| |
Main
Date: 12 Jan 2007 20:22:16
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: TRUE or FALSE
|
True or False:
If Dick Pound died 5 years ago, Floyd Landis would still be stuck in the
EXACT SAME predicament he is in right now (scroll down for the correct
answer).
Magilla
TRUE.
Dick Pound is merely a scapegoat for superficial people. In fact, he
has nothing to do with the Landis case (or its outcome) and his quotes
are neither here nor there in the whole scheme of things.
|
|
| |
Date: 13 Jan 2007 01:26:37
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: TRUE or FALSE
|
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> "amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> > the landis case is a cut and dry doping case (unlike puerto). the only
> > thing that makes makes it different is the importance of the tour.
> >
> > if it had been some 180 lb. belgie at the wafflehaus groteprijs who got
> > popped it would've been a footnote to a footnote on cyclingnews. no
> > wikipedia defense, no powerpoint slides, no dedicated blogs, no cbc
> > specials.
There was some amount of controversy over O'Bee's T/E
positive, because it's an abnormal ratio rather than a positive
for some nominally unnatural substance. But not as much,
I agree there.
> Sure, that's a way of looking at it. But when I hear stuff about T-E
> ratios, and read that Landis' T-count was well below normal levels, and
> read that even Pound doesn't seem to quite understand the nature of
> Landis' positive, well, I start to wonder if Landis is positive but
> innocent*.
>
> The problem with Pound is he has both the strengths and failings of
> Eugene McCarthy: a man fighting a legitimate problem but overplaying his
> hand. It's one thing to know Alger Hiss really was a doper, it's quite
> another to randomly accuse a third of all pro hockey players of being
> Communist spies.
Yeah, if Eugene McCarthy hadn't overplayed his hand, maybe
Nixon would have lost in 1968 and we would have gotten out of
Vietnam before bombing Cambodia too. But I doubt it.
> http://www.101-280.com/archives/000600.html
>
> Best "Good Night and Good Luck" review ever.
Joe McCarthy didn't know Alger Hiss was a doper. In fact,
few people did know Alger was a doper. Some people guessed
that he was a doper, and he turned out to be many years later, but
guessing correctly is not the same as knowing. The other flaw in
this analogy and the review is that [Joseph] McCarthy had nothing
to do with the Hiss case. Nixon did, but Nixon was always ster
than Tailgunner Joe. McCarthy piggybacked on the publicity
to go on a rampage of smearing people who actually were innocent
almost to the last man. To give Dick Pound a smidgen of credit,
he didn't just come along now after someone else caught the actual
dopers solely to spear the wounded.
The best movie, though flawed, about the blacklist might be
"The Front." It's almost certainly the best semi-comedy
about the blacklist. The best movie about McCarthy is of
course "The Manchurian Candidate."
The worst thing about "McCarthyism" wasn't McCarthy directly
so much as all the little petty local HUACs and junior-grade
McCarthy imitators that went around trashing un-famous
people's lives,
Ben
I have a list of 57 dopers ...
|
| | |
Date: 13 Jan 2007 13:52:28
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: TRUE or FALSE
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> I have a list of 57 dopers ...
The Spanish have a list of 58 dopers pets.
|
| |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 18:03:20
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: TRUE or FALSE
|
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> True or False:
>
>
> If Dick Pound died 5 years ago, Floyd Landis would still be stuck in the
> EXACT SAME predicament he is in right now (scroll down for the correct
> answer).
dumbass,
the landis case is a cut and dry doping case (unlike puerto). the only
thing that makes makes it different is the importance of the tour.
if it had been some 180 lb. belgie at the wafflehaus groteprijs who got
popped it would've been a footnote to a footnote on cyclingnews. no
wikipedia defense, no powerpoint slides, no dedicated blogs, no cbc
specials.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Jan 2007 08:03:01
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: TRUE or FALSE
|
In article <1168653798.560140.251250@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com >,
"amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote:
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
> > True or False:
> >
> >
> > If Dick Pound died 5 years ago, Floyd Landis would still be stuck in the
> > EXACT SAME predicament he is in right now (scroll down for the correct
> > answer).
>
> dumbass,
>
> the landis case is a cut and dry doping case (unlike puerto). the only
> thing that makes makes it different is the importance of the tour.
>
> if it had been some 180 lb. belgie at the wafflehaus groteprijs who got
> popped it would've been a footnote to a footnote on cyclingnews. no
> wikipedia defense, no powerpoint slides, no dedicated blogs, no cbc
> specials.
Sure, that's a way of looking at it. But when I hear stuff about T-E
ratios, and read that Landis' T-count was well below normal levels, and
read that even Pound doesn't seem to quite understand the nature of
Landis' positive, well, I start to wonder if Landis is positive but
innocent*.
The problem with Pound is he has both the strengths and failings of
Eugene McCarthy: a man fighting a legitimate problem but overplaying his
hand. It's one thing to know Alger Hiss really was a doper, it's quite
another to randomly accuse a third of all pro hockey players of being
Communist spies.
http://www.101-280.com/archives/000600.html
Best "Good Night and Good Luck" review ever.
*cf. fake but accurate.
--
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: 13 Jan 2007 23:47:37
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: TRUE or FALSE
|
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <1168653798.560140.251250@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> "amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>>True or False:
>>>
>>>
>>>If Dick Pound died 5 years ago, Floyd Landis would still be stuck in the
>>>EXACT SAME predicament he is in right now (scroll down for the correct
>>>answer).
>>
>>dumbass,
>>
>>the landis case is a cut and dry doping case (unlike puerto). the only
>>thing that makes makes it different is the importance of the tour.
>>
>>if it had been some 180 lb. belgie at the wafflehaus groteprijs who got
>>popped it would've been a footnote to a footnote on cyclingnews. no
>>wikipedia defense, no powerpoint slides, no dedicated blogs, no cbc
>>specials.
>
>
> Sure, that's a way of looking at it. But when I hear stuff about T-E
> ratios, and read that Landis' T-count was well below normal levels, and
> read that even Pound doesn't seem to quite understand the nature of
> Landis' positive, well, I start to wonder if Landis is positive but
> innocent*.
What does Pound's understanding of a doping case have to do with its
accuracy? Pound has no involvement whatsoever in the laboratory testing
or its adjudication. His proficiency on the science of any test is
irrelevant. This will be proven in that Pound will not be called as a
witness by either USADA or Landis in the CAS hearing.
>
> The problem with Pound is he has both the strengths and failings of
> Eugene McCarthy: a man fighting a legitimate problem but overplaying his
> hand. It's one thing to know Alger Hiss really was a doper, it's quite
> another to randomly accuse a third of all pro hockey players of being
> Communist spies.
What most of you dumbasses don't seem to understand is Pound is not
suppose to be objective. He's the head of the prosecutor's office. It
would be totally different if the arbitrators who were going to preside
over the Landis case said this, but they're not.
Thanks,
Magilla
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Jan 2007 16:16:19
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: TRUE or FALSE
|
In article <S92dnQF8wMF3KDTYUSdV9g@ptd.net >,
MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > In article <1168653798.560140.251250@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> > "amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >>
> >>>True or False:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>If Dick Pound died 5 years ago, Floyd Landis would still be stuck in the
> >>>EXACT SAME predicament he is in right now (scroll down for the correct
> >>>answer).
> >>
> >>dumbass,
> >>
> >>the landis case is a cut and dry doping case (unlike puerto). the only
> >>thing that makes makes it different is the importance of the tour.
> >>
> >>if it had been some 180 lb. belgie at the wafflehaus groteprijs who got
> >>popped it would've been a footnote to a footnote on cyclingnews. no
> >>wikipedia defense, no powerpoint slides, no dedicated blogs, no cbc
> >>specials.
> >
> >
> > Sure, that's a way of looking at it. But when I hear stuff about T-E
> > ratios, and read that Landis' T-count was well below normal levels, and
> > read that even Pound doesn't seem to quite understand the nature of
> > Landis' positive, well, I start to wonder if Landis is positive but
> > innocent*.
>
> What does Pound's understanding of a doping case have to do with its
> accuracy? Pound has no involvement whatsoever in the laboratory testing
> or its adjudication. His proficiency on the science of any test is
> irrelevant. This will be proven in that Pound will not be called as a
> witness by either USADA or Landis in the CAS hearing.
Certainly. But if Dick Pound, a st, deeply involved lawyer who is,
you know, essentially in charge of the process, can't properly keep in
his head the difference between high T and T-E ratio, then something's
wrong. He is, after all, the public (the very public!) face of this
prosecution. If he says things that make me think he doesn't really
understand the case at all, I begin to worry whether he's been paying
any attention.
> > The problem with Pound is he has both the strengths and failings of
> > Eugene McCarthy: a man fighting a legitimate problem but overplaying his
> > hand. It's one thing to know Alger Hiss really was a doper, it's quite
> > another to randomly accuse a third of all pro hockey players of being
> > Communist spies.
>
> What most of you dumbasses don't seem to understand is Pound is not
> suppose to be objective. He's the head of the prosecutor's office. It
> would be totally different if the arbitrators who were going to preside
> over the Landis case said this, but they're not.
Which is curious indeed. Because in Canada the tradition is that
prosecutors generally shut up and let cases be prosecuted before the
courts. They are usually loath to say anything outside of court other
than the blandest descriptions of the case.
I know the US tradition often has the prosecutor standing in front of
the courthouse, declaring the defendants incredibly guilty before the
trial, and so forth. I'm not sure that in any way improves the course of
justice.
Moreover, Pound's tendency to make stuff up is unseemly in a prosecutor.
One sees such behaviour as more characteristic of a witchfinder.
--
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
|
|
