| |
Main
Date: 28 Dec 2006 18:02:11
From: CowPunk
Subject: Pounds Paradox
|
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.01/pound.html
"Call it Pound's paradox: In the Code, Pound has created a framework
that could restore faith in athletes and sports. But his inability to
live by the Code may make him exactly the wrong person to lead the
fight"
"Pound himself oversees the entire system by which these allegations
against athletes are adjudicated, but he can't seem to stay silent and
impartial. By speaking out, Pound violates his own rules."
"Pound dismisses these complaints. "I'm not getting much criticism from
athletes who aren't using drugs. I'm getting it from the folks who
either have been caught, are representing those who have been caught,
or are representing organizations who don't want to admit that there's
a problem."
GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT SAYS POUND -CP
"So how many athletes are doping? In 2005, WADA-sanctioned labs
performed 183,337 tests on A samples, and 3,909 - about 2 percent -
of those showed an "adverse analytical finding" in WADA's legalistic
syntax. An adverse finding means the sample shows the presence of a
banned substance or evidence of a prohibited training method. Oddly, in
all the reams of reports that WADA produces, the agency doesn't publish
a list of how many B samples were likewise positive, nor does it
disclose how many athletes were formally found guilty of doping after
the entire appeals process was completed. For an agency founded on
transparency, these are curious omissions."
"Sometimes, though, those disclaimers fall short. Late in our
conversation, I tell Pound that I'm going to talk to Landis.
'Roid Floyd?" he says. "His nickname on the circuit was 'Roid Floyd.
But I repeat it as hearsay only."
|
|
| |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 12:02:49
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Pounds Paradox
|
On 28 Dec 2006 18:02:11 -0800, "CowPunk" <cowpunk99@hotmail.com > wrote:
>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.01/pound.html
>
>"Call it Pound's paradox: In the Code, Pound has created a framework
>that could restore faith in athletes and sports. But his inability to
>live by the Code may make him exactly the wrong person to lead the
>fight"
>
>"Pound himself oversees the entire system by which these allegations
>against athletes are adjudicated, but he can't seem to stay silent and
>impartial. By speaking out, Pound violates his own rules."
>
>"Pound dismisses these complaints. "I'm not getting much criticism from
>athletes who aren't using drugs. I'm getting it from the folks who
>either have been caught, are representing those who have been caught,
>or are representing organizations who don't want to admit that there's
>a problem."
>GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT SAYS POUND -CP
>
>"So how many athletes are doping? In 2005, WADA-sanctioned labs
>performed 183,337 tests on A samples, and 3,909 - about 2 percent -
>of those showed an "adverse analytical finding" in WADA's legalistic
>syntax. An adverse finding means the sample shows the presence of a
>banned substance or evidence of a prohibited training method. Oddly, in
>all the reams of reports that WADA produces, the agency doesn't publish
>a list of how many B samples were likewise positive, nor does it
>disclose how many athletes were formally found guilty of doping after
>the entire appeals process was completed. For an agency founded on
>transparency, these are curious omissions."
>
>"Sometimes, though, those disclaimers fall short. Late in our
>conversation, I tell Pound that I'm going to talk to Landis.
>'Roid Floyd?" he says. "His nickname on the circuit was 'Roid Floyd.
>But I repeat it as hearsay only."
What a cheap and stupid bastard. That sort of rhetorical gimmick for slipping in
an insult looks creepy and disingenuous coming from a junior high punk - from a
grown man in a position of authority it belongs in an episode of "The Office."
When will the IOC and WADA realize the contempt he's created for this cause.
Ron
|
| |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 05:15:23
From:
Subject: Re: Pounds Paradox
|
Dick Pound's self promoting has to come to a stop. I find it highly
ironic that he would claim that one is guilty until proven innocent and
simultaneously use the term "Roid Floyd," a term that I had never seen
or heard prior to the erroneously reported "high testosteone" by the
press. I can't find anyone who knows Floyd who even suspects he ever
used performance enhancing drugs. But, what do I, a total amateur
know? I only know that Pros who have had contact with Floyd certainly
don't think he ever used drugs. Go back and review his history. He is
the least suspect of all the major cyclists.
CowPunk wrote:
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.01/pound.html
>
> "Call it Pound's paradox: In the Code, Pound has created a framework
> that could restore faith in athletes and sports. But his inability to
> live by the Code may make him exactly the wrong person to lead the
> fight"
>
> "Pound himself oversees the entire system by which these allegations
> against athletes are adjudicated, but he can't seem to stay silent and
> impartial. By speaking out, Pound violates his own rules."
>
> "Pound dismisses these complaints. "I'm not getting much criticism from
> athletes who aren't using drugs. I'm getting it from the folks who
> either have been caught, are representing those who have been caught,
> or are representing organizations who don't want to admit that there's
> a problem."
> GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT SAYS POUND -CP
>
> "So how many athletes are doping? In 2005, WADA-sanctioned labs
> performed 183,337 tests on A samples, and 3,909 - about 2 percent -
> of those showed an "adverse analytical finding" in WADA's legalistic
> syntax. An adverse finding means the sample shows the presence of a
> banned substance or evidence of a prohibited training method. Oddly, in
> all the reams of reports that WADA produces, the agency doesn't publish
> a list of how many B samples were likewise positive, nor does it
> disclose how many athletes were formally found guilty of doping after
> the entire appeals process was completed. For an agency founded on
> transparency, these are curious omissions."
>
> "Sometimes, though, those disclaimers fall short. Late in our
> conversation, I tell Pound that I'm going to talk to Landis.
> 'Roid Floyd?" he says. "His nickname on the circuit was 'Roid Floyd.
> But I repeat it as hearsay only."
|
| |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 01:21:29
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Pounds Paradox
|
CowPunk wrote:
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.01/pound.html
> "Sometimes, though, those disclaimers fall short. Late in our
> conversation, I tell Pound that I'm going to talk to Landis.
> 'Roid Floyd?" he says. "His nickname on the circuit was 'Roid Floyd.
> But I repeat it as hearsay only."
It's appropriate that Pound's moment of glory was as a
high-school age Olympian, because sometimes he sounds
like he's still in high school.
So if "Roid Floyd" is the nickname, how come Crit Pro never
let us know? Is Crit Pro out of the loop on "the circuit"?
Or is Pound making shit up on flimsy evidence? I would be
shocked to learn that either were the case.
Ben
call me naive
|
| | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 12:57:22
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Pounds Paradox
|
CowPunk wrote:
>> I tell Pound that I'm going to talk to Landis.
>> 'Roid Floyd?" he says. "His nickname on the circuit was 'Roid Floyd.
>> But I repeat it as hearsay only."
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> So if "Roid Floyd" is the nickname, how come Crit Pro never
> let us know? Is Crit Pro out of the loop on "the circuit"?
> Or is Pound making shit up on flimsy evidence? I would be
> shocked to learn that either were the case.
Perhaps Jesus told him.
|
| |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 12:32:24
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Pounds Paradox
|
CowPunk wrote:
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.01/pound.html
>
> "Sometimes, though, those disclaimers fall short. Late in our
> conversation, I tell Pound that I'm going to talk to Landis.
> 'Roid Floyd?" he says. "His nickname on the circuit was 'Roid Floyd.
That's funny.
Magilla
|
|
