It has all the trappings of the guys in the write hats winning, perhaps. I have my doubts, first that they are the good guys, second that we know the bad guys, and third, that business interests and well executed PR are fully capable of eviscerating basic human values, rights, ideals.
First, the fact underlying the TdF's aggressive move to force disqualification of riders and teams puts it a league or two ahead of the UCI, which appears intractably slow. If you recall that ASO is making every effort to disjoin the Pro Tour from the shows put on by itself and the other two Grand Tour organizations, you can see that it is striking a big blow on the monopoly of the UCI, and at the same time presenting itself as the only arbiter of justice. It is bound, one could think, by the TAS decision of yesterday, yet it makes clear that it will not abide by that ruling. Here's some hard work for some good lawyers this very day. So, I call into question ASO's motives, deplore the passivity of the UCI, and start wondering about the next players - The Guardia civil and the press.
The Guardia civil is not the _judge_ of the matter, it is the organ of prosecution. Try to think if they may want to present the strongest case they can - well, of course ! The publicity of this case will far outweigh (I predict - and call me on it later) the level of success they eventually may have after court proceedings are complete. Try to recall the ineffective but loud intrusion the Carabinieri had in the Giro, with virtually no conviction results to crow about. The Guardia civil is doing what it can to get the matter settled without actual proceedings, and I find it hard to imagine that the culminated investigation was not disclosed - there was no effort in /El Pais/ obtaining the information.
Without a proper (substantively and procedurally) court determination of the guilt or innocence of the individuals whose names have been published, they are not the bad guys. People will believe something bad about a person if they wish to, using thin or no evidence to support that belief, and ignoring the contrary. Until a finder of fact has examined everything presented, we will only have rumormongers and ideologues of all camps to listen to. Not to mention, again, the press, which earn its living by publishing, not by nicely respecting the civil rights, the humane treatment, of those whose careers they put in jeopardy.
Finally, it is this collection of rights : rights to a presumption of innocence ; right to fair and free access to justice ; right to contradict the organs of state - these rights are being dismembered. By the press, the state, the ASO and UCI. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY - by the members of the public *especially in this forum* who think they have the moral qualifications to intuit truth, form judgments, castigate others, all without having enough knowledge to tie their own shoelaces.
This is turning into an event of mobocracy, with all kinds of actors of all spheres. My opinion - the dopers (whoever they are) have done less damage to cycling that have all the above. Yeah - I suppose lots of you plan to burn the witches.
--
Sandy
Ce n'est pas que j'ai peur de la mort. Je veux seulement ne pas être là quand elle arrivera.
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:19:14 +0200, Sandy <leu...@frreee.fr> wrote:
>Finally, it is this collection of rights : rights to a presumption of >innocence ; right to fair and free access to justice ; right to >contradict the organs of state - these rights are being dismembered. By >the press, the state, the ASO and UCI.
All this is irrelevant when you have sponsors financing these teams. Even the appearance of wrongdoing or unethical behavior is bad publicity for them and to be seen as complacent makes them appear to be sponsoring the behavior.
> It has all the trappings of the guys in the write hats winning, perhaps. > I have my doubts, first that they are the good guys, second that we know > the bad guys, and third, that business interests and well executed PR are > fully capable of eviscerating basic human values, rights, ideals.
> First, the fact underlying the TdF's aggressive move to force > disqualification of riders and teams puts it a league or two ahead of the > UCI, which appears intractably slow. If you recall that ASO is making > every effort to disjoin the Pro Tour from the shows put on by itself and > the other two Grand Tour organizations, you can see that it is striking a > big blow on the monopoly of the UCI, and at the same time presenting > itself as the only arbiter of justice. It is bound, one could think, by > the TAS decision of yesterday, yet it makes clear that it will not abide > by that ruling. Here's some hard work for some good lawyers this very > day. So, I call into question ASO's motives, deplore the passivity of the > UCI, and start wondering about the next players - The Guardia civil and > the press.
> The Guardia civil is not the _judge_ of the matter, it is the organ of > prosecution. Try to think if they may want to present the strongest case > they can - well, of course ! The publicity of this case will far outweigh > (I predict - and call me on it later) the level of success they eventually > may have after court proceedings are complete. Try to recall the > ineffective but loud intrusion the Carabinieri had in the Giro, with > virtually no conviction results to crow about. The Guardia civil is doing > what it can to get the matter settled without actual proceedings, and I > find it hard to imagine that the culminated investigation was not > disclosed - there was no effort in /El Pais/ obtaining the information.
> Without a proper (substantively and procedurally) court determination of > the guilt or innocence of the individuals whose names have been published, > they are not the bad guys. People will believe something bad about a > person if they wish to, using thin or no evidence to support that belief, > and ignoring the contrary. Until a finder of fact has examined everything > presented, we will only have rumormongers and ideologues of all camps to > listen to. Not to mention, again, the press, which earn its living by > publishing, not by nicely respecting the civil rights, the humane > treatment, of those whose careers they put in jeopardy.
> Finally, it is this collection of rights : rights to a presumption of > innocence ; right to fair and free access to justice ; right to contradict > the organs of state - these rights are being dismembered. By the press, > the state, the ASO and UCI. > BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY - by the members of the public *especially in this > forum* who think they have the moral qualifications to intuit truth, form > judgments, castigate others, all without having enough knowledge to tie > their own shoelaces.
> This is turning into an event of mobocracy, with all kinds of actors of > all spheres. > My opinion - the dopers (whoever they are) have done less damage to > cycling that have all the above. Yeah - I suppose lots of you plan to > burn the witches.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to tie shoe laces or a judge and/or jury for that matter. :-)
Sandy wrote: > If you recall that ASO is > making every effort to disjoin the Pro Tour from the shows put on by > itself and the other two Grand Tour organizations, you can see that it > is striking a big blow on the monopoly of the UCI, and at the same time > presenting itself as the only arbiter of justice.
Yeah, that was the second thing that struck me. When something happens, people who do a shallow job of analyzing it ask "why?" You often get much better insights by asking "why did that thing happen at the moment it did?" ASO has been shocked, shocked to discover that doping is going on and is trying to lead the way to clean riding. Yeah, right. A much better question is "why is ASO doing this now?" I figured it was because of the long-term struggle between ASO and the ProTour/UCI. Anyway, that was the second thing. The first was this:
> The Guardia civil is > doing what it can to get the matter settled without actual proceedings, > and I find it hard to imagine that the culminated investigation was not > disclosed - there was no effort in /El Pais/ obtaining the information.
A well-placed leak can be quite effective at bolstering a weak case. That isn't to say that this case will turn out to be weak--but my sense is that at the moment the case is certainly incomplete. First we heard of 200 bags of blood, then 58 names, then 31 of those names got released. This doesn't mean that 27 other names won't get released in the next few days--it simply means that the case is incomplete. So the question isn't "why is the Guardia Civil leaking the case?" but rather "why are they leaking it now?"
Sandy wrote: > It has all the trappings of the guys in the write hats winning, > perhaps. I have my doubts, first that they are the good guys, second > that we know the bad guys, and third, that business interests and well > executed PR are fully capable of eviscerating basic human values, > rights, ideals.
> First, the fact underlying the TdF's aggressive move to force > disqualification of riders and teams puts it a league or two ahead of > the UCI, which appears intractably slow. If you recall that ASO is > making every effort to disjoin the Pro Tour from the shows put on by > itself and the other two Grand Tour organizations, you can see that it > is striking a big blow on the monopoly of the UCI, and at the same time > presenting itself as the only arbiter of justice. It is bound, one > could think, by the TAS decision of yesterday, yet it makes clear that > it will not abide by that ruling. Here's some hard work for some good > lawyers this very day. So, I call into question ASO's motives, deplore > the passivity of the UCI, and start wondering about the next players - > The Guardia civil and the press.
> The Guardia civil is not the _judge_ of the matter, it is the organ of > prosecution. Try to think if they may want to present the strongest > case they can - well, of course ! The publicity of this case will far > outweigh (I predict - and call me on it later) the level of success they > eventually may have after court proceedings are complete. Try to recall > the ineffective but loud intrusion the Carabinieri had in the Giro, with > virtually no conviction results to crow about. The Guardia civil is > doing what it can to get the matter settled without actual proceedings, > and I find it hard to imagine that the culminated investigation was not > disclosed - there was no effort in /El Pais/ obtaining the information.
> Without a proper (substantively and procedurally) court determination of > the guilt or innocence of the individuals whose names have been > published, they are not the bad guys. People will believe something bad > about a person if they wish to, using thin or no evidence to support > that belief, and ignoring the contrary. Until a finder of fact has > examined everything presented, we will only have rumormongers and > ideologues of all camps to listen to. Not to mention, again, the press, > which earn its living by publishing, not by nicely respecting the civil > rights, the humane treatment, of those whose careers they put in jeopardy.
> Finally, it is this collection of rights : rights to a presumption of > innocence ; right to fair and free access to justice ; right to > contradict the organs of state - these rights are being dismembered. By > the press, the state, the ASO and UCI. > BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY - by the members of the public *especially in this > forum* who think they have the moral qualifications to intuit truth, > form judgments, castigate others, all without having enough knowledge to > tie their own shoelaces.
> This is turning into an event of mobocracy, with all kinds of actors of > all spheres. > My opinion - the dopers (whoever they are) have done less damage to > cycling that have all the above. Yeah - I suppose lots of you plan to > burn the witches.
> --
> Sandy
> Ce n'est pas que j'ai peur de la mort. > Je veux seulement ne pas être là quand elle arrivera.
Thank You!!! You put the words, and thoughts together beautifully, effectively, and rationally. If I ever get back there and get in trouble I'm coming looking for you to help me out. Bill C
Robert Chung wrote: > A well-placed leak can be quite effective at bolstering a weak case. That > isn't to say that this case will turn out to be weak--but my sense is that > at the moment the case is certainly incomplete. First we heard of 200 bags > of blood, then 58 names, then 31 of those names got released. This doesn't > mean that 27 other names won't get released in the next few days--it > simply means that the case is incomplete. So the question isn't "why is > the Guardia Civil leaking the case?" but rather "why are they leaking it > now?"
Conspiracy theory: Disco really wants Hincapie to win the TdF, so they "made sure" to remove his main competition.
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:19:14 +0200, Sandy <leu...@frreee.fr> wrote:
>> Finally, it is this collection of rights : rights to a presumption of >> innocence ; right to fair and free access to justice ; right to >> contradict the organs of state - these rights are being dismembered. By >> the press, the state, the ASO and UCI.
> All this is irrelevant when you have sponsors financing these teams. > Even the appearance of wrongdoing or unethical behavior is bad > publicity for them and to be seen as complacent makes them appear to > be sponsoring the behavior.
Saying it kindly - you have your moral compass shoved up your ass.
> jt a écrit : >> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:19:14 +0200, Sandy <leu...@frreee.fr> wrote:
>>> Finally, it is this collection of rights : rights to a presumption of >>> innocence ; right to fair and free access to justice ; right to >>> contradict the organs of state - these rights are being dismembered. By >>> the press, the state, the ASO and UCI.
>> All this is irrelevant when you have sponsors financing these teams. >> Even the appearance of wrongdoing or unethical behavior is bad >> publicity for them and to be seen as complacent makes them appear to >> be sponsoring the behavior.
> Saying it kindly - you have your moral compass shoved up your ass.
> Sandy wrote: >> If you recall that ASO is >> making every effort to disjoin the Pro Tour from the shows put on by >> itself and the other two Grand Tour organizations, you can see that >> it is striking a big blow on the monopoly of the UCI, and at the >> same time presenting itself as the only arbiter of justice.
> Yeah, that was the second thing that struck me. When something > happens, people who do a shallow job of analyzing it ask "why?" You > often get much better insights by asking "why did that thing happen > at the moment it did?" ASO has been shocked, shocked to discover that > doping is going on and is trying to lead the way to clean riding. > Yeah, right. A much better question is "why is ASO doing this now?" I > figured it was because of the long-term struggle between ASO and the > ProTour/UCI. Anyway, that was the second thing. The first was this:
>> The Guardia civil is >> doing what it can to get the matter settled without actual >> proceedings, and I find it hard to imagine that the culminated >> investigation was not disclosed - there was no effort in /El Pais/ >> obtaining the information.
> A well-placed leak can be quite effective at bolstering a weak case. > That isn't to say that this case will turn out to be weak--but my > sense is that at the moment the case is certainly incomplete. First > we heard of 200 bags of blood, then 58 names, then 31 of those names > got released. This doesn't mean that 27 other names won't get > released in the next few days--it simply means that the case is > incomplete. So the question isn't "why is the Guardia Civil leaking > the case?" but rather "why are they leaking it now?"
Why now ??? Asking me to disclose the even darker recesses ?
Because ASO wants to neuter UCI, establish the primacy of private enterprise championships, offer a haven to Dick Pound, boost its public image, yet PR this edition of the Tour as KLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN ! In short - money.
Because Guardia civil is a Spanish organ, likes power, likes to spend money, wants to stop terrorism (that was for amusement), and can avoid showing its incompetence for having missed last year's Vuelta, and provide a KLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN Vuelta 2006. Not to mention the support of private enterprise, moral superiority, and stabbing the Tour 2006 perhaps mortally (just 2006, not the entire future offspring). And because (?) the leak was inopportunely going to be public without their control.
But really, timing is just as often chance. /El Pais/ saw to that.
Sandy wrote: > Dans le message de news:4gkltuF1mqbcaU1@individual.net, > Robert Chung <m...@address.invalid> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : > > Sandy wrote: > >> If you recall that ASO is > >> making every effort to disjoin the Pro Tour from the shows put on by > >> itself and the other two Grand Tour organizations, you can see that > >> it is striking a big blow on the monopoly of the UCI, and at the > >> same time presenting itself as the only arbiter of justice.
> > Yeah, that was the second thing that struck me. When something > > happens, people who do a shallow job of analyzing it ask "why?" You > > often get much better insights by asking "why did that thing happen > > at the moment it did?" ASO has been shocked, shocked to discover that > > doping is going on and is trying to lead the way to clean riding. > > Yeah, right. A much better question is "why is ASO doing this now?" I > > figured it was because of the long-term struggle between ASO and the > > ProTour/UCI. Anyway, that was the second thing. The first was this:
> >> The Guardia civil is > >> doing what it can to get the matter settled without actual > >> proceedings, and I find it hard to imagine that the culminated > >> investigation was not disclosed - there was no effort in /El Pais/ > >> obtaining the information.
> > A well-placed leak can be quite effective at bolstering a weak case. > > That isn't to say that this case will turn out to be weak--but my > > sense is that at the moment the case is certainly incomplete. First > > we heard of 200 bags of blood, then 58 names, then 31 of those names > > got released. This doesn't mean that 27 other names won't get > > released in the next few days--it simply means that the case is > > incomplete. So the question isn't "why is the Guardia Civil leaking > > the case?" but rather "why are they leaking it now?"
> Why now ??? Asking me to disclose the even darker recesses ?
> Because ASO wants to neuter UCI, establish the primacy of private enterprise > championships, offer a haven to Dick Pound, boost its public image, yet PR > this edition of the Tour as KLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN ! In short - money.
> Because Guardia civil is a Spanish organ, likes power, likes to spend money, > wants to stop terrorism (that was for amusement), and can avoid showing its > incompetence for having missed last year's Vuelta, and provide a > KLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN Vuelta 2006. Not to mention the support of private > enterprise, moral superiority, and stabbing the Tour 2006 perhaps mortally > (just 2006, not the entire future offspring). And because (?) the leak was > inopportunely going to be public without their control.
> But really, timing is just as often chance. /El Pais/ saw to that.
Or maybe the ASO is just afraid that the World Cup will wholly eclipse the Tour and they're just trying to get some attention. Bad attention is better than no attention.
> Or maybe the ASO is just afraid that the World Cup will wholly eclipse > the Tour and they're just trying to get some attention. Bad attention > is better than no attention.
You may not have noticed, but the prologue was moved from late in the day to the afternoon to avoid conflict with the 3-4 consolation final. It's a busy, busy, busy day on the couch.
Sandy wrote: > But really, timing is just as often chance. /El Pais/ saw to that.
That's what they want you to believe.
BTW, what do you make of Valverde being the only rider to be pre-emptively cleared? (I was going to capitalize "only" but decided that would be a bit much.)
in message <476aa2hk2dc3jebhjqibj1ln8ib20rs...@4ax.com>, jt
('...@anywhere.com') wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:19:14 +0200, Sandy <leu...@frreee.fr> wrote:
>>Finally, it is this collection of rights : rights to a presumption of >>innocence ; right to fair and free access to justice ; right to >>contradict the organs of state - these rights are being dismembered. >>By the press, the state, the ASO and UCI.
> All this is irrelevant when you have sponsors financing these teams.
Exactly. At least for Ullrich and Sevilla, it seems to be the sponsor who insisted they go. I'd be very surprised if CSC (the company) didn't have a similar attitude. He who pays the piper...
>> But really, timing is just as often chance. /El Pais/ saw to that.
> That's what they want you to believe.
> BTW, what do you make of Valverde being the only rider to be > pre-emptively cleared? (I was going to capitalize "only" but decided > that would be a bit much.)
Now that's easy !
He'll be the first guy since Merckx to win the yellow, green, dotted, white and all other jerseys. Provided he finishes. His average speed may queer your chart. I am getting the hang for statistical outliers.
> But really, timing is just as often chance. /El Pais/ saw to that.
C'mon, ASO hardlining T-Mobile and the others 1.5 days before the race began was not chance. ASO did not want there to be any right of the riders or teams to refute the accusations. ASO wished to force outright suspensions by maximizing crisis. Get rid of those riders before they took the start under investigation.
>> But really, timing is just as often chance. /El Pais/ saw to that.
> C'mon, ASO hardlining T-Mobile and the others 1.5 days before the race > began was not chance. ASO did not want there to be any right of the > riders or teams to refute the accusations. ASO wished to force > outright suspensions by maximizing crisis. Get rid of those riders > before they took the start under investigation.
Unless there is something I don't know (nigh impossible), ASO and l'Équipe have no ownership interests in /El Pais/. Crisis of the sort in progress doesn't get French people more interested, I fear. Yes, it's an international event, but 70% of the roadside is French, 90% European, and they are the targets of commercialization.
> >> But really, timing is just as often chance. /El Pais/ saw to that.
> > C'mon, ASO hardlining T-Mobile and the others 1.5 days before the race > > began was not chance. ASO did not want there to be any right of the > > riders or teams to refute the accusations. ASO wished to force > > outright suspensions by maximizing crisis. Get rid of those riders > > before they took the start under investigation.
> Unless there is something I don't know (nigh impossible), ASO and > l'Équipe have no ownership interests in /El Pais/. Crisis of the sort > in progress doesn't get French people more interested, I fear. Yes, > it's an international event, but 70% of the roadside is French, 90% > European, and they are the targets of commercialization.
I'm curious, what do you think might happen if a doping scandal of this sort were to happen to football/soccer during the world cup?
>>>> But really, timing is just as often chance. /El Pais/ saw to that.
>>> C'mon, ASO hardlining T-Mobile and the others 1.5 days before the race >>> began was not chance. ASO did not want there to be any right of the >>> riders or teams to refute the accusations. ASO wished to force >>> outright suspensions by maximizing crisis. Get rid of those riders >>> before they took the start under investigation.
>> Unless there is something I don't know (nigh impossible), ASO and >> l'Équipe have no ownership interests in /El Pais/. Crisis of the sort >> in progress doesn't get French people more interested, I fear. Yes, >> it's an international event, but 70% of the roadside is French, 90% >> European, and they are the targets of commercialization.
> I'm curious, what do you think might happen if a doping scandal of this > sort were to happen to football/soccer during the world cup?
The entire planet would explode. Alternatively, nothing.
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:19:14 +0200, Sandy <leu...@frreee.fr> wrote: >This is turning into an event of mobocracy, with all kinds of actors of >all spheres. >My opinion - the dopers (whoever they are) have done less damage to >cycling that have all the above. Yeah - I suppose lots of you plan to >burn the witches.
Actually, it boils down to the fact that Jan has made good bucks/Euros from the public following cycling: even if these cyclists are treated exactly the same procedurally as everyone else, that same public brings notoriety and the people writing the checks start becoming unhappy.
The system in the U.S. is largely the same, with the prosecutor having the real authority through the grand jury system and in any major case, the only ones happy are the lawyers IF they can collect from their clients. Reputations can't be reassembled, memories can't be expurgated. Check out the Duke lacrosse team (and trust me, as a University of Maryland fan, I hate Duke in a sports fan kind of way).
This Tour has an asterisk that won't go away and we need to move on. End the Tours, kill off the Olympics and lets have nine-ten months of one days and week long tours. Easier on my TV viewing as well. And OLN can go back to fly fishing and maybe add bear baiting to their list. Now there's a sport, unless they put either the bearl or the dogs on steroids...
Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...
> Dans le message de news:4gkltuF1mqbcaU1@individual.net, : > Because ASO wants to neuter UCI, establish the primacy of private > enterprise championships, offer a haven to Dick Pound, boost its public > image, yet PR this edition of the Tour as KLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN ! In short - > money.
> Because Guardia civil is a Spanish organ, likes power, likes to spend > money, wants to stop terrorism (that was for amusement), and can avoid > showing its incompetence for having missed last year's Vuelta, and provide > a KLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN Vuelta 2006. Not to mention the support of private > enterprise, moral superiority, and stabbing the Tour 2006 perhaps mortally > (just 2006, not the entire future offspring). And because (?) the leak > was inopportunely going to be public without their control.
"BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY - by the members of the public *especially in this forum* who think they have the moral qualifications to intuit truth, form judgments, castigate others, all without having enough knowledge to tie their own shoelaces."
Glad to see that you've taken yourself at your own words. Seems like when it comes to intuiting truth, forming judgments or castigating others, you do it as well as the rest of this forum's participants.
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:19:14 +0200, Sandy <leu...@frreee.fr> wrote:
>> This is turning into an event of mobocracy, with all kinds of actors of >> all spheres. >> My opinion - the dopers (whoever they are) have done less damage to >> cycling that have all the above. Yeah - I suppose lots of you plan to >> burn the witches.
> Actually, it boils down to the fact that Jan has made good bucks/Euros > from the public following cycling: even if these cyclists are treated > exactly the same procedurally as everyone else, that same public > brings notoriety and the people writing the checks start becoming > unhappy.
Worth noting, however, how many of the NAMES are not the big earners. 30 000€ for start, less taxes and social charges, is not really royal. That's microeconomic - get macro, and you have a big pig to wrestle with.
>> Because ASO wants to neuter UCI, establish the primacy of private >> enterprise championships, offer a haven to Dick Pound, boost its public >> image, yet PR this edition of the Tour as KLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN ! In short - >> money.
>> Because Guardia civil is a Spanish organ, likes power, likes to spend >> money, wants to stop terrorism (that was for amusement), and can avoid >> showing its incompetence for having missed last year's Vuelta, and provide >> a KLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN Vuelta 2006. Not to mention the support of private >> enterprise, moral superiority, and stabbing the Tour 2006 perhaps mortally >> (just 2006, not the entire future offspring). And because (?) the leak >> was inopportunely going to be public without their control.
> "BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY - by the members of the public *especially in this > forum* who think they have the moral qualifications to intuit truth, > form judgments, castigate others, all without having enough knowledge to > tie their own shoelaces."
> Glad to see that you've taken yourself at your own words. Seems like when > it comes to intuiting truth, forming judgments or castigating others, you do > it as well as the rest of this forum's participants.
I replied to a request to guess. My next guess is you will learn to read soon.
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 19:53:40 +0200, Sandy <leu...@frreee.fr> wrote: >Worth noting, however, how many of the NAMES are not the big earners. 30 >000€ for start, less taxes and social charges, is not really royal. >That's microeconomic - get macro, and you have a big pig to wrestle with.
It is also when you starting asking who wrote the checks. Jan could do it from petty cash - those making petty cash can't.
Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...
