| |
Main
Date: 22 May 2007 22:05:51
From: wimpyVO2
Subject: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
...he'd say, "If the batch doesn't fit, you must acquit."
Dr. Simon Davis made LNDD look bad today. Test results with missing or
batch numbers out of sequence. Magnets placed where they aren't
supposed to be, skewing the ion field. A manual which says to operate
at 2 to 4 x 10-6 mbar, Mongongue operates it at 6 x 10-6. Pressures
that vary from sample to sample.
Reminds me of high school chemistry. Just mix stuff until you get the
"right" result.
|
|
| |
Date: 25 May 2007 18:17:17
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On May 25, 6:14 am, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com > wrote:
>
> Dumbass. I'm not on any jury, don't have any requirement to be
> impartial, and don't even have to pretend I don't have a brain and
> can't think critically.
>
> Let's talk logic and statistics:
>
> O.J. Simpson case: Married woman is murdered.
> Statistical likelihood it was the husband: close to 100%
>
> Floyd Landis case: Professional cyclist TESTS POSTIVE for dope.
> Statistical likelihood the test was correct?
>
> You tell me, retard.
Dumbass,
Bob Schwartz already more or less summed up my
position, but I'll just point out that you failed
to comprehend my last post. I am not a Landis
defender. I think he did something. But I also
think that the testing lab only marginally caught
him, and that they and the dope-testing authorities
are now forced into railroading him because they
cannot admit any sloppiness or error in their
procedures. As Bob alluded to, I've said many times
in rbr that even a guilty man can be framed.
Although this is not a US criminal law proceeding
and the standards of proof are different, someone
who supports the dope testing regimen as a means
to cleaning up doping should be disturbed by
irregularities in the procedure. It makes the process
useless as a clean-up instrument: you don't know
whether it catches the worst dopers, the unluckiest
dopers, or the unlucky whether doping or not (for ex
Beke, Berasategui, Zach Lund.) On the other hand,
if you know they're all dopers and it's only a question
of bringing in as many as the net can hold, qualms
like mine are irrelevant. Suspend 'em all and let
the sponsors sort it out; individual athletes are
replaceable. Up to a point.
Ben
|
| |
Date: 25 May 2007 13:58:01
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On May 25, 12:59 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr > wrote:
> Dans le message denews:ef1e53t7qm0t2oe19epdcffktice77he8c@4ax.com,
> Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com> a r=E9fl=E9chi, et puis a d=E9clar=
=E9 :
>
> > Being a blue state intellectual snob lawyer, I'm smart enough to know
> > when to cite Miranda and when to read handriting on the wall.
>
> sad
Everyone can serve as an example, as both of you do. Not much question
who I think is typical of the worst of the profession.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 25 May 2007 07:53:10
From: wimpyVO2
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On May 25, 6:14 am, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 23:33:33 -0700, Howard Kveck
>
> <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> Floyd Landis case: Professional cyclist TESTS POSTIVE for dope.
> Statistical likelihood the test was correct?
After reading much of the expert testimony that found a zillion flaws
in LNDD testing, statistical likelihood of correct results is low.
Very low. The tests are so bad there's no way of knowing if we're
dealing with a true positive or a false positive.
|
| | |
Date: 25 May 2007 11:05:05
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On 25 May 2007 07:53:10 -0700, wimpyVO2 <wimpyVO2max@gmail.com > wrote:
>On May 25, 6:14 am, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 May 2007 23:33:33 -0700, Howard Kveck
>>
>> <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>>
>> Floyd Landis case: Professional cyclist TESTS POSTIVE for dope.
>> Statistical likelihood the test was correct?
>
>After reading much of the expert testimony that found a zillion flaws
>in LNDD testing, statistical likelihood of correct results is low.
>Very low. The tests are so bad there's no way of knowing if we're
>dealing with a true positive or a false positive.
Yeah. And pigs fly.
Will we EVER find the real killers?
|
| |
Date: 24 May 2007 00:42:25
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On May 23, 7:42 am, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com > wrote:
>
> The truly innocent accused doesn't need a lawyer like Johnny Cochran
> to "get them off." All they need is a minimally competent one to
> ascertain the facts, and sadly that is not always the case.
>
> Johnny Cochran was an expensive expert trial lawyer, whom the general
> public, correctly or incorrectly, trust and respect about as much as
> used car or insurance salesmen - or politicians.
>
> The Duke lacrosse players ran into a different problem: the truly
> rare case of an abuse of power by a despicable rogue prosecutor
> running for political office. Who, by the way, is the "real killer"
> and will likely lose his law license and go bankrupt from the civil
> suits the wrongly accused will bring against him. And rightly so.
>
> So we have two choices with Floyd:
>
> Is he just another common example of a guilty rich scum lawyering up
> to "get off"?
>
> Is he another rare example of a victim of a nefarious conspiracy out
> to "get him."?
>
> I suggest from a rational, objective point of view that the odds
> overwhelmingly are in favor of the first.
>
> But hope and credulity spring eternal, and the RBR partisans slant
> overwhelmingly toward the second.
>
> I say you all are in la la land.
>
> Even if he gets the deserved 2 year suspension, no partisan will ever
> be convinced.
Dumbass,
You speak as if there were never any incidents of
(using your terminology) inoocent victims of nefarious
conspiracies lawyering up to get off, or guilty
scum who are victimized by nefarious conspiracies.
In fact, both of these things can and do happen.
In theory, what matters in judicial proceedings
is not the quest for the truth, but the quest for
a just outcome. One can believe both that Landis
probably used testosterone and that WADA, having
made an accusation, is slanting the evidence
to prove it.
Trial lawyers are like everybody else; often the
expensive ones are expensive because they're good.
Certainly, if you know you're guilty, you might
want to hire a good lawyer. However, if ever
accused of a crime and sure of your innocence,
will you decide that because you're innocent, you
can skimp on your legal team?
Ben
p.s. It's "If Johnnie Cochran Were Still Here ...", btw.
Good lawyers are masters of the subjunctive.
|
| | |
Date: 24 May 2007 09:00:37
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On 24 May 2007 00:42:25 -0700, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:
>On May 23, 7:42 am, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com> wrote:
>>
>> The truly innocent accused doesn't need a lawyer like Johnny Cochran
>> to "get them off." All they need is a minimally competent one to
>> ascertain the facts, and sadly that is not always the case.
>>
>> Johnny Cochran was an expensive expert trial lawyer, whom the general
>> public, correctly or incorrectly, trust and respect about as much as
>> used car or insurance salesmen - or politicians.
>>
>> The Duke lacrosse players ran into a different problem: the truly
>> rare case of an abuse of power by a despicable rogue prosecutor
>> running for political office. Who, by the way, is the "real killer"
>> and will likely lose his law license and go bankrupt from the civil
>> suits the wrongly accused will bring against him. And rightly so.
>>
>> So we have two choices with Floyd:
>>
>> Is he just another common example of a guilty rich scum lawyering up
>> to "get off"?
>>
>> Is he another rare example of a victim of a nefarious conspiracy out
>> to "get him."?
>>
>> I suggest from a rational, objective point of view that the odds
>> overwhelmingly are in favor of the first.
>>
>> But hope and credulity spring eternal, and the RBR partisans slant
>> overwhelmingly toward the second.
>>
>> I say you all are in la la land.
>>
>> Even if he gets the deserved 2 year suspension, no partisan will ever
>> be convinced.
>
>Dumbass,
>
>You speak as if there were never any incidents of
>(using your terminology) inoocent victims of nefarious
>conspiracies lawyering up to get off, or guilty
>scum who are victimized by nefarious conspiracies.
>In fact, both of these things can and do happen.
>
>In theory, what matters in judicial proceedings
>is not the quest for the truth, but the quest for
>a just outcome. One can believe both that Landis
>probably used testosterone and that WADA, having
>made an accusation, is slanting the evidence
>to prove it.
>
>Trial lawyers are like everybody else; often the
>expensive ones are expensive because they're good.
>Certainly, if you know you're guilty, you might
>want to hire a good lawyer. However, if ever
>accused of a crime and sure of your innocence,
>will you decide that because you're innocent, you
>can skimp on your legal team?
>
>Ben
>
>p.s. It's "If Johnnie Cochran Were Still Here ...", btw.
> Good lawyers are masters of the subjunctive.
Q.E.D.
|
| |
Date: 23 May 2007 14:22:06
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On May 23, 4:15 pm, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com > wrote:
> So, back to O.J.: Dick Pound, like the L.A.P.D., has framed a guilty
> man?
dumbass,
how exactly did dick pound frame landis ?
|
| |
Date: 24 May 2007 08:56:00
From: Stu Fleming
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
wimpyVO2 wrote:
> ...he'd say, "If the batch doesn't fit, you must acquit."
"Even though he used soap, doesn't mean he used dope."
|
| |
Date: 23 May 2007 09:24:49
From: Alex
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On May 23, 1:05 am, wimpyVO2 <wimpyVO2...@gmail.com > wrote:
> ...he'd say, "If the batch doesn't fit, you must acquit."
For a good laugh go to http://www.nyvelocity.com/pictures/tturns42.jpg
------------------
Alex
|
| |
Date: 23 May 2007 08:56:19
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On 22 May 2007 22:05:51 -0700, wimpyVO2 <wimpyVO2max@gmail.com > wrote:
>...he'd say, "If the batch doesn't fit, you must acquit."
>
>Dr. Simon Davis made LNDD look bad today. Test results with missing or
>batch numbers out of sequence. Magnets placed where they aren't
>supposed to be, skewing the ion field. A manual which says to operate
>at 2 to 4 x 10-6 mbar, Mongongue operates it at 6 x 10-6. Pressures
>that vary from sample to sample.
>
>Reminds me of high school chemistry. Just mix stuff until you get the
>"right" result.
There you go. Perfect analogy: O.J. and Floyd
1) Obviously guilty perp.
2) Perp's personal explanation of what "really" happened utterly
absurd.
3) Perp lawyers-up with high paid suits to obfuscate the facts and the
science.
4) Character assassination of witnesses.
5) Big time publicity campaign to sway credulous public opinion.
6) Partisan shills jumping on the bandwagon.
This is the FACT: Anyone who NEEDS a lawyer like Johnny Cochran to
"get them off" is guilty as sin, and if they get off, they'll be
respected among people with brains just about as much as O.J. is now.
But there are tons of morons out there who insist to this day that
O.J. was innocent and the "real killers" never got caught.
Dream on, people.
|
| | |
Date: 23 May 2007 23:10:24
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
In article <bnd853t4gs0ftc585cf9di2b9p00oee3h3@4ax.com >,
Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote:
> This is the FACT: Anyone who NEEDS a lawyer like Johnny Cochran to
> "get them off" is guilty as sin, and if they get off, they'll be
> respected among people with brains just about as much as O.J. is now.
Sorry, Doug, that isn't a fact, it's an opinion. And one based on some of the most
twisted logic ever. Essentially you're saying that hiring a good lawyer means the
person must be guilty. So a person who isn't guilty is the one who doesn't get a
lawyer. (Ever hear the phrase "The person who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a
client"?) People toss around the line about "getting off on a technicality," but
those technicalities are the protections the Constitution and laws offer.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 13:56:33
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On May 25, 4:00 pm, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:57:11 GMT, Bob Schwartz
>
>
>
>
>
> <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >Even so, you don't flush someone with test results that
> >were improperly conducted. And you don't rig the process
> >so that you regularly hand out sanctions to innocent
> >people like they did with Beke, like they did with
> >Berasategui, like they did with Rodr=EDguez, like they did
> >with Lund. The damage you do to the credibility of the
> >process extends way beyond the individual case. A lawyer
> >ought to understand that. Are you sure you're a lawyer?
> >Or do you just play one on TV.
> >The point of the Meese quote was that he felt that there
> >was no need for any protections because innocent people
> >aren't accused of crimes. That sailed completely over
> >your head. Very well. Once someone takes out a pro
> >license any accusation that anyone pulls out of their
> >ass is as good as gold and they should be banned. They
> >all do it, so testing positive for a pro license should
> >be enough.
>
> I'm enough of a lawyer not to confuse US criminal law with WADA
> hearing. Apples and oranges.
>
> Yes, the athlete is presumed innocent and WADA has to prove its case,
> but the standard is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the US
> Constitution is 100% irrelevant. As are other athlete's cases. We'll
> see how it plays out, but, yeah, my mind was made up in July 2006
> listening to Floyd's lame excuses and non-explanations. He's guilty
> as sin.
>
> Meanwhile, I'm enough of a normal citizen to be outraged and disgusted
> that one pampered athlete who can't take responsibility for his own
> actions engages high paid suits and throws innocent people under the
> bus in the process of turning a hearing on a positive drug test into a
> media circus.
>
> Which is what it is.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
That explains a lot.
What a contrast between Sandy who believes in justice, rational,
reasoned thought, and equitable treatment and someone who obviously
has a man crush on Alberto Gonzales.
Bill C
|
| | | |
Date: 24 May 2007 09:16:15
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On Wed, 23 May 2007 23:10:24 -0700, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
>In article <bnd853t4gs0ftc585cf9di2b9p00oee3h3@4ax.com>,
> Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:
>
>> This is the FACT: Anyone who NEEDS a lawyer like Johnny Cochran to
>> "get them off" is guilty as sin, and if they get off, they'll be
>> respected among people with brains just about as much as O.J. is now.
>
> Sorry, Doug, that isn't a fact, it's an opinion. And one based on some of the most
>twisted logic ever. Essentially you're saying that hiring a good lawyer means the
>person must be guilty. So a person who isn't guilty is the one who doesn't get a
>lawyer. (Ever hear the phrase "The person who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a
>client"?) People toss around the line about "getting off on a technicality," but
>those technicalities are the protections the Constitution and laws offer.
Dumbass.
I said hiring a lawyer like Cochran - a high priced and uniquely
talented trial specialist - to "get them off."
I am laughing at all the naive and credulous Landis apologists who
actually or wishfully thinking believe that Floyd's totally b.s. and
disingenuous defense is anything but a circus designed to get an
obviously guilty perp - just like O.J. Simpson - "off."
At the jerk-offs in this forum who piled on Lemond, although it is
obvious and a fact that the Landis defense tried amateurishly to
intimidate him.
I would think that the recent revelation that Erik Zabel, INFINTELY
more respected as a class act than Landis ever was and clearly ever
will be, has CONFESSED to drug use, that it should be friggin' clear
to even the most dimwitted and pollyannaish among the partisans, that
Floyd Landis used testosterone to recover after bonking. And got
busted. And will serve a 2 year suspension, just like rider who gets
busted. Even the ones who can afford talented trial lawyers to
attempt to "get them off."
But nooooo...
As I said, dream on.
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 May 2007 22:09:17
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On May 26, 4:32 pm, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2007 16:43:18 GMT, Bob Schwartz
>
> <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> He is a guilty person milking the system, throwing anyone is his way
> >> under the bus.
>
> >> He is NOT an innocent person trying to prove his innocence.
>
> >> That is something that you seem to be totally unable to grasp.
>
> >Wow. You're moving into Lafferty territory here. That's not
> >a good thing. You've convicted him on nothing more than an
> >intense personal dislike.
>
> >I gave up getting into it with whack jobs a long time ago.
> >First Kunich, then Lafferty. Now you.
>
> http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12315.0.html
>
> Deal with it
How's your FFA, Future Fascists of America, career coming. Have you
gotten around to applying for the racial profiling division of
Gonzales' "Justice??" dept? We all know the bastards are all guilty,
and I'm sure you could produce some confessions and stats to prove we
should lock 'em all up in camps and only let out those who can
"prove", to your satisfaction they are innocent.
It's alittle more work to have to invent the evidence, but Hey if
that's what it takes to get those bastards you just KNOW are guilty,
then so be it, right?
Bill C
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 May 2007 09:02:32
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
>> http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12315.0.html
>>
>> Deal with it
>
>How's your FFA, Future Fascists of America, career coming. Have you
>gotten around to applying for the racial profiling division of
>Gonzales' "Justice??" dept? We all know the bastards are all guilty,
>and I'm sure you could produce some confessions and stats to prove we
>should lock 'em all up in camps and only let out those who can
>"prove", to your satisfaction they are innocent.
> It's alittle more work to have to invent the evidence, but Hey if
>that's what it takes to get those bastards you just KNOW are guilty,
>then so be it, right?
You're in la al land.
Cheating in athletics has NOTHING to do with: a) the criminal justice
system and/or the U.S. Constitution; and b) politics.
The rules against cheating are private according to the sport; they
are not public. The penalty for a cheat is suspension, not
incarceration.
That reactions to cheating have nothing to do with politics is clear
from the fact that real and true usenet neocon Jesus Freak fascists,
such as Kunich and Hickey - agree with YOU and support Landis.
Explain that, brainiac.
What cheating does have to do with are old school concepts such as
honor and integrity.
The only integrity I see in Landis case is that he adheres to the code
of silence and doesn't rat out other cheats. Honor among thieves.
Great. I'm SO impressed. That is what perpetuates the problem. So,
throw Lemond and lab technicians under the bus so you can get off and
retain your stolen Yellow Jersey.
But whatever. People like Schwartz take the position that although
Landis is obviously guilty, he has every right to challenge the
testing and do what he is doing within the system to protect his
career. It is impossible to argue against that; I have to concede the
point.
But I am saying is that obviously guilty and self centered schmucks
like Landis and O.J. deserve no respect for beating their respective
systems, and GETTING AWAY WITH IT.
Meanwhile, riders with the status of Riis and Zabel are coming clean
in droves. Yeah, a little late, but better late than never.
So, the honor and integrity apparently are not quite dead and might
just see a resurgence. We'll see. But Landis will always be a
schmuck
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 27 May 2007 15:21:49
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
Doug Taylor wrote:
> But whatever. People like Schwartz take the position that although
> Landis is obviously guilty, he has every right to challenge the
> testing and do what he is doing within the system to protect his
> career. It is impossible to argue against that; I have to concede the
> point.
Dumbass,
You've been arguing passionately against that. Your position has
consistently been to wipe your ass with Due Process brand toilet
paper.
Just wanted to point that out.
You know, Lafferty-ism has a few distinct characteristics:
- Intense and irrational dislike of a Tour de France winner
based on an emotional attachment to something of no personal
importance.
- An inability to let an argument drop without getting in
the last word. Dumbass.
Bob Schwartz
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 27 May 2007 15:54:12
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
Dans le message de news:gcui5319ljf86nn2919lb4qg20331u6rlr@4ax.com,
Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> The rules against cheating are private according to the sport; they
> are not public. The penalty for a cheat is suspension, not
> incarceration.
>
> That reactions to cheating have nothing to do with politics
I wrote this before, but it seems worth repeating, here :
"The International Olympic Committee has, for a long time, focused on
pharmaceutical cheating. It is popular knowledge that sports were a major
propaganda instrument for the Old World Order of Iron Curtain days.
Reasonable belief held that athletes of communist countries were achieving
victories based on chemistry. This was a carryover of the policy of
fighting [no, not a Godwin point] Hitler, who sought to prove that the aryan
race has inherent superiority, again a propaganda matter.
So, with the "free" world taking the lead, a culture of inquisition arose to
challenge the wins of those bad people. In consequence, a moralizing
economic interest group - doping specialists - snowballed their specialty
into a sky-is-falling crusade, and by relying on ancient fears of domination
by slavs and asians, moved the process onward, lobbied against what was
presented as national systemic cheating, and asked the awkward question :
"Does your nation support pumping drugs into people to gain the rewards that
should fall to those who use their natural ability and personal dedication
to reach the same levels of competitiveness ?" Tough to answer "yes".
--
Sandy
-
"Our knowledge is a little island in a great ocean of non-knowledge."
- Edward O. Wilson"
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 May 2007 23:33:33
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
In article <f53b531ejpu1blp01u9kk2hf710g0rvtpm@4ax.com >,
Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 23:10:24 -0700, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <bnd853t4gs0ftc585cf9di2b9p00oee3h3@4ax.com>,
> > Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This is the FACT: Anyone who NEEDS a lawyer like Johnny Cochran to
> >> "get them off" is guilty as sin, and if they get off, they'll be
> >> respected among people with brains just about as much as O.J. is now.
> >
> > Sorry, Doug, that isn't a fact, it's an opinion. And one based on some of
> > the most twisted logic ever. Essentially you're saying that hiring a good lawyer
> > means the person must be guilty. So a person who isn't guilty is the one who
> > doesn't get a lawyer. (Ever hear the phrase "The person who acts as his own
> > lawyer has a fool for a client"?) People toss around the line about "getting off
> > on a technicality," but those technicalities are the protections the Constitution
> > and laws offer.
>
> Dumbass.
>
> I said hiring a lawyer like Cochran - a high priced and uniquely
> talented trial specialist - to "get them off."
>
> I am laughing at all the naive and credulous Landis apologists who
> actually or wishfully thinking believe that Floyd's totally b.s. and
> disingenuous defense is anything but a circus designed to get an
> obviously guilty perp - just like O.J. Simpson - "off."
Well, as Ben pointed out, the reason some lawyers are "high-priced" is due to
their success. Their job is to find the flaws in the case of the prosecution (or
group like WADA) and point them out. Those flaws may be innocent mistakes or actual
flaws that would wrongly convict their client. It's nice to see that you're so
certain about FL's guilt. I'm not. That's why they're having the hearings.
"Perp." Heh...
> At the jerk-offs in this forum who piled on Lemond, although it is
> obvious and a fact that the Landis defense tried amateurishly to
> intimidate him.
His pal Will G. did that, no doubt. But he isn't part of the defense, is he?
> I would think that the recent revelation that Erik Zabel, INFINTELY
> more respected as a class act than Landis ever was and clearly ever
> will be, has CONFESSED to drug use, that it should be friggin' clear
> to even the most dimwitted and pollyannaish among the partisans, that
> Floyd Landis used testosterone to recover after bonking. And got
> busted. And will serve a 2 year suspension, just like rider who gets
> busted. Even the ones who can afford talented trial lawyers to
> attempt to "get them off."
Zabel did it, therefore Floyd *surely* did. Nice logic. I hope that you're one of
the jillions of people who ignore their jury summonses...
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 15:41:53
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
In article
<YOURhoward-E2EA16.23333324052007@comcast.dca.giganews.
com >,
Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> Zabel did it, therefore Floyd *surely* did. Nice logic. I hope that you're one of
> the jillions of people who ignore their jury summonses...
I did not know folks ignore the summons. What are the
consequences?
Not that I would ignore them. I show up in a suit, and
am so scrupulous and forthright that nobody wants
anything to do with me.
Once I filled out a prospective juror survey in a
capital murder case. It was a model of fair-mindedness
and rectitude. When I came in for voir dire nobody
asked me questions. The prosecutor got up and said that
counsel for defense and for prosecution excused me.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 19:20:54
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:41:53 -0700, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote:
>In article
><YOURhoward-E2EA16.23333324052007@comcast.dca.giganews.
>com>,
> Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
>> Zabel did it, therefore Floyd *surely* did. Nice logic. I hope that you're one of
>> the jillions of people who ignore their jury summonses...
>
>I did not know folks ignore the summons. What are the
>consequences?
>
>Not that I would ignore them. I show up in a suit, and
>am so scrupulous and forthright that nobody wants
>anything to do with me.
>
>Once I filled out a prospective juror survey in a
>capital murder case. It was a model of fair-mindedness
>and rectitude. When I came in for voir dire nobody
>asked me questions. The prosecutor got up and said that
>counsel for defense and for prosecution excused me.
I make them use up a pre-emptive challenge. In criminal cases it'll be the
defense and in civil, the plaintiff.
Your problem is being obviously thoughtful and articulate. You present the
danger of being influential in deliberations. They don't like that.
Ron
Ron
Effect pedal demo's up at http://www.soundclick.com/ronsonicpedalry
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 11:11:19
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On Thu, 24 May 2007 23:33:33 -0700, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
>> At the jerk-offs in this forum who piled on Lemond, although it is
>> obvious and a fact that the Landis defense tried amateurishly to
>> intimidate him.
>
> His pal Will G. did that, no doubt. But he isn't part of the defense, is he?
Like he acted all by himself and Floyd didn't know about it.
Did you listen to Floyd's "convincing" testimony?
If Floyd were Pinocchio his nose would be as long as Dillinger's dick.
Are you:
1) Really that naive and credulous?
2) Really that stupid?
3) Part of the defense?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 09:14:02
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On Thu, 24 May 2007 23:33:33 -0700, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
>
> Zabel did it, therefore Floyd *surely* did. Nice logic. I hope that you're one of
>the jillions of people who ignore their jury summonses...
Dumbass. I'm not on any jury, don't have any requirement to be
impartial, and don't even have to pretend I don't have a brain and
can't think critically.
Let's talk logic and statistics:
O.J. Simpson case: Married woman is murdered.
Statistical likelihood it was the husband: close to 100%
Floyd Landis case: Professional cyclist TESTS POSTIVE for dope.
Statistical likelihood the test was correct?
You tell me, retard.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 27 May 2007 17:53:43
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On May 27, 9:02 am, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com > wrote:
> You're in la al land.
>
> Cheating in athletics has NOTHING to do with: a) the criminal justice
> system and/or the U.S. Constitution; and b) politics.
>
> The rules against cheating are private according to the sport; they
> are not public. The penalty for a cheat is suspension, not
> incarceration.
>
dumbass,
that's correct. cycling made the mistake of going down that stupid
path instead of handling the problem like one would handle an internal
matter in a well run business.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 27 May 2007 10:24:14
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On May 27, 9:02 am, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com > wrote:
> >>http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12315.0.html
>
> >> Deal with it
>
> >How's your FFA, Future Fascists of America, career coming. Have you
> >gotten around to applying for the racial profiling division of
> >Gonzales' "Justice??" dept? We all know the bastards are all guilty,
> >and I'm sure you could produce some confessions and stats to prove we
> >should lock 'em all up in camps and only let out those who can
> >"prove", to your satisfaction they are innocent.
> > It's alittle more work to have to invent the evidence, but Hey if
> >that's what it takes to get those bastards you just KNOW are guilty,
> >then so be it, right?
>
> You're in la al land.
>
Fair and just due process is just that, and should be accorded to
everyone in all cases, not just serious criminal cases. If not then
you whip out the stats that say minorities are involved with more
criminal violations than their percentage of the population would
warrant and use that to discriminate against them.
You seem to feel that, just because, doping is widespread that,
somehow, excuses them from being treated justly and properly.
Where do you apply actual justice, misdemeanors, minor felonies, DUI,
drug posession? Where on your scale do you start actually treating
people fairly and properly?
Bill C
> Cheating in athletics has NOTHING to do with: a) the criminal justice
> system and/or the U.S. Constitution; and b) politics.
>
> The rules against cheating are private according to the sport; they
> are not public. The penalty for a cheat is suspension, not
> incarceration.
>
> That reactions to cheating have nothing to do with politics is clear
> from the fact that real and true usenet neocon Jesus Freak fascists,
> such as Kunich and Hickey - agree with YOU and support Landis.
> Explain that, brainiac.
>
> What cheating does have to do with are old school concepts such as
> honor and integrity.
>
> The only integrity I see in Landis case is that he adheres to the code
> of silence and doesn't rat out other cheats. Honor among thieves.
> Great. I'm SO impressed. That is what perpetuates the problem. So,
> throw Lemond and lab technicians under the bus so you can get off and
> retain your stolen Yellow Jersey.
>
> But whatever. People like Schwartz take the position that although
> Landis is obviously guilty, he has every right to challenge the
> testing and do what he is doing within the system to protect his
> career. It is impossible to argue against that; I have to concede the
> point.
>
> But I am saying is that obviously guilty and self centered schmucks
> like Landis and O.J. deserve no respect for beating their respective
> systems, and GETTING AWAY WITH IT.
>
> Meanwhile, riders with the status of Riis and Zabel are coming clean
> in droves. Yeah, a little late, but better late than never.
>
> So, the honor and integrity apparently are not quite dead and might
> just see a resurgence. We'll see. But Landis will always be a
> schmuck
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 27 May 2007 20:44:35
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On 27 May 2007 10:24:14 -0700, Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:
>>
> Fair and just due process is just that, and should be accorded to
>everyone in all cases, not just serious criminal cases.
Well, dude, good thing you are just another nerd posting on usenet and
not a competing in the NFL, which has one of the more successful and
acclaimed anti-performance enhancing drug policies.
Again, unlike the criminal justice system, where the concept of due
process is key in any free or enlightened society, the NFL is strictly
private: they can do whatever they want, subject to acceptance by the
player's union.
All players in the League are tested once a year, and are subject to
weekly random tests during the pre-season, season, and post season.
If a player refuses a test or tests positive, bingo, GUILTY. No
Johnny Cochran calling the procedure or the science into question. No
circus. No assassination of the character of witnesses. The player
is immediately subject to sanctions; although they have the right of
appeal to the NFL commissioner. Lots of luck, there.
"Fair and just due process?" Who cares? It's PRIVATE and totally
their call. And, the system arguably is more successful preventing
performance enhancing drug use than any other US Pro sport, or any
sport.
Good for them, I say. Better for the players, the owners, AND the
fans.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 27 May 2007 08:37:21
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On May 27, 9:02 am, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com > wrote:
>
> But I am saying is that obviously guilty and self centered schmucks
> like Landis and O.J. deserve no respect for beating their respective
> systems, and GETTING AWAY WITH IT.
You're equating brutal murders with cheating at bike racing... Yeah,
sure. They're IDENTICAL situations. I should have seen it myself.
In case you're such a "self centered schmuck", that you can't
differentiate between the two, here's the clue.
One is a moral outrage that violates every creed and belief system.
The other is a bike race.
Righteous indignation is almost a lost art in this day and age. No
one gets worked up over nothing anymore. Maybe you should post over
on alt.oj.did.it and really work up a good head of steam.
R
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 22:15:53
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
In article <9und53tbemgok3t3es982ftlcuogopvn1n@4ax.com >,
Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 23:33:33 -0700, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> >
> > Zabel did it, therefore Floyd *surely* did. Nice logic. I hope that
> > you're one of
> >the jillions of people who ignore their jury summonses...
>
> Dumbass. I'm not on any jury, don't have any requirement to be
> impartial, and don't even have to pretend I don't have a brain and
> can't think critically.
After reading a few of your posts on this, I'm really starting to agree with you
on those last two points (heh)...
> Let's talk logic and statistics:
>
> O.J. Simpson case: Married woman is murdered.
> Statistical likelihood it was the husband: close to 100%
>
> Floyd Landis case: Professional cyclist TESTS POSTIVE for dope.
> Statistical likelihood the test was correct?
>
> You tell me, retard.
As has been pointed out by multiple people, there are some good questions
regarding the accuracy of the tests or propriety of the procedures. As for whether or
not FL actually did take something, well, I'm not sure. But the issues with the tests
and procedures make me question the whole thing. I know you believe that the
arbitration procedure and a criminal case are "apples and oranges" but there are some
similarities. It is the defense's job not to show that their guy didn't do it but
that the case against them isn't good enough, for whatever reason. The idea that he's
been charged seems to be good enough for you (hence the Meese comments are apt). You
seem to like using the Simpson case as an example, so I'll do that too. Even though I
believe that OJ did kill two people, if I was on the jury, I would have voted to
acquit because the prosecution presented a case that was full of holes and didn't
rise to the level needed to convict.
You're really a lawyer? Wow.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 08:53:58
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
Doug Taylor wrote:
> Floyd Landis case: Professional cyclist TESTS POSTIVE for dope.
> Statistical likelihood the test was correct?
>
> You tell me, retard.
Dumbass,
If you have bad baseline resolution and peak shouldering, what is
the statistical probability that there were problems with the test
run?
You tell me, dumbass. That is an upstream issue. You have to
correctly resolve it before you can move on to your assertion that
Floyd tested positive for dope.
Thanks,
Bob Schwartz
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 10:00:29
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On Fri, 25 May 2007 08:53:58 -0500, Bob Schwartz
<bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net > wrote:
>Doug Taylor wrote:
>> Floyd Landis case: Professional cyclist TESTS POSTIVE for dope.
>> Statistical likelihood the test was correct?
>>
>> You tell me, retard.
>
>Dumbass,
>
>If you have bad baseline resolution and peak shouldering, what is
>the statistical probability that there were problems with the test
>run?
>
>You tell me, dumbass. That is an upstream issue. You have to
>correctly resolve it before you can move on to your assertion that
>Floyd tested positive for dope.
How are things upstream in la la land, Bob?
Please stop dumping your sewage in the public stream; the stench is
clouding the minds of the credulous.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 10:21:29
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
Doug Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 08:53:58 -0500, Bob Schwartz
> <bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Doug Taylor wrote:
>>> Floyd Landis case: Professional cyclist TESTS POSTIVE for dope.
>>> Statistical likelihood the test was correct?
>>>
>>> You tell me, retard.
>> Dumbass,
>>
>> If you have bad baseline resolution and peak shouldering, what is
>> the statistical probability that there were problems with the test
>> run?
>>
>> You tell me, dumbass. That is an upstream issue. You have to
>> correctly resolve it before you can move on to your assertion that
>> Floyd tested positive for dope.
>
> How are things upstream in la la land, Bob?
>
> Please stop dumping your sewage in the public stream; the stench is
> clouding the minds of the credulous.
Dumbass,
You remind me of this classic from Ed Meese:
U.S News: You criticize the Miranda ruling, which gives suspects the
right to have a lawyer present before police questioning. Shouldn't
people, who may be innocent, have such protection?
Meese: Suspects who are innocent of a crime should. But the thing is,
you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's
contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.
A blast from the past,
Bob Schwartz
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 May 2007 02:42:44
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On May 28, 1:18 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:
> In article <1180318330.880829.247...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 27, 8:44 pm, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com> wrote:
> > > On 27 May 2007 10:24:14 -0700, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Fair and just due process is just that, and should be accorded to
> > > >everyone in all cases, not just serious criminal cases.
>
> > > Well, dude, good thing you are just another nerd posting on usenet and
> > > not a competing in the NFL, which has one of the more successful and
> > > acclaimed anti-performance enhancing drug policies.
>
> > > Again, unlike the criminal justice system, where the concept of due
> > > process is key in any free or enlightened society, the NFL is strictly
> > > private: they can do whatever they want, subject to acceptance by the
> > > player's union.
>
> > > All players in the League are tested once a year, and are subject to
> > > weekly random tests during the pre-season, season, and post season.
> > > If a player refuses a test or tests positive, bingo, GUILTY. No
> > > Johnny Cochran calling the procedure or the science into question. No
> > > circus. No assassination of the character of witnesses. The player
> > > is immediately subject to sanctions; although they have the right of
> > > appeal to the NFL commissioner. Lots of luck, there.
>
> > > "Fair and just due process?" Who cares? It's PRIVATE and totally
> > > their call. And, the system arguably is more successful preventing
> > > performance enhancing drug use than any other US Pro sport, or any
> > > sport.
>
> > > Good for them, I say. Better for the players, the owners, AND the
> > > fans.
>
> > Do you REALLY think the NFL testing policy catches anyone but complete
> > morons, and actually works to clean up the sport?
> > Of course the massively powerful NFLPA signed onto it because it's
> > nothing more than a PR gimmick.
> > Check out section 1C in particular:
>
> >http://www.nflpa.org/pdfs/RulesAndRegs/Drug_Policy_2006.pdf
> > Notice that the NFLPA can unilaterally remove a lab from doing
> > testing and they then negotiate on another lab.
>
> > Here's the steroids stuff:
> > Notice it's urine only and full of holes.
> >http://www.nflpa.org/pdfs/RulesAndRegs/BannedSubstances.pdf
>
> The science here is beyond me: what holes do you see in their
> 'roid-testing regimen?
>
> I would note that I suspect the aerobic enhancements of EPO would be of
> minimal benefit to any football player.
>
> Ryan Cousineau rcous...@sfu.cahttp://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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey Ryan
A lot of the newer water based steroids are gone in days at most from
your system and then a lot of the newer stuff won't show on urine
tests, just blood.
So these guys are all millionaires with access to serious newer drugs
that you aren't going to find using a urine test at all too.
About the only way to get caught is to be taking old oil based shit
and only an idiot is doing that. The people like Alzado and others
admitted using Hgh way back when and the NFL still doesn't test for it
and is hostile to the concept.
http://www.charlotte.com/456/story/69486.html
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0005AF2D-C69A-1FFD-869A83414B7F0000
Quoted:
Still, the cat-and-mouse game that is athletic drug testing continues.
The trouble is that the mice are fast-moving targets that never stop
evolving. "We're looking forward for our next research project, and
that includes looking for other designer steroids," Catlin reports.
Perhaps they can pounce before the mouse disappears.
and that's the core problem. Both baseball and the NFL are using urine
testing which is less effective and most any change to the policy has
to be renegotiated with the unions who aren't going to give an inch
until they are absolutely forced to.
If and when a few people get caught, switch to something else and
keep going. Neither sport is interested in getting into, or will allow
the mess cycling is in to happen to it. They'll keep spinning a
testing program just good enough to catch the blatant idiots and
that'll keep the good PR going even though it really isn't doing much.
The other side is that they are allowed, especially in football, to
take so many drugs, painkillers etc...that what'd light up a Wada test
is all perfectly good and covered for them. If they banned opiates and
other painkillers you'd have to double the roster sizes just to have
bodies that could play.
I don't think anyone takes either sports testing program seriously as
science, or enforcement in private.
Bill C
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 May 2007 00:22:12
From:
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On May 28, 7:20 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:
> Rico: what's the average life expectancy of an NFL football player?
A possibly more relevant question is how it compares to other sports:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=17436206
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 May 2007 19:12:10
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On May 27, 8:44 pm, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com > wrote:
> On 27 May 2007 10:24:14 -0700, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Fair and just due process is just that, and should be accorded to
> >everyone in all cases, not just serious criminal cases.
>
> Well, dude, good thing you are just another nerd posting on usenet and
> not a competing in the NFL, which has one of the more successful and
> acclaimed anti-performance enhancing drug policies.
>
> Again, unlike the criminal justice system, where the concept of due
> process is key in any free or enlightened society, the NFL is strictly
> private: they can do whatever they want, subject to acceptance by the
> player's union.
>
> All players in the League are tested once a year, and are subject to
> weekly random tests during the pre-season, season, and post season.
> If a player refuses a test or tests positive, bingo, GUILTY. No
> Johnny Cochran calling the procedure or the science into question. No
> circus. No assassination of the character of witnesses. The player
> is immediately subject to sanctions; although they have the right of
> appeal to the NFL commissioner. Lots of luck, there.
>
> "Fair and just due process?" Who cares? It's PRIVATE and totally
> their call. And, the system arguably is more successful preventing
> performance enhancing drug use than any other US Pro sport, or any
> sport.
>
> Good for them, I say. Better for the players, the owners, AND the
> fans.
Do you REALLY think the NFL testing policy catches anyone but complete
morons, and actually works to clean up the sport?
Of course the massively powerful NFLPA signed onto it because it's
nothing more than a PR gimmick.
Check out section 1C in particular:
http://www.nflpa.org/pdfs/RulesAndRegs/Drug_Policy_2006.pdf
Notice that the NFLPA can unilaterally remove a lab from doing
testing and they then negotiate on another lab.
Here's the steroids stuff:
Notice it's urine only and full of holes.
http://www.nflpa.org/pdfs/RulesAndRegs/BannedSubstances.pdf
Really strong union, good PR, protection from abuses, and very little
chance of catching anyone who isn't a complete imbecile ifor either
rec drugs or steroid related stuff.
Cycling basically had this policy before all the scandals started.
You think there's any chance in hell of implementing anything close
to cycling's program in any major US sport? I'll give you a hint both
the NFLPA and MLBPA have said hell will be frozen over before they
allow blood testing.
The Unions here provide the balance that is totally absent in
cycling.
Bill C
Bill C
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 May 2007 15:43:43
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On 27 May 2007 19:12:10 -0700, Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:
>Do you REALLY think the NFL testing policy catches anyone but complete
>morons, and actually works to clean up the sport?
Who knows? It is reputed to be the most successful of the three major
US Pro sports. But maybe it's total b.s. as you imply.
My central point, in reply to another post, was that the principle of
"due process" which exists in the US criminal justice system, does not
necessarily apply to or exist at all in private organizations such as
the NFL.
Moving back to cycling: I suppose you could classify Floyd Landis a
complete moron for keeping that testosterone patch on his nuts for too
long, eh? What a dumbass way to lose a yellow jersey. Duh!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 May 2007 21:50:18
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
Dans le message de news:gmbm53pojqcdeq6qgc2n5g7aeunmu71ec3@4ax.com,
Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On 27 May 2007 19:12:10 -0700, Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Do you REALLY think the NFL testing policy catches anyone but
>> complete morons, and actually works to clean up the sport?
>
> Who knows? It is reputed to be the most successful of the three major
> US Pro sports. But maybe it's total b.s. as you imply.
>
> My central point, in reply to another post, was that the principle of
> "due process" which exists in the US criminal justice system, does not
> necessarily apply to or exist at all in private organizations such as
> the NFL.
If the "process" used in the NFL is a commercial arbitral process, the
enforcement of an award from such a panel may be attacked in court on very
few grounds, but the principal two grounds are the inequity of the process
as it unfolded, and the inherently "unfairness" of the procedure. A loser
in arb may apply to the court for a declaration that the award is invalid in
the same way a winning side can ask the court to confirm the arbitral award.
It's your NFL, so I guess you know about the proceedings' conduct and
whether they always meet the standards for confirmation.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 May 2007 17:27:40
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On Mon, 28 May 2007 21:50:18 +0200, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote:
>> My central point, in reply to another post, was that the principle of
>> "due process" which exists in the US criminal justice system, does not
>> necessarily apply to or exist at all in private organizations such as
>> the NFL.
>
>If the "process" used in the NFL is a commercial arbitral process, the
>enforcement of an award from such a panel may be attacked in court on very
>few grounds, but the principal two grounds are the inequity of the process
>as it unfolded, and the inherently "unfairness" of the procedure. A loser
>in arb may apply to the court for a declaration that the award is invalid in
>the same way a winning side can ask the court to confirm the arbitral award.
>
>It's your NFL, so I guess you know about the proceedings' conduct and
>whether they always meet the standards for confirmation.
It's anybody's who wants to find it on the web:
http://www.nflpa.org/pdfs/rulesandregs/BannedSubstances.pdf
Read Appendix D:
If the player tests positive, he is guilty ipso facto.
The player can appeal to the commissioner and THEN request a hearing.
As a practical matter, a positive test is unlikely to be reversed.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 May 2007 05:18:40
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
In article <1180318330.880829.247750@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:
> On May 27, 8:44 pm, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com> wrote:
> > On 27 May 2007 10:24:14 -0700, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Fair and just due process is just that, and should be accorded to
> > >everyone in all cases, not just serious criminal cases.
> >
> > Well, dude, good thing you are just another nerd posting on usenet and
> > not a competing in the NFL, which has one of the more successful and
> > acclaimed anti-performance enhancing drug policies.
> >
> > Again, unlike the criminal justice system, where the concept of due
> > process is key in any free or enlightened society, the NFL is strictly
> > private: they can do whatever they want, subject to acceptance by the
> > player's union.
> >
> > All players in the League are tested once a year, and are subject to
> > weekly random tests during the pre-season, season, and post season.
> > If a player refuses a test or tests positive, bingo, GUILTY. No
> > Johnny Cochran calling the procedure or the science into question. No
> > circus. No assassination of the character of witnesses. The player
> > is immediately subject to sanctions; although they have the right of
> > appeal to the NFL commissioner. Lots of luck, there.
> >
> > "Fair and just due process?" Who cares? It's PRIVATE and totally
> > their call. And, the system arguably is more successful preventing
> > performance enhancing drug use than any other US Pro sport, or any
> > sport.
> >
> > Good for them, I say. Better for the players, the owners, AND the
> > fans.
>
> Do you REALLY think the NFL testing policy catches anyone but complete
> morons, and actually works to clean up the sport?
> Of course the massively powerful NFLPA signed onto it because it's
> nothing more than a PR gimmick.
> Check out section 1C in particular:
>
> http://www.nflpa.org/pdfs/RulesAndRegs/Drug_Policy_2006.pdf
> Notice that the NFLPA can unilaterally remove a lab from doing
> testing and they then negotiate on another lab.
>
> Here's the steroids stuff:
> Notice it's urine only and full of holes.
> http://www.nflpa.org/pdfs/RulesAndRegs/BannedSubstances.pdf
The science here is beyond me: what holes do you see in their
'roid-testing regimen?
I would note that I suspect the aerobic enhancements of EPO would be of
minimal benefit to any football player.
> Really strong union, good PR, protection from abuses, and very little
> chance of catching anyone who isn't a complete imbecile ifor either
> rec drugs or steroid related stuff.
> Cycling basically had this policy before all the scandals started.
> You think there's any chance in hell of implementing anything close
> to cycling's program in any major US sport? I'll give you a hint both
> the NFLPA and MLBPA have said hell will be frozen over before they
> allow blood testing.
--
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: 27 May 2007 18:04:56
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On May 27, 8:44 pm, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com > wrote:
> On 27 May 2007 10:24:14 -0700, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Fair and just due process is just that, and should be accorded to
> >everyone in all cases, not just serious criminal cases.
>
> "Fair and just due process?" Who cares? It's PRIVATE and totally
> their call. And, the system arguably is more successful preventing
> performance enhancing drug use than any other US Pro sport, or any
> sport.
Many would say that private, whether capitalized or not, more or less
equates to fair and just. Assuming all of the other stuff is fair and
just.
While you're crowing about the silly yankee-pig-dog sport of American
football, everyone is already way ahead of you in agreeing that the
cyclists unions sucks. Besides that, the same stuff goes on (the
article is a couple of years old, but it's not necessary for me to do
your research for you):
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/29/60II/main683747.shtml
BTW, Fijian canoe racing is remarkably free of drugs, except for the
chain-chuggin of kava.
> Good for them, I say. Better for the players, the owners, AND the
> fans.
Yay!
R
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 May 2007 05:20:08
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
In article <1180314296.134013.29540@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com >,
RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com > wrote:
> On May 27, 8:44 pm, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com> wrote:
> > On 27 May 2007 10:24:14 -0700, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Fair and just due process is just that, and should be accorded to
> > >everyone in all cases, not just serious criminal cases.
> >
> > "Fair and just due process?" Who cares? It's PRIVATE and totally
> > their call. And, the system arguably is more successful preventing
> > performance enhancing drug use than any other US Pro sport, or any
> > sport.
>
> Many would say that private, whether capitalized or not, more or less
> equates to fair and just. Assuming all of the other stuff is fair and
> just.
>
> While you're crowing about the silly yankee-pig-dog sport of American
> football, everyone is already way ahead of you in agreeing that the
> cyclists unions sucks. Besides that, the same stuff goes on (the
> article is a couple of years old, but it's not necessary for me to do
> your research for you):
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/29/60II/main683747.shtml
Would it give an advantage? "Yes," says Black, who speaks from personal
experience. While directing a drug-testing lab at Vanderbilt University,
he took some Stanozolol for research purposes.
"I must have been around 40 when I was injected with Stanozolol," says
Black. "And I pretty much felt like I was 18 again.
LIVEDRUNK does not endorse drug use, even the really good ones.
What?
> > Good for them, I say. Better for the players, the owners, AND the
> > fans.
>
> Yay!
Rico: what's the average life expectancy of an NFL football player?
Better for the players,
--
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: 25 May 2007 12:09:09
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On Fri, 25 May 2007 10:21:29 -0500, Bob Schwartz
<bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net > wrote:
>Dumbass,
>
>You remind me of this classic from Ed Meese:
>
>U.S News: You criticize the Miranda ruling, which gives suspects the
>right to have a lawyer present before police questioning. Shouldn't
>people, who may be innocent, have such protection?
>Meese: Suspects who are innocent of a crime should. But the thing is,
>you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's
>contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.
Dumbass:
Objection! Irrelevant!
Floyd Landis is not accused of a crime, and is his case is not under
the jurisdiction of the US Constitution.
Appeal to common fucking sense:
1) The pro peloton is replete with dopers.
Read this and see if it doesn't sound convincing:
[quote] German doctor Kurt Moosburger, who has looked after Jörg
Jaksche (among others) for the past two years, has told dpa that he
believes that performance enhancing drugs are "indispensable" for high
level cycling
In a frank interview, Moosburger pointed to the average speeds of
modern professional races, especially hard tours. "The average in last
year's Tour was 41 kilometres per hour - that is incredible. You can
do a hard Alpine stage without doping. But after that, the muscles are
exhausted. You need - depending on your training conditions - up to
three days in order to regenerate."
To help recover, testosterone and human growth hormone can be used.
"Both are made by the body and are therefore natural substances," he
said. "They help to build muscle as well as in muscle recovery."
Dr Moosburger explained how it was done. "You put a standard
testosterone patch that is used for male hormone replacement therapy
on your scrotum and leave it there for about six hours. The small dose
is not sufficient to produce a positive urine result in the doping
test, but the body actually recovers faster."
Dr Moosburger went onto explain that, "The supply of oxygen to the
blood decides what the body is capable of in terms of fat- and
carbohydrate metabolism. This capacity is mostly genetically
determined.The muscles of athletes who are able to reach the top level
of sport can carry about 60 millilitres per kilo per minute in an
untrained condition. That of an average person is only about 40
millilitres per kilo. In order to be able to keep up with the world's
best, it must be 85 to 90 millilitres.
EPO helps oxygen carrying capacity, and has long been the performance
enhancing drug of choice in endurance sports. "It enables you to hold
the haematocrit of the blood in the upper level of what's allowed for
the whole season. Before the EPO test, for example, athletes injected
4000 units three times per week. Now they inject a small dose almost
daily."
Finally, in the opinion of Dr Moosburger, blood doping via transfusion
would give an athlete a five percent boost for two to three weeks.
"And therefore can last for a grand tour."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/jul06/jul07news3
[/quote]
2) Landis tests positive for exogenous testosterone, used among other
things, for muscle recovery, after bonking followed by a superhuman
stage win.
3) Landis's explanations are moronic "dog ate my homework" b.s.
4) Retests of Landis samples show 6 other instance of elevated
testosterone.
5) Having nothing to lose, Landis mounts an O.J. Simpson defencse
strategy of obsfucating the science and testing procedures, willy
nilly assassinating the characters of technicians and witnesses along
the way.
And people like you buy into it.
What is your problem?
You cite Ed Meese to me. Dude, I'm a freaking "Go Obama liberal", but
rbr class clown and noted Neo-con Jesus Freak Tom Kunick is on your
"Free Floyd" bandwagon.
Being a blue state intellectual snob lawyer, I'm smart enough to know
when to cite Miranda and when to read handriting on the wall.
What's your excuse?
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 18:59:42
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
Dans le message de news:ef1e53t7qm0t2oe19epdcffktice77he8c@4ax.com,
Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Being a blue state intellectual snob lawyer, I'm smart enough to know
> when to cite Miranda and when to read handriting on the wall.
>
sad
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 16:57:11
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
Doug Taylor wrote:
> What's your excuse?
Dumbass,
I think he did it. What I don't think is that the test
performed by the lab proves he did it.
You convict by association. And you're a lawyer? Holy
shit.
As bjw has pointed out many times, even guilty people
can be framed. If the test is not valid, even if he
totally fucking did it, there is no proof that he did
it. That is something that you seem to be totally
unable to grasp.
My wife teaches Chemistry. She knows how Mass Specs
work. If she looks at a test result and sees peak
shouldering, even if she has never seen the instrument,
even if she knows nothing about how the test was
conducted, she knows there were problems. Bad baseline
resolution means there were problems. Even if he
totally fucking did it, there were still problems with
the way testing was conducted.
You've tested him positive for winning the Tour. Since
they all do it, in your world he's guilty. The test
could be total shit, it's still a positive test and
he's guilty.
I think he did it. I think LANCE did it. I think Ullrich
went to his extended pre-Tour training camps to get away
from any testing so he could charge his ass up without
restrictions. Everyone that gave a shit has known that
Riis did it.
Even so, you don't flush someone with test results that
were improperly conducted. And you don't rig the process
so that you regularly hand out sanctions to innocent
people like they did with Beke, like they did with
Berasategui, like they did with Rodríguez, like they did
with Lund. The damage you do to the credibility of the
process extends way beyond the individual case. A lawyer
ought to understand that. Are you sure you're a lawyer?
Or do you just play one on TV.
The point of the Meese quote was that he felt that there
was no need for any protections because innocent people
aren't accused of crimes. That sailed completely over
your head. Very well. Once someone takes out a pro
license any accusation that anyone pulls out of their
ass is as good as gold and they should be banned. They
all do it, so testing positive for a pro license should
be enough.
You're a dumbass.
Bob Schwartz
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 May 2007 08:08:12
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:57:11 GMT, Bob Schwartz
<bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net > wrote:
>Dumbass,
>
>I think he did it. What I don't think is that the test
>performed by the lab proves he did it.
>
>As bjw has pointed out many times, even guilty people
>can be framed. If the test is not valid, even if he
>totally fucking did it, there is no proof that he did
>it. That is something that you seem to be totally
>unable to grasp.
If he totally fucking did it - which is as obvious from the miraculous
performance and his inability to convincingly explain the test
results, even assuming your assertion that the test was invalid (which
is b.s.) - then he totally should fucking admit it.
Instead, he hires slick lawyers TO GET HIM OFF, assassinating the
characters of innocent people in the process.
That is what sucks.
He is a guilty person milking the system, throwing anyone is his way
under the bus.
He is NOT an innocent person trying to prove his innocence.
That is something that you seem to be totally unable to grasp.
>You're a dumbass.
Welcome to the club.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 May 2007 16:43:18
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
Doug Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:57:11 GMT, Bob Schwartz
> <bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Dumbass,
>>
>> I think he did it. What I don't think is that the test
>> performed by the lab proves he did it.
>>
>> As bjw has pointed out many times, even guilty people
>> can be framed. If the test is not valid, even if he
>> totally fucking did it, there is no proof that he did
>> it. That is something that you seem to be totally
>> unable to grasp.
>
> If he totally fucking did it - which is as obvious from the miraculous
> performance and his inability to convincingly explain the test
> results, even assuming your assertion that the test was invalid (which
> is b.s.) - then he totally should fucking admit it.
>
> Instead, he hires slick lawyers TO GET HIM OFF, assassinating the
> characters of innocent people in the process.
>
> That is what sucks.
>
> He is a guilty person milking the system, throwing anyone is his way
> under the bus.
>
> He is NOT an innocent person trying to prove his innocence.
>
> That is something that you seem to be totally unable to grasp.
Wow. You're moving into Lafferty territory here. That's not
a good thing. You've convicted him on nothing more than an
intense personal dislike.
I gave up getting into it with whack jobs a long time ago.
First Kunich, then Lafferty. Now you.
Bob Schwartz
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 May 2007 16:32:18
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On Sat, 26 May 2007 16:43:18 GMT, Bob Schwartz
<bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net > wrote:
>> He is a guilty person milking the system, throwing anyone is his way
>> under the bus.
>>
>> He is NOT an innocent person trying to prove his innocence.
>>
>> That is something that you seem to be totally unable to grasp.
>
>Wow. You're moving into Lafferty territory here. That's not
>a good thing. You've convicted him on nothing more than an
>intense personal dislike.
>
>I gave up getting into it with whack jobs a long time ago.
>First Kunich, then Lafferty. Now you.
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12315.0.html
Deal with it
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 May 2007 18:33:37
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
Doug Taylor wrote:
> If he totally fucking did it - which is as obvious from the miraculous
> performance and his inability to convincingly explain the test
> results, even assuming your assertion that the test was invalid (which
> is b.s.) - then he totally should fucking admit it.
If you're a defense lawyer then you must get totally fucking no clients.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 16:00:10
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:57:11 GMT, Bob Schwartz
<bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net > wrote:
>
>Even so, you don't flush someone with test results that
>were improperly conducted. And you don't rig the process
>so that you regularly hand out sanctions to innocent
>people like they did with Beke, like they did with
>Berasategui, like they did with Rodríguez, like they did
>with Lund. The damage you do to the credibility of the
>process extends way beyond the individual case. A lawyer
>ought to understand that. Are you sure you're a lawyer?
>Or do you just play one on TV.
>The point of the Meese quote was that he felt that there
>was no need for any protections because innocent people
>aren't accused of crimes. That sailed completely over
>your head. Very well. Once someone takes out a pro
>license any accusation that anyone pulls out of their
>ass is as good as gold and they should be banned. They
>all do it, so testing positive for a pro license should
>be enough.
I'm enough of a lawyer not to confuse US criminal law with WADA
hearing. Apples and oranges.
Yes, the athlete is presumed innocent and WADA has to prove its case,
but the standard is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the US
Constitution is 100% irrelevant. As are other athlete's cases. We'll
see how it plays out, but, yeah, my mind was made up in July 2006
listening to Floyd's lame excuses and non-explanations. He's guilty
as sin.
Meanwhile, I'm enough of a normal citizen to be outraged and disgusted
that one pampered athlete who can't take responsibility for his own
actions engages high paid suits and throws innocent people under the
bus in the process of turning a hearing on a positive drug test into a
media circus.
Which is what it is.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 19:12:19
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:00:10 -0400, Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote:
>On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:57:11 GMT, Bob Schwartz
><bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Even so, you don't flush someone with test results that
>>were improperly conducted. And you don't rig the process
>>so that you regularly hand out sanctions to innocent
>>people like they did with Beke, like they did with
>>Berasategui, like they did with Rodríguez, like they did
>>with Lund. The damage you do to the credibility of the
>>process extends way beyond the individual case. A lawyer
>>ought to understand that. Are you sure you're a lawyer?
>>Or do you just play one on TV.
>
>
>>The point of the Meese quote was that he felt that there
>>was no need for any protections because innocent people
>>aren't accused of crimes. That sailed completely over
>>your head. Very well. Once someone takes out a pro
>>license any accusation that anyone pulls out of their
>>ass is as good as gold and they should be banned. They
>>all do it, so testing positive for a pro license should
>>be enough.
>
>I'm enough of a lawyer not to confuse US criminal law with WADA
>hearing. Apples and oranges.
>
>Yes, the athlete is presumed innocent and WADA has to prove its case,
>but the standard is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the US
>Constitution is 100% irrelevant. As are other athlete's cases. We'll
>see how it plays out, but, yeah, my mind was made up in July 2006
>listening to Floyd's lame excuses and non-explanations. He's guilty
>as sin.
>
>Meanwhile, I'm enough of a normal citizen to be outraged and disgusted
>that one pampered athlete who can't take responsibility for his own
>actions engages high paid suits and throws innocent people under the
>bus in the process of turning a hearing on a positive drug test into a
>media circus.
>
>Which is what it is.
The main debate is when did it become a circus. My vote is when the ringmaster
said "we are publicly announcing this information that we aren't supposed to
because we're afraid it'll be leaked." Or whatever phrasing was used.
The clowns started piling out of the car to the tune of "with IRMS no error is
possible."
Ron
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 20:49:18
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
In article
<v4re53pcvrgcbtb8mpajtod579n6bdff8q@4ax.com >,
RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
> The main debate is when did it become a circus. My vote is when the ringmaster
> said "we are publicly announcing this information that we aren't supposed to
> because we're afraid it'll be leaked." Or whatever phrasing was used.
'Twas Paddy McQuart got out the news to preempt the
Chatenay-Malabry---l'Equipe axis.
"When Pat McQuaid, president of the International Cycling Union,
explained why the union leaked the initial news of Landis's
positive test, he said, "We know that the French laboratory has a
close connection with L'Equipe" - France's leading sports
newspaper - "and we did not want this news to come through the
press, because we are sure they would have leaked it." Labs are
not supposed to be able to identify samples or leak information.
This is a fundamental principle of ethical scientific testing."
Ah, ethics.
> The clowns started piling out of the car to the tune of "with IRMS no error is
> possible."
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 16:05:18
From: Bob in CT
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:00:10 -0400, Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com >
wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:57:11 GMT, Bob Schwartz
> <bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Even so, you don't flush someone with test results that
>> were improperly conducted. And you don't rig the process
>> so that you regularly hand out sanctions to innocent
>> people like they did with Beke, like they did with
>> Berasategui, like they did with Rodríguez, like they did
>> with Lund. The damage you do to the credibility of the
>> process extends way beyond the individual case. A lawyer
>> ought to understand that. Are you sure you're a lawyer?
>> Or do you just play one on TV.
>
>
>> The point of the Meese quote was that he felt that there
>> was no need for any protections because innocent people
>> aren't accused of crimes. That sailed completely over
>> your head. Very well. Once someone takes out a pro
>> license any accusation that anyone pulls out of their
>> ass is as good as gold and they should be banned. They
>> all do it, so testing positive for a pro license should
>> be enough.
>
> I'm enough of a lawyer not to confuse US criminal law with WADA
> hearing. Apples and oranges.
>
> Yes, the athlete is presumed innocent and WADA has to prove its case,
> but the standard is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the US
> Constitution is 100% irrelevant. As are other athlete's cases. We'll
> see how it plays out, but, yeah, my mind was made up in July 2006
> listening to Floyd's lame excuses and non-explanations. He's guilty
> as sin.
>
> Meanwhile, I'm enough of a normal citizen to be outraged and disgusted
> that one pampered athlete who can't take responsibility for his own
> actions engages high paid suits and throws innocent people under the
> bus in the process of turning a hearing on a positive drug test into a
> media circus.
>
> Which is what it is.
>
>
>
I don't think Floyd asked Lemond to testify. In my opinion, it's Lemond
who turned the trial into a circus. It makes me want to replace my Lemond.
--
Bob in CT
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 08:48:55
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
Dans le message de
news:YOURhoward-E2EA16.23333324052007@comcast.dca.giganews.com,
Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> In article <f53b531ejpu1blp01u9kk2hf710g0rvtpm@4ax.com>,
> Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:
>
>> At the jerk-offs in this forum who piled on Lemond, although it is
>> obvious and a fact that the Landis defense tried amateurishly to
>> intimidate him.
>
> His pal Will G. did that, no doubt. But he isn't part of the
> defense, is he?
That's true, but it was Landis who wrote the first threat to disclose the
same in Daily Peloton. Landis said so.
|
| | | |
Date: 24 May 2007 09:01:32
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On Wed, 23 May 2007 23:10:24 -0700, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
>In article <bnd853t4gs0ftc585cf9di2b9p00oee3h3@4ax.com>,
> Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:
>
>> This is the FACT: Anyone who NEEDS a lawyer like Johnny Cochran to
>> "get them off" is guilty as sin, and if they get off, they'll be
>> respected among people with brains just about as much as O.J. is now.
>
> Sorry, Doug, that isn't a fact, it's an opinion. And one based on some of the most
>twisted logic ever. Essentially you're saying that hiring a good lawyer means the
>person must be guilty. So a person who isn't guilty is the one who doesn't get a
>lawyer. (Ever hear the phrase "The person who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a
>client"?) People toss around the line about "getting off on a technicality," but
>those technicalities are the protections the Constitution and laws offer.
|
| | |
Date: 23 May 2007 13:51:51
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
In article <bnd853t4gs0ftc585cf9di2b9p00oee3h3@4ax.com >,
Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote:
> On 22 May 2007 22:05:51 -0700, wimpyVO2 <wimpyVO2max@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >...he'd say, "If the batch doesn't fit, you must acquit."
> >
> >Dr. Simon Davis made LNDD look bad today. Test results with missing or
> >batch numbers out of sequence. Magnets placed where they aren't
> >supposed to be, skewing the ion field. A manual which says to operate
> >at 2 to 4 x 10-6 mbar, Mongongue operates it at 6 x 10-6. Pressures
> >that vary from sample to sample.
> >
> >Reminds me of high school chemistry. Just mix stuff until you get the
> >"right" result.
>
> There you go. Perfect analogy: O.J. and Floyd
>
> 1) Obviously guilty perp.
>
> 2) Perp's personal explanation of what "really" happened utterly
> absurd.
>
> 3) Perp lawyers-up with high paid suits to obfuscate the facts and the
> science.
>
> 4) Character assassination of witnesses.
>
> 5) Big time publicity campaign to sway credulous public opinion.
>
> 6) Partisan shills jumping on the bandwagon.
>
> This is the FACT: Anyone who NEEDS a lawyer like Johnny Cochran to
> "get them off" is guilty as sin, and if they get off, they'll be
> respected among people with brains just about as much as O.J. is now.
Were that it were so. The fun part of medical lab testing is the number*
of innocent people getting cleared these days by DNA evidence, in some
cases springing them from jail.
I'm pretty sure all those people NEEDED a lawyer like Johnny Cochran,
they just didn't have one.
Or the Duke lacrosse players, for a more recent example of a group of
people whose lives were nearly ruined by overzealous prosecution.
I should say that, while it doesn't matter a whit, I'd bet on OJ's
guilt. I didn't follow the trial closely. However, post-trial interviews
with some jurors suggested that they found problems with the timeline
the most compelling evidence in favor of Mr. Simpson.
*small relative to the number of people in prison, sure, but not a
trivial number by any means.
--
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: 23 May 2007 21:57:44
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
In article <rcousine-C7862E.06515123052007@news.telus.net >,
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote:
> In article <bnd853t4gs0ftc585cf9di2b9p00oee3h3@4ax.com>,
> Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:
>
> > On 22 May 2007 22:05:51 -0700, wimpyVO2 <wimpyVO2max@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >...he'd say, "If the batch doesn't fit, you must acquit."
> > >
> > >Dr. Simon Davis made LNDD look bad today. Test results with missing or
> > >batch numbers out of sequence. Magnets placed where they aren't
> > >supposed to be, skewing the ion field. A manual which says to operate
> > >at 2 to 4 x 10-6 mbar, Mongongue operates it at 6 x 10-6. Pressures
> > >that vary from sample to sample.
> > >
> > >Reminds me of high school chemistry. Just mix stuff until you get the
> > >"right" result.
> >
> > There you go. Perfect analogy: O.J. and Floyd
> >
> > 1) Obviously guilty perp.
> >
> > 2) Perp's personal explanation of what "really" happened utterly
> > absurd.
> >
> > 3) Perp lawyers-up with high paid suits to obfuscate the facts and the
> > science.
> >
> > 4) Character assassination of witnesses.
> >
> > 5) Big time publicity campaign to sway credulous public opinion.
> >
> > 6) Partisan shills jumping on the bandwagon.
> >
> > This is the FACT: Anyone who NEEDS a lawyer like Johnny Cochran to
> > "get them off" is guilty as sin, and if they get off, they'll be
> > respected among people with brains just about as much as O.J. is now.
>
> Were that it were so. The fun part of medical lab testing is the number*
> of innocent people getting cleared these days by DNA evidence, in some
> cases springing them from jail.
>
> I'm pretty sure all those people NEEDED a lawyer like Johnny Cochran,
> they just didn't have one.
>
> Or the Duke lacrosse players, for a more recent example of a group of
> people whose lives were nearly ruined by overzealous prosecution.
Most of the articles on Michael Nifong dance around the story.
Finally, here is a bare knuckle account.
Thank you, Ellis Washington.
<URL:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55662 >
"To this ambitious DA, all the elements for a
conviction were there a house full of rich, horny,
white college boys, a poor, vulnerable black maiden who
was forced to perform demeaning dances for their
lustful entertainment, sex, gang rape, interracial
entanglements, a public mob yelling for blood, a
shyster lawyer out to make a name for himself what
further evidence do we need?"
--
Michael Press
|
| | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 21:34:19
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
In article <rcousine-C7862E.06515123052007@news.telus.net >,
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote:
> In article <bnd853t4gs0ftc585cf9di2b9p00oee3h3@4ax.com>,
> Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:
>
> > On 22 May 2007 22:05:51 -0700, wimpyVO2 <wimpyVO2max@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >...he'd say, "If the batch doesn't fit, you must acquit."
> > >
> > >Dr. Simon Davis made LNDD look bad today. Test results with missing or
> > >batch numbers out of sequence. Magnets placed where they aren't
> > >supposed to be, skewing the ion field. A manual which says to operate
> > >at 2 to 4 x 10-6 mbar, Mongongue operates it at 6 x 10-6. Pressures
> > >that vary from sample to sample.
> > >
> > >Reminds me of high school chemistry. Just mix stuff until you get the
> > >"right" result.
> >
> > There you go. Perfect analogy: O.J. and Floyd
> >
> > 1) Obviously guilty perp.
> >
> > 2) Perp's personal explanation of what "really" happened utterly
> > absurd.
> >
> > 3) Perp lawyers-up with high paid suits to obfuscate the facts and the
> > science.
> >
> > 4) Character assassination of witnesses.
> >
> > 5) Big time publicity campaign to sway credulous public opinion.
> >
> > 6) Partisan shills jumping on the bandwagon.
> >
> > This is the FACT: Anyone who NEEDS a lawyer like Johnny Cochran to
> > "get them off" is guilty as sin, and if they get off, they'll be
> > respected among people with brains just about as much as O.J. is now.
>
> Were that it were so. The fun part of medical lab testing is the number*
> of innocent people getting cleared these days by DNA evidence, in some
> cases springing them from jail.
>
> I'm pretty sure all those people NEEDED a lawyer like Johnny Cochran,
> they just didn't have one.
>
> Or the Duke lacrosse players, for a more recent example of a group of
> people whose lives were nearly ruined by overzealous prosecution.
>
> I should say that, while it doesn't matter a whit, I'd bet on OJ's
> guilt. I didn't follow the trial closely. However, post-trial interviews
> with some jurors suggested that they found problems with the timeline
> the most compelling evidence in favor of Mr. Simpson.
>
> *small relative to the number of people in prison, sure, but not a
> trivial number by any means.
I started to follow people versus Orenthal James Simpson, and felt
nauseous watching the prosecution. Then I went from upgrading the
shack's electrical system to gainfully employed and missed the
rest. The prosecution was incompetent, and owe the people of
California an abject apology. And the judge was incompetent too.
A competent prosecution would have put that psychopath away. Turd
fondlers the lot of them: defendant, both counsels, and judge.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 10:42:08
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On Wed, 23 May 2007 13:51:51 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca >
wrote:
>> This is the FACT: Anyone who NEEDS a lawyer like Johnny Cochran to
>> "get them off" is guilty as sin, and if they get off, they'll be
>> respected among people with brains just about as much as O.J. is now.
>
>Were that it were so. The fun part of medical lab testing is the number*
>of innocent people getting cleared these days by DNA evidence, in some
>cases springing them from jail.
>
>I'm pretty sure all those people NEEDED a lawyer like Johnny Cochran,
>they just didn't have one.
>
>Or the Duke lacrosse players, for a more recent example of a group of
>people whose lives were nearly ruined by overzealous prosecution.
Apples and oranges.
The truly innocent accused doesn't need a lawyer like Johnny Cochran
to "get them off." All they need is a minimally competent one to
ascertain the facts, and sadly that is not always the case.
Johnny Cochran was an expensive expert trial lawyer, whom the general
public, correctly or incorrectly, trust and respect about as much as
used car or insurance salesmen - or politicians.
The Duke lacrosse players ran into a different problem: the truly
rare case of an abuse of power by a despicable rogue prosecutor
running for political office. Who, by the way, is the "real killer"
and will likely lose his law license and go bankrupt from the civil
suits the wrongly accused will bring against him. And rightly so.
So we have two choices with Floyd:
Is he just another common example of a guilty rich scum lawyering up
to "get off"?
Is he another rare example of a victim of a nefarious conspiracy out
to "get him."?
I suggest from a rational, objective point of view that the odds
overwhelmingly are in favor of the first.
But hope and credulity spring eternal, and the RBR partisans slant
overwhelmingly toward the second.
I say you all are in la la land.
Even if he gets the deserved 2 year suspension, no partisan will ever
be convinced.
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 20:11:11
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
in message <2mj8539eri6ntmtti0cdpdb74vnoasotp0@4ax.com >, Doug Taylor
('dtaylor@dreamscape.com') wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 13:51:51 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> This is the FACT: Anyone who NEEDS a lawyer like Johnny Cochran to
>>> "get them off" is guilty as sin, and if they get off, they'll be
>>> respected among people with brains just about as much as O.J. is now.
>>
>>Were that it were so. The fun part of medical lab testing is the number*
>>of innocent people getting cleared these days by DNA evidence, in some
>>cases springing them from jail.
>>
>>I'm pretty sure all those people NEEDED a lawyer like Johnny Cochran,
>>they just didn't have one.
>>
>>Or the Duke lacrosse players, for a more recent example of a group of
>>people whose lives were nearly ruined by overzealous prosecution.
>
> Apples and oranges.
>
> The truly innocent accused doesn't need a lawyer like Johnny Cochran
> to "get them off." All they need is a minimally competent one to
> ascertain the facts, and sadly that is not always the case.
>
> Johnny Cochran was an expensive expert trial lawyer, whom the general
> public, correctly or incorrectly, trust and respect about as much as
> used car or insurance salesmen - or politicians.
>
> The Duke lacrosse players ran into a different problem: the truly
> rare case of an abuse of power by a despicable rogue prosecutor
> running for political office. Who, by the way, is the "real killer"
> and will likely lose his law license and go bankrupt from the civil
> suits the wrongly accused will bring against him. And rightly so.
Dick Pound, anyone?
I mean, WADA have been deliberately leaking or announcing information
prejudicial to Landis' case in just the same way that Nifong (prosecutor
in the Duke case) is alleged to have done. In that sense, the two cases
are similar. They're similar in more ways than that. Rich kids reputedly
commonly do get drunk and misbehave sexually. On the face of it the Duke
rape allegation was likely (I haven't read enough to form a view as to
whether the accused really were innocent). Similarly, professional
cyclists reputedly commonly do take performance enhancing drugs. So the
public is likely to believe the accusations, particularly if the
prosecutor plays to the gallery.
Personally, I believe Landis is guilty; I'm not certain, but I think he is.
But I am certain that Dick Pound is a lot guiltier, and one of the things
he's guilty of is bringing the whole process of drug testing into
disrepute.
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Iraq war: it's time for regime change...
... go now, Tony, while you can still go with dignity.
[update 18 months after this .sig was written: it's still relevant]
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 16:23:23
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:11:11 +0100, Simon Brooke
<simon@jasmine.org.uk > wrote:
> Rich kids reputedly
>commonly do get drunk and misbehave sexually. On the face of it the Duke
>rape allegation was likely (I haven't read enough to form a view as to
>whether the accused really were innocent). Similarly, professional
>cyclists reputedly commonly do take performance enhancing drugs. So the
>public is likely to believe the accusations, particularly if the
>prosecutor plays to the gallery.
The above pretty much sets the table for those that look to the
salacious, using suggestions and personal beliefs in place of facts.
No, 'the public' isn't likely to believe the accusations, and much of
the public didn't. Certain parts of the public that enjoy those other
than themselves or their peers in trouble or the self righteous that
like to cluck were quick to judgement - and 'belief'.
There were enough problems in the very first articles to withhold
judgement in the Duke case (and I am no fan of Duke) and the first
wave of subsequent articles had enough that IMO only those that had
other reasons to believe in guilt believed the accusations. More
accurately IMO they didn't believe the accusations, they just believed
the 'rich' Duke players to be guilty, irrespective of the actual
accusations.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 22:07:02
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
In article <k58953t1i5nmg8lagbb3keofk4ucifpoa8@4ax.com >,
Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:11:11 +0100, Simon Brooke
> <simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > Rich kids reputedly
> >commonly do get drunk and misbehave sexually. On the face of it the Duke
> >rape allegation was likely (I haven't read enough to form a view as to
> >whether the accused really were innocent). Similarly, professional
> >cyclists reputedly commonly do take performance enhancing drugs. So the
> >public is likely to believe the accusations, particularly if the
> >prosecutor plays to the gallery.
>
> The above pretty much sets the table for those that look to the
> salacious, using suggestions and personal beliefs in place of facts.
> No, 'the public' isn't likely to believe the accusations, and much of
> the public didn't. Certain parts of the public that enjoy those other
> than themselves or their peers in trouble or the self righteous that
> like to cluck were quick to judgement - and 'belief'.
>
> There were enough problems in the very first articles to withhold
> judgement in the Duke case (and I am no fan of Duke) and the first
> wave of subsequent articles had enough that IMO only those that had
> other reasons to believe in guilt believed the accusations. More
> accurately IMO they didn't believe the accusations, they just believed
> the 'rich' Duke players to be guilty, irrespective of the actual
> accusations.
Two women were at the party. The one who swore out a complaint had
tried to get the second to swear out a complaint. The first was
found to have semen from five different men in her vagina and
anus, one of which fathered her third child, _none_ of which came
from any of the forty-five Duke lacrosse players.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 23:31:31
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
Michael Press wrote:
<snip >
> Two women were at the party. The one who swore out a complaint had
> tried to get the second to swear out a complaint. The first was
> found to have semen from five different men in her vagina and
> anus, one of which fathered her third child, _none_ of which came
> from any of the forty-five Duke lacrosse players.
>
Clearly she's a slut and nothing bad happened to her at the Duke party.
--
Bill Asher
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 21:21:53
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On 23 May 2007 23:31:31 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:
>Michael Press wrote:
>
><snip>
>> Two women were at the party. The one who swore out a complaint had
>> tried to get the second to swear out a complaint. The first was
>> found to have semen from five different men in her vagina and
>> anus, one of which fathered her third child, _none_ of which came
>> from any of the forty-five Duke lacrosse players.
>>
>
>Clearly she's a slut and nothing bad happened to her at the Duke party.
The latter part of that is impossible to prove. What is proven is that what was
alleged did not happen to her.
Very important difference.
I'm sure something bad happened, but I'm thinking it's more along the lines of
ridicule and rejection than rape.
Ron
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 22:19:01
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
Dans le message de news:f7gei4-gpr.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk,
Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Dick Pound is a lot guiltier, and one of
> the things he's guilty of is bringing the whole process of drug
> testing into disrepute.
I agree. He should leave testing drugs to willing volunteers.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 16:15:30
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:11:11 +0100, Simon Brooke
<simon@jasmine.org.uk > wrote:
>Personally, I believe Landis is guilty; I'm not certain, but I think he is.
>But I am certain that Dick Pound is a lot guiltier, and one of the things
>he's guilty of is bringing the whole process of drug testing into
>disrepute.
So, back to O.J.: Dick Pound, like the L.A.P.D., has framed a guilty
man?
Either way, Landis is guilty and professional cycling has an out of
control drug problem.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 16:31:23
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
On Wed, 23 May 2007 16:15:30 -0400, Doug Taylor
<dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote:
>So, back to O.J.: Dick Pound, like the L.A.P.D., has framed a guilty
>man?
>
>Either way, Landis is guilty and professional cycling has an out of
>control drug problem.
Actually, as someone that despises Pound, I don't think it is quite
framing or even the deliberate ignoring of procedures and evidence
like Nifong. I think it is a case that Pound made it clear what they
wanted found, and everyone in the process bent with the wind.
And I don't see that Landis has been proven guilty yet, although I
doubt he will ever be proven innocent. I think that, unlike some,
Landis is willing to live in the grey area in between, as long as he
is allowed to race. I know that at least two or three people on the
list think that if he doesn't make it all the way to the other side,
with a clear proof of innocence, he shouldn't be allowed to race.
OTOH, every bike racer that hasn't been tested hasn't been proven
completely innocent. Actually, that is an impossible standard with a
loop back to the testing itself. You can't even prove virgins
innocent.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 22:49:06
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...
|
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> You can't even prove virgins innocent.
Depends on whether the Clinton theorem on the definition of sexual
intercourse is accepted.
|
|
