy is flawed. drug use in cycling is CHEATING, which is not
> like person using a recreational drug which can only harm the user.
>
> a more apt analogy would be a person stealing from their job or an
> executive faking their company's earnings.
>
|
| | |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 22:29:27
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On Apr 29, 1:04 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
> In article
> <1177796645.616434.171...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > in these cases riders can always resort to absurd arguments like :
> > "storing my blood in an apartment in madrid doesn't indicate an
> > intention to cheat" or "the trunkful of EPO is for my mother-in-law"
> > and a large percetnage of cycling fans actually buy it.
>
> No, they do not. They mostly do not want doping crusades to
> interfere with bicycle races.
>
dumbass,
you are giving dick poud more credit than he deserves.
the innuendo of doping crusaders like dick pound, and even full on
verbal assault cannot cause the suspension of a rider or even launch
an investigation.
positive tests and police raids which turn up doping evidence (ie.
real evidence of cheating) on the other hand can.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 21:52:11
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
in message <1177824567.028168.146720@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >,
amit.ghosh@gmail.com ('amit.ghosh@gmail.com') wrote:
> On Apr 29, 1:04 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> In article
>> <1177796645.616434.171...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > in these cases riders can always resort to absurd arguments like :
>> > "storing my blood in an apartment in madrid doesn't indicate an
>> > intention to cheat" or "the trunkful of EPO is for my mother-in-law"
>> > and a large percetnage of cycling fans actually buy it.
>>
>> No, they do not. They mostly do not want doping crusades to
>> interfere with bicycle races.
>
> the innuendo of doping crusaders like dick pound, and even full on
> verbal assault cannot cause the suspension of a rider or even launch
> an investigation.
>
> positive tests and police raids which turn up doping evidence (ie.
> real evidence of cheating) on the other hand can.
On Fuentes' evidence, the majority of the people whose blood was stored
were professional footballers. How many of them were suspended/are being
prosecuted?
What evidence do we have that any of that blood belongs to any specific
rider except Ullrich?
The blood is evidence, yes. But it's not evidence against specific
individuals until it's been identified as belonging to those specific
individuals. And (with the exception of Ullrich) that has not happened.
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Usenet: like distance learning without the learning.
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 May 2007 07:51:50
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On May 3, 10:53 am, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
> On 3 May 2007 06:37:53 -0700, Tuschinski <Tuschin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >And on the =EFs "Is it illegal to have blood stored? "... I sure hope
> >for the riders that it is!!! As i think law enforcement should have
> >the tools to act if criminals as Fuentes and the Phonak Team
> >management (All criminals in my eyes...) play with the lives of their
> >riders like that.
>
> ??? I know two people that in fact store their own blood - this should
> be illegal?
dumbass,
a lot of things aren't illegal, but they aren't allowed within the
rules of a sport.
with a medical procedure one can often make the distinction between
one that has a therapeutic purpose or one that is only for performance
enhancement.
for example there have been riders that need insulin, but it is still
considered a performance enhancing drug for those that don't need it.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 03 May 2007 11:06:18
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On 3 May 2007 07:51:50 -0700, "amit.ghosh@gmail.com"
<amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote:
>a lot of things aren't illegal, but they aren't allowed within the
>rules of a sport.
Which would go back to the issue of 'illegal' and 'criminals' - not
the terms I introduced. The true illegalities are generally some form
of fraud in the competition, but I'm not sure how that holds if the
fraud was pervasive among the winners and well known among the
competition, and in some parts of the U.S. a barely veiled reference
to fraud as it impacts others with interest, which largely appear to
be gamblers, legal or illegal in their own right.
I'm trying hard to be outraged, but not being very successful.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 13:11:52
From: Tony Rall
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
Simon Brooke wrote:
> The blood is evidence, yes. But it's not evidence against specific
> individuals until it's been identified as belonging to those specific
> individuals. And (with the exception of Ullrich) that has not happened.
Even then it's not evidence. It's certainly not illegal to have your
blood stored by some third party. And I don't believe it's against any
cycling rules.
It is only suspicious. Those with stored blood are likely planning to
do something against the rules (and quite likely have done such in the
past).
But identifying the blood donors does not prove anything.
--
Tony Rall
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 11:49:22
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
In article
<1177824567.028168.146720@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >,
"amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Apr 29, 1:04 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <1177796645.616434.171...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > in these cases riders can always resort to absurd arguments like :
> > > "storing my blood in an apartment in madrid doesn't indicate an
> > > intention to cheat" or "the trunkful of EPO is for my mother-in-law"
> > > and a large percetnage of cycling fans actually buy it.
> >
> > No, they do not. They mostly do not want doping crusades to
> > interfere with bicycle races.
> >
>
> dumbass,
>
> you are giving dick poud more credit than he deserves.
Where did I attribute any of this to Dick Pound necessarily.
> the innuendo of doping crusaders like dick pound, and even full on
> verbal assault cannot cause the suspension of a rider or even launch
> an investigation.
How do you know?
> positive tests and police raids which turn up doping evidence (ie.
> real evidence of cheating) on the other hand can.
Most cycling fans do not even make these fine distinctions. They
simply do not want doping crusades to interfere with the sport.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 09:11:17
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On 28 Apr 2007 22:29:27 -0700, "amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com >
wrote:
>On Apr 29, 1:04 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> In article
>> <1177796645.616434.171...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > in these cases riders can always resort to absurd arguments like :
>> > "storing my blood in an apartment in madrid doesn't indicate an
>> > intention to cheat" or "the trunkful of EPO is for my mother-in-law"
>> > and a large percetnage of cycling fans actually buy it.
>>
>> No, they do not. They mostly do not want doping crusades to
>> interfere with bicycle races.
>>
>
>dumbass,
>
>you are giving dick poud more credit than he deserves.
>
>the innuendo of doping crusaders like dick pound, and even full on
>verbal assault cannot cause the suspension of a rider or even launch
>an investigation.
>
>positive tests and police raids which turn up doping evidence (ie.
>real evidence of cheating) on the other hand can.
Some guy named Floyd has had positive tests that I really can't consider to be
evidence of cheating. Not him cheating anyway.
Ron
|
| | |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 21:59:05
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
In article <tFJYh.946$KP1.41@trnddc02 >,
Mark & Steven Bornfeld <bornfeldmung@dentaltwins.com > wrote:
> benjo maso wrote:
> > Excellent news for the anti-doping hunters. Their tireless efforts are
> > beginning to have effects. The german research bureau IFM has calculated
> > that international TV viewing figures for cycling races have dropped 47 %
> > within a year.The main victim was the Ronde van Vlaanderen (77 %). According
> > to the bureau, it means that the commercial value of cycling dropped 52 %
> > since last season, a trend which will continue in the next few month. The
> > main reason? Doping scandals, like Floyd Landis in the Tour, the operation
> > Puerto, etc. Well done, mister Pound and friends! Just another little effort
> > and cycling is saved!
>
> AFAIK, it has not hurt American football or baseball. Obviously I
> have no way to know how this plays out on European TV, or how you draw
> cause and effect.
> Maybe they're all mesmerized by the election in France.
A competent governing body repels power plays by the anti-doping
pirates, and runs a `clean' sport. FIFA is also competent: notice
all the futbollers named in operation puerto?
As mentioned elsewhere, there is not much hope if a national
government decides to put in an oar.
--
Michael Press
|
| | |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 19:38:42
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:23:05 GMT, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
<bornfeldmung@dentaltwins.com > wrote:
>benjo maso wrote:
>> Excellent news for the anti-doping hunters. Their tireless efforts are
>> beginning to have effects. The german research bureau IFM has calculated
>> that international TV viewing figures for cycling races have dropped 47 %
>> within a year.The main victim was the Ronde van Vlaanderen (77 %). According
>> to the bureau, it means that the commercial value of cycling dropped 52 %
>> since last season, a trend which will continue in the next few month. The
>> main reason? Doping scandals, like Floyd Landis in the Tour, the operation
>> Puerto, etc. Well done, mister Pound and friends! Just another little effort
>> and cycling is saved!
>>
>>
>>
>> Benjo
>>
>>
>
>
> AFAIK, it has not hurt American football or baseball. Obviously I
>have no way to know how this plays out on European TV, or how you draw
>cause and effect.
Real pro sports, like Football and Baseball don't rewrite the record book or
change the result of a game. They don't undermine players and teams with
blanket accusations and innuendo. They don't visibly play favorites in drug
testing and they sure as hell don't leak results.
How can anybody follow a sport in which the results cannot be confirmed until
some obviously incompetent lab completes some obviously suspect test.
Ron
|
| | |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 15:16:00
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On Apr 28, 5:44 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Apr 28, 3:29 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 28, 3:18 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 28, 1:52 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Hey Steve
> > > > I don't think you can even begin to compare the way US pro sports
> > > > have treated doping and the disaster that is being inflicted on
> > > > cycling. It's just a brutal constant drumbeat that they are ALL doping
> > > > scumbags that we haven't caught yet. If you repeat any lie loud enough
> > > > and long enough people beging to believe it.
>
> > > dumbass,
>
> > > the situation doesn't change because you and the other jock-sniffers
> > > like benjo are so eager to coddle the athletes.
>
> > > the doping problem is self-inflicted, cycling is a sport that
> > > apparently can't take care of itself and made the concious decision to
> > > become WADA compliant at a time when the many of the big stars
> > > depended doping. i wouldn't call them scumbags -- they are just doing
> > > what is considered customary in their profession.
>
> > > even a boy scout with lean palmares like andreu admitted to using
> > > EPO.
>
> > > it's not a case or lies and unjust practices like you keep crying
> > > about. puerto uncovered all the cicumstantial evidence of doping.
> > > payments, photos, bags of blood. so there was no doubt in my mind that
> > > the ullrich dna would come back a match.
>
> > > > With the fanbase and television ratings shrinking drastically the
> > > > sponsors are going to start pulling out and it's due IMO to the
> > > > crusade, and I mean that word in it's nastiest sense, by Pound in
> > > > particular and a handful of overzealous prosecutors. There's been more
> > > > tabloid type smearing and garbage for less results in cycling than in
> > > > anything but the Duke rape case.
>
> > > except all the doping cases are catching guilty riders. except in the
> > > case of puerto it didn't yield one of three ways a rider can be
> > > declared guilty : positve tests, admission or guilt or posession of
> > > doping substances.
>
> > > you are saying those who are fighting doping should stop because the
> > > negative publicity is affecting the sport... well yeah, and the SEC
> > > inestigating Enron hurt investor confidence, because it should.
>
> > How about actually proving something. Yeah, out of all the Puerto
> > mess they got Ullrich. Nice.
> > You could just as easily use your arguments to defend selectively
> > prosecuting minorities, racial profiling, etc...
> > Injustice and selective enforcement, along with attacks based around
> > stereotypes being promoted by those in authority are garbage and I'm
> > shocked that you are arguing in favor of them.
> > Bill C
>
> dumbass,
>
> a fundamental problem in your conceptualization is that you cannot
> distinguish between the criminal justice system and the system for
> enforcing the rules of the sport.
>
> the criminal cases arising from OP was stopped dead because it was
> determined that the actions were not considered to be aganst spanish
> law. but if anyone looks at the evidence it is clear that many of the
> named riders were doping. but cheating in cycling isn't against the
> LAW, so that case will never be built. if one were to examine the
> evidence of each case by case you would have a solid case for almost
> all of the named riders.
>
> sure, some rider's names were thrown into the mix just because they
> were in fuentes' rolodex, but for most of the named riders there is
> solid evidence that they were communicating with fuentes, visiting his
> clinic and paying him for doping services.
>
> that is why no one was the least bit surprised that ullrich's dna
> matched the madrid blood bags.
>
> unfortunately the puerto evidence cannot be used to sanction a rider
> unless you can: get them to admit to doping, find them positive or
> actually catch them with a trunkful of drugs.
>
> so by your reckoning the '98 festina riders, millar or rumsas should
> also not be sanctioned, since those riders never tested positve or
> actually had drugs in their possession.
>
> in these cases riders can always resort to absurd arguments like :
> "storing my blood in an apartment in madrid doesn't indicate an
> intention to cheat" or "the trunkful of EPO is for my mother-in-law"
> and a large percetnage of cycling fans actually buy it. that is why
> observers are cynical (though, the proposed revisions to the WADA code
> would change this).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
So the core of your argument is that the standard for destroying
someone's life and career should be much lower for, say, taking cold
medicine, and the penalty greater than a first time offense for heroin
or cocaine which usually just gets you probation and community service
but leaves you employed and NOT ripped in the world wide press?
I think destroying a career is much worse than a court deciding to
give a person a chance, for a criminal violation with a "continued
without a finding", or similar decision which is common.
The peanalties imposed upon riders would NEVER be imposed in a court,
and that's based on US courts who are in a "Drug War".
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 14:44:05
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On Apr 28, 3:29 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Apr 28, 3:18 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 28, 1:52 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > Hey Steve
> > > I don't think you can even begin to compare the way US pro sports
> > > have treated doping and the disaster that is being inflicted on
> > > cycling. It's just a brutal constant drumbeat that they are ALL doping
> > > scumbags that we haven't caught yet. If you repeat any lie loud enough
> > > and long enough people beging to believe it.
>
> > dumbass,
>
> > the situation doesn't change because you and the other jock-sniffers
> > like benjo are so eager to coddle the athletes.
>
> > the doping problem is self-inflicted, cycling is a sport that
> > apparently can't take care of itself and made the concious decision to
> > become WADA compliant at a time when the many of the big stars
> > depended doping. i wouldn't call them scumbags -- they are just doing
> > what is considered customary in their profession.
>
> > even a boy scout with lean palmares like andreu admitted to using
> > EPO.
>
> > it's not a case or lies and unjust practices like you keep crying
> > about. puerto uncovered all the cicumstantial evidence of doping.
> > payments, photos, bags of blood. so there was no doubt in my mind that
> > the ullrich dna would come back a match.
>
> > > With the fanbase and television ratings shrinking drastically the
> > > sponsors are going to start pulling out and it's due IMO to the
> > > crusade, and I mean that word in it's nastiest sense, by Pound in
> > > particular and a handful of overzealous prosecutors. There's been more
> > > tabloid type smearing and garbage for less results in cycling than in
> > > anything but the Duke rape case.
>
> > except all the doping cases are catching guilty riders. except in the
> > case of puerto it didn't yield one of three ways a rider can be
> > declared guilty : positve tests, admission or guilt or posession of
> > doping substances.
>
> > you are saying those who are fighting doping should stop because the
> > negative publicity is affecting the sport... well yeah, and the SEC
> > inestigating Enron hurt investor confidence, because it should.
>
> How about actually proving something. Yeah, out of all the Puerto
> mess they got Ullrich. Nice.
> You could just as easily use your arguments to defend selectively
> prosecuting minorities, racial profiling, etc...
> Injustice and selective enforcement, along with attacks based around
> stereotypes being promoted by those in authority are garbage and I'm
> shocked that you are arguing in favor of them.
> Bill C
dumbass,
a fundamental problem in your conceptualization is that you cannot
distinguish between the criminal justice system and the system for
enforcing the rules of the sport.
the criminal cases arising from OP was stopped dead because it was
determined that the actions were not considered to be aganst spanish
law. but if anyone looks at the evidence it is clear that many of the
named riders were doping. but cheating in cycling isn't against the
LAW, so that case will never be built. if one were to examine the
evidence of each case by case you would have a solid case for almost
all of the named riders.
sure, some rider's names were thrown into the mix just because they
were in fuentes' rolodex, but for most of the named riders there is
solid evidence that they were communicating with fuentes, visiting his
clinic and paying him for doping services.
that is why no one was the least bit surprised that ullrich's dna
matched the madrid blood bags.
unfortunately the puerto evidence cannot be used to sanction a rider
unless you can: get them to admit to doping, find them positive or
actually catch them with a trunkful of drugs.
so by your reckoning the '98 festina riders, millar or rumsas should
also not be sanctioned, since those riders never tested positve or
actually had drugs in their possession.
in these cases riders can always resort to absurd arguments like :
"storing my blood in an apartment in madrid doesn't indicate an
intention to cheat" or "the trunkful of EPO is for my mother-in-law"
and a large percetnage of cycling fans actually buy it. that is why
observers are cynical (though, the proposed revisions to the WADA code
would change this).
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 01:53:53
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
<amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1177796645.616434.171060@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> but if anyone looks at the evidence it is clear that many of the
> named riders were doping.
What is clear was that someone has the same initials to what was written in
Fuentes journal and was in a race on a certain day in which there was an
entry. The fact is that most of the OP data was guesswork. Whether or not it
was true was never even bothered with.
And you'll notice how secretive they got when it turned out that they'd
checked in 105 bags of blood but later could only locate 98. If evidence is
disappearing what keeps it from appearing just as easily?
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 22:04:26
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
In article
<1177796645.616434.171060@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >,
"amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote:
> in these cases riders can always resort to absurd arguments like :
> "storing my blood in an apartment in madrid doesn't indicate an
> intention to cheat" or "the trunkful of EPO is for my mother-in-law"
> and a large percetnage of cycling fans actually buy it.
No, they do not. They mostly do not want doping crusades to
interfere with bicycle races.
--
Michael Press
|
| | |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 12:29:36
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On Apr 28, 3:18 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Apr 28, 1:52 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hey Steve
> > I don't think you can even begin to compare the way US pro sports
> > have treated doping and the disaster that is being inflicted on
> > cycling. It's just a brutal constant drumbeat that they are ALL doping
> > scumbags that we haven't caught yet. If you repeat any lie loud enough
> > and long enough people beging to believe it.
>
> dumbass,
>
> the situation doesn't change because you and the other jock-sniffers
> like benjo are so eager to coddle the athletes.
>
> the doping problem is self-inflicted, cycling is a sport that
> apparently can't take care of itself and made the concious decision to
> become WADA compliant at a time when the many of the big stars
> depended doping. i wouldn't call them scumbags -- they are just doing
> what is considered customary in their profession.
>
> even a boy scout with lean palmares like andreu admitted to using
> EPO.
>
> it's not a case or lies and unjust practices like you keep crying
> about. puerto uncovered all the cicumstantial evidence of doping.
> payments, photos, bags of blood. so there was no doubt in my mind that
> the ullrich dna would come back a match.
>
> > With the fanbase and television ratings shrinking drastically the
> > sponsors are going to start pulling out and it's due IMO to the
> > crusade, and I mean that word in it's nastiest sense, by Pound in
> > particular and a handful of overzealous prosecutors. There's been more
> > tabloid type smearing and garbage for less results in cycling than in
> > anything but the Duke rape case.
>
> except all the doping cases are catching guilty riders. except in the
> case of puerto it didn't yield one of three ways a rider can be
> declared guilty : positve tests, admission or guilt or posession of
> doping substances.
>
> you are saying those who are fighting doping should stop because the
> negative publicity is affecting the sport... well yeah, and the SEC
> inestigating Enron hurt investor confidence, because it should.
How about actually proving something. Yeah, out of all the Puerto
mess they got Ullrich. Nice.
You could just as easily use your arguments to defend selectively
prosecuting minorities, racial profiling, etc...
Injustice and selective enforcement, along with attacks based around
stereotypes being promoted by those in authority are garbage and I'm
shocked that you are arguing in favor of them.
Bill C
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 21:47:02
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
in message <1177788576.783214.275100@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com >, Bill C
('tritonrider@verizon.net') wrote:
> On Apr 28, 3:18 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> you are saying those who are fighting doping should stop because the
>> negative publicity is affecting the sport... well yeah, and the SEC
>> inestigating Enron hurt investor confidence, because it should.
>
> How about actually proving something. Yeah, out of all the Puerto
> mess they got Ullrich. Nice.
Indeed. Anyone who is found guilty of doping faces a two year suspension
(and a further two years out of the Pro Tour). Ivan Basso was suspended
before last year's TdF, and we've already heard that he's suspended from
this year's TdF. So as far as the premier event is concerned, he's already
served the full suspension before a shred of evidence against him has been
proven. So if - if - his DNA doesn't match the blood in the bag which is
labelled with a name that is not the name of his dog, who is going to
compensate him for his earnings in those two years which should have been
the peak of his career? Who is going to compensate him for the damage to
his reputation?
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundum variat.
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 02:22:25
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
Dans le message de news:6rcfg4-kt3.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk,
Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
He gave it up in the contract he agreed to sign.
Read the UCI model contract, as well as the Pro Team team contract.
Right there in black and blanc.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine
*******
La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
-- Einstein, A.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 12:22:55
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
Sandy wrote:
> black and blanc.
You should trademark that.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 08:51:34
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:22:55 +0200, Donald Munro
<fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:
>> black and blanc.
>
>You should trademark that.
It would certainly piss off Mont Blanc if he did. Black and Mont Blanc
is pretty much a marketing base for them.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 22:22:15
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
In article <463536c1$0$27173$426a74cc@news.free.fr >,
"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote:
> Dans le message de news:6rcfg4-kt3.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk,
> Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> > What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
>
> He gave it up in the contract he agreed to sign.
> Read the UCI model contract, as well as the Pro Team team contract.
> Right there in black and blanc.
I do not know the details. Some contract provisions are
unenforceable, because civil law does not allow them. Not saying
this is so for the provisions you cite. I am saying the existence
of a signed contract does not prove your point.
For example, indentured servants once were a commonplace. Such a
contract now would be unenforceable. And yes, in the USA there is
plenty of indentured servitude going on.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 09:35:51
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:22:15 -0700, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote:
>In article <463536c1$0$27173$426a74cc@news.free.fr>,
> "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote:
>
>> Dans le message de news:6rcfg4-kt3.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk,
>> Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>
>> > What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
>>
>> He gave it up in the contract he agreed to sign.
>> Read the UCI model contract, as well as the Pro Team team contract.
>> Right there in black and blanc.
>
>I do not know the details. Some contract provisions are
>unenforceable, because civil law does not allow them. Not saying
>this is so for the provisions you cite. I am saying the existence
>of a signed contract does not prove your point.
>
>For example, indentured servants once were a commonplace. Such a
>contract now would be unenforceable. And yes, in the USA there is
>plenty of indentured servitude going on.
Is not. He's a contractor.
Ron
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 12:21:24
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
In article <35sb335ce57n8b85fne49t9e6cis5gv9r7@4ax.com >,
RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:22:15 -0700, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <463536c1$0$27173$426a74cc@news.free.fr>,
> > "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote:
> >
> >> Dans le message de news:6rcfg4-kt3.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk,
> >> Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> >>
> >> > What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
> >>
> >> He gave it up in the contract he agreed to sign.
> >> Read the UCI model contract, as well as the Pro Team team contract.
> >> Right there in black and blanc.
> >
> >I do not know the details. Some contract provisions are
> >unenforceable, because civil law does not allow them. Not saying
> >this is so for the provisions you cite. I am saying the existence
> >of a signed contract does not prove your point.
> >
> >For example, indentured servants once were a commonplace. Such a
> >contract now would be unenforceable. And yes, in the USA there is
> >plenty of indentured servitude going on.
>
> Is not. He's a contractor.
I stand corrected. Nothing to see here.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 23:45:29
From: benjo maso
Subject: Re: Excellent news
|
"Simon Brooke" <simon@jasmine.org.uk > wrote in message
news:6rcfg4-kt3.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
> in message <1177788576.783214.275100@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Bill C
> ('tritonrider@verizon.net') wrote:
>
>> On Apr 28, 3:18 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> you are saying those who are fighting doping should stop because the
>>> negative publicity is affecting the sport... well yeah, and the SEC
>>> inestigating Enron hurt investor confidence, because it should.
>>
>> How about actually proving something. Yeah, out of all the Puerto
>> mess they got Ullrich. Nice.
>
> Indeed. Anyone who is found guilty of doping faces a two year suspension
> (and a further two years out of the Pro Tour). Ivan Basso was suspended
> before last year's TdF, and we've already heard that he's suspended from
> this year's TdF. So as far as the premier event is concerned, he's already
> served the full suspension before a shred of evidence against him has been
> proven. So if - if - his DNA doesn't match the blood in the bag which is
> labelled with a name that is not the name of his dog, who is going to
> compensate him for his earnings in those two years which should have been
> the peak of his career? Who is going to compensate him for the damage to
> his reputation?
>
> What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Patrick Levefere, sports director of Vandenbroucke, Museeuw, etc., said on
belgian TV that human rights must be temporarlily set aside in the fight
against doping , "like in the war on terror". Maybe they can put Basso in
Guantanamo Bay ...
Benjo.
|
|
