Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Field Narrowed for TdF
20 views
Skip to first unread message
DirtRoadie
Feb 6, 2012, 7:12:17 AM2/6/12
to
NoDannyNo
Feb 6, 2012, 8:39:06 AM2/6/12
to
On Feb 6, 7:12 am, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g8GoQI1-Ykg5-TNHYmu...
>
> DR
Contador is a dope-cheat and THE LANCE is vindicated. There should
now be no argument that THE LANCE is the Greatest Racing Cyclist of
All Time.
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g8GoQI1-Ykg5-TNHYmu...
>
> DR
Contador is a dope-cheat and THE LANCE is vindicated. There should
now be no argument that THE LANCE is the Greatest Racing Cyclist of
All Time.
Brad Anders
Feb 6, 2012, 8:42:50 AM2/6/12
to
On Feb 6, 5:12 am, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g8GoQI1-Ykg5-TNHYmu...
>
> DR
Looks like BL bet on the wrong horse going down. I'm surprised, I
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g8GoQI1-Ykg5-TNHYmu...
>
> DR
didn't think CAS had it in them, but they've surprised me before (good
and bad). While this is the right decision, can't say it's a good one
for pro cycling, as it will likely add to the decline in sponsorship
and fan support. On the positive side, maybe the message will sink
through some more thick skulls.
NoDannyNo
Feb 6, 2012, 8:47:56 AM2/6/12
to
ilan
Feb 6, 2012, 8:49:40 AM2/6/12
to
repeatedly states that "Contador was unable to prove..." Normally,
when someone is accused, then he is presumed innocent and it is up to
the prosecution to prove him guilty, he doesn't have to prove
anything.
-ilan
tritonrider
Feb 6, 2012, 10:07:58 AM2/6/12
to
On Feb 6, 8:49 am, ilan <ilan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The decision shows that athletes are not getting due process, since it
> repeatedly states that "Contador was unable to prove..." Normally,
> when someone is accused, then he is presumed innocent and it is up to
> the prosecution to prove him guilty, he doesn't have to prove
> anything.
>
> -ilan
Hey Ilan glad to see your still in the fight. I'm leaning towards he
> The decision shows that athletes are not getting due process, since it
> repeatedly states that "Contador was unable to prove..." Normally,
> when someone is accused, then he is presumed innocent and it is up to
> the prosecution to prove him guilty, he doesn't have to prove
> anything.
>
> -ilan
was probably dirty, but I KNOW the system is dirty and broken as you
and Sandy have pointed out on many occasions.
ilan
Feb 6, 2012, 11:02:58 AM2/6/12
to
Clenbuterol had previously occured, implying that the first accused
must always be guilty.
However, it appears that in this case, the CAS verdict was consistent
with the version of due process they are given. Not so in the Landis
case where his defense proved that the laboratory evidence was
tainted, not to mention the even worse Mayo case.
-ilan
Ryan Cousineau
Feb 6, 2012, 12:48:43 PM2/6/12
to
liability is a harsh mistress. And I don't say that as someone who was
rooting against Contador ("Congratulations Andy Schleck, how does it
feel to be the winner of the 2010 Tour de France?" "Pretty crap,
actually"). I'm a bit surprised they went with a 2-year ban. Given
that expires in August, this seems like a face-saving way of
justifying his 2-year limbo, and making sure he's out of the 2012 Tour
just for good measure.
--D-y
Feb 6, 2012, 1:46:11 PM2/6/12
to
"nice process".
(excuse me for jumping on your phrasing but such expression seems apt)
And "Schleck got pissed on too". Not an honorable Yellow Jersey...
--D-y
Zeno
Feb 6, 2012, 1:59:01 PM2/6/12
to
Karma
--D-y
Feb 6, 2012, 4:16:54 PM2/6/12
to
back and punt" method of re-awarding race wins is putting the lie to
Alexi Grewal's statement that "No one will remember how, they'll just
see the results". Gonna take some generations for that.
--D-y
Simply Fred
Feb 7, 2012, 5:45:53 AM2/7/12
to
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> Given that expires in August, this seems like a face-saving way of
> justifying his 2-year limbo, and making sure he's out of the 2012 Tour
> just for good measure.
But back in time for his home tour.
> Given that expires in August, this seems like a face-saving way of
> justifying his 2-year limbo, and making sure he's out of the 2012 Tour
> just for good measure.
A. Dumas
Feb 7, 2012, 9:38:43 AM2/7/12
to
On 06/02/2012 14:49, ilan wrote:
> The decision shows that athletes are not getting due process, since it
> repeatedly states that "Contador was unable to prove..." Normally,
> when someone is accused, then he is presumed innocent and it is up to
> the prosecution to prove him guilty, he doesn't have to prove
> anything.
Dumbass,
> The decision shows that athletes are not getting due process, since it
> repeatedly states that "Contador was unable to prove..." Normally,
> when someone is accused, then he is presumed innocent and it is up to
> the prosecution to prove him guilty, he doesn't have to prove
> anything.
They (WADA/UCI, etc) already proved that Contador was guilty under the
rules by detecting traces of clenbuterol in his blood. Contador's
defence was aimed at reduction of the sentence, possibly to zero, not to
disprove that he didn't have clenbuterol in his blood.
ilan
Feb 7, 2012, 10:05:35 AM2/7/12
to
for the source of the Clenbuterol and wanted proof from Contador that
it came from tainted meat. Since a rigorous proof of this is
impossible, their standard is also impossible.
By the way, the whole CAS penalty falls through because they state
that the clenbuterol most certainly came from a dietary supplement,
which means its ingestion was also accidental and therefore not
cheating. This means that Contador should have received the minimum
penalty.
-ilan
A. Dumas
Feb 8, 2012, 11:18:26 AM2/8/12
to
On 07/02/2012 16:05, ilan wrote:
were definitely aiming, independent of the fact that their goal could
not be reached, at least not strictly according to the rules.
> On Feb 7, 3:38 pm, "A. Dumas" wrote:
>> On 06/02/2012 14:49, ilan wrote:
>>> The decision shows that athletes are not getting due process, since it
>>> repeatedly states that "Contador was unable to prove..." Normally,
>>> when someone is accused, then he is presumed innocent and it is up to
>>> the prosecution to prove him guilty, he doesn't have to prove
>>> anything.
>>
>> On 06/02/2012 14:49, ilan wrote:
>>> The decision shows that athletes are not getting due process, since it
>>> repeatedly states that "Contador was unable to prove..." Normally,
>>> when someone is accused, then he is presumed innocent and it is up to
>>> the prosecution to prove him guilty, he doesn't have to prove
>>> anything.
>>
>> They (WADA/UCI, etc) already proved that Contador was guilty under the
>> rules by detecting traces of clenbuterol in his blood. Contador's
>> defence was aimed at reduction of the sentence, possibly to zero, not to
>> disprove that he didn't have clenbuterol in his blood.
>
> Not quite true. The CAS considered a number of different possibilities
> for the source of the Clenbuterol and wanted proof from Contador that
> it came from tainted meat. Since a rigorous proof of this is
> impossible, their standard is also impossible.
Yes. But I don't see how that makes my statement "not quite true." They
>> rules by detecting traces of clenbuterol in his blood. Contador's
>> defence was aimed at reduction of the sentence, possibly to zero, not to
>> disprove that he didn't have clenbuterol in his blood.
>
> Not quite true. The CAS considered a number of different possibilities
> for the source of the Clenbuterol and wanted proof from Contador that
> it came from tainted meat. Since a rigorous proof of this is
> impossible, their standard is also impossible.
were definitely aiming, independent of the fact that their goal could
not be reached, at least not strictly according to the rules.
Jeff Jones
Feb 8, 2012, 2:13:45 PM2/8/12
to
I can't be bothered to read it again but in the award I think that UCI/WADA were asked by CAS to put forward plausible alternatives to counter Contador's tainted meat explanation, presumably because they were the ones appealing the RFEC ruling. They didn't have to prove them though - the burden of proof still lay with the athlete, so in that sense he was back to square one.
Had there been only one possible explanation (Contador's) then, on the balance of probabilities, then it would have been enough.
Had there been two (transfusion and meat), then Contador's meat defence would have still stood a good chance although there was some evidence (spike of phthalates, team history) that a transfusion might have taken place. More evidence than Contador presented anyway. Not much in it either way.
But with three scenarios, all plausible but with scant evidence, then Contador had a much harder job in proving his was the most likely (ie >50%).
Frankly I'm surprised that CAS said it was more likely down to contaminated supplements in the end, given that there was even less evidence for this than for a transfusion. Maybe they were being nice so he'd save face.
In any case he'll be back racing in August, then on the balance of probabilities win the Vuelta and all will be right in the world of professional cycling.
Had there been only one possible explanation (Contador's) then, on the balance of probabilities, then it would have been enough.
Had there been two (transfusion and meat), then Contador's meat defence would have still stood a good chance although there was some evidence (spike of phthalates, team history) that a transfusion might have taken place. More evidence than Contador presented anyway. Not much in it either way.
But with three scenarios, all plausible but with scant evidence, then Contador had a much harder job in proving his was the most likely (ie >50%).
Frankly I'm surprised that CAS said it was more likely down to contaminated supplements in the end, given that there was even less evidence for this than for a transfusion. Maybe they were being nice so he'd save face.
In any case he'll be back racing in August, then on the balance of probabilities win the Vuelta and all will be right in the world of professional cycling.
ilan
Feb 9, 2012, 1:08:59 AM2/9/12
to
clenbuterol from meant, then he's "innocent" but if he accidentally
ingests it form a supplement, then he's "guilty."
-ilan
ilan
Feb 9, 2012, 1:12:05 AM2/9/12
to
making right now." I hope that clears things up. More generally, any
statement that doesn't conform to my opinion* will be treated
similarly.
-ilan
*I reserve the right to change my opinion at any time without prior
notice.
Jeff Jones
Feb 9, 2012, 2:42:38 PM2/9/12
to
Yes, I see what you mean. The intent was the same, the outcome very different because that's what the WADA code says.
I don't know whether he could have argued 'accidental ingestion' and hedged his bets a bit. Too late for that now.
Flipping it the other way, if strict liability was removed from the code, then there'd be a lot fewer sanctions. You'd basically have to be caught red handed to get a penalty.
I don't know whether he could have argued 'accidental ingestion' and hedged his bets a bit. Too late for that now.
Flipping it the other way, if strict liability was removed from the code, then there'd be a lot fewer sanctions. You'd basically have to be caught red handed to get a penalty.
ilan
Feb 9, 2012, 4:03:01 PM2/9/12
to
incorrect. The current WADA code goes against basic human rights, this
was the basic argument proposed by Kasheshkin's Belgian lawyer a
couple of years ago, but that idiot Kasheshkin ended up firing him
before he could take it to the European court of human rights.
-ilan
Benjo Maso
Feb 9, 2012, 6:51:55 PM2/9/12
to
"ilan" schreef in bericht
news:0443c05b-72cc-4815...@o13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> OK, but there is still the fact that if he accidentally ingested
> clenbuterol from meant, then he's "innocent" but if he accidentally
> ingests it form a supplement, then he's "guilty."
See the case of tennisplayer Manuel Puerta. It was accepted he didn't
deliberately or knowingly ingest effortil, but they suspended him all the
same for six years, because "we cannot see how it need have occurred at all
if the player had exercised the utmost caution." The utmost caution, of
course, is not eating or drinking at all.
Benjo
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Feb 9, 2012, 6:57:30 PM2/9/12
to
retroactively change your opinion for you, even several
years after the fact.
Fredmaster Ben
Benjo Maso
Feb 9, 2012, 7:04:04 PM2/9/12
to
"ilan" schreef in bericht
news:037c933b-aad7-4db8...@b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
nevertheless necessary, since without it for sport federations it would be
far too expensive to pursue the struggle against doping. It's also much
cheaper to hang all the suspects, instead of spending a lot of money trying
to find out who is really guilty.
Benjo
ilan
Feb 9, 2012, 7:35:42 PM2/9/12
to
On Feb 10, 1:04 am, "Benjo Maso" <benjo.m...@upcmail.nl> wrote:
> "ilan" schreef in berichtnews:037c933b-aad7-4db8...@b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Thanks for that information which confirms the CAS's bizarre stance.
The argument that anti-doping practices violate human rights is
simple: I assume that in most countries any "search and seizure" must
be ordered by a prosecutor of approved by a judge, that is certainly
the case in the US and France. In particular, in France, the police
does not have the right to do a full body search without an explicit
request by a prosecutor, and then must be done in the presence of a
doctor, not a technician, but a medical doctor)(of course, that is
routinely violated by the police, but that is another question).
Since drawing blood consists of a search and seizure, to do it without
any legal (that is, criminal justice) justification is a violation of
individual rights. Now, as the CAS has ruled, these searches are
necessary to fight doping, but that doesn't mean that they should be
allowed.
-ilan
> "ilan" schreef in berichtnews:037c933b-aad7-4db8...@b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
The argument that anti-doping practices violate human rights is
simple: I assume that in most countries any "search and seizure" must
be ordered by a prosecutor of approved by a judge, that is certainly
the case in the US and France. In particular, in France, the police
does not have the right to do a full body search without an explicit
request by a prosecutor, and then must be done in the presence of a
doctor, not a technician, but a medical doctor)(of course, that is
routinely violated by the police, but that is another question).
Since drawing blood consists of a search and seizure, to do it without
any legal (that is, criminal justice) justification is a violation of
individual rights. Now, as the CAS has ruled, these searches are
necessary to fight doping, but that doesn't mean that they should be
allowed.
-ilan
Simply Fred
Feb 10, 2012, 3:22:59 AM2/10/12
to
Benjo Maso wrote:
> The utmost caution, of course, is not eating or drinking at all.
But that would increase your power to weight ratio and VAM so it must be
> The utmost caution, of course, is not eating or drinking at all.
illegal.
Jeff Jones
Feb 10, 2012, 5:04:09 AM2/10/12
to
e.g. the whereabouts system http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/front_page/7844918.stm
but none have been successful so far.
ilan
Feb 10, 2012, 9:13:54 AM2/10/12
to
> but none have been successful so far.
Thanks for that reference. Kasheshkin's lawyer also failed in his
first legal challenge. However, both that case and the one you cite
failed at the local Belgian level and were not brought before the
European court of human rights. In particular, Kasheshkin fired his
lawyer before that step could be undertaken. So an actual human
rights challenge before the appropriate court has yet to occur.
By the way, IIRC, Kasheshkin's case was quite poor, in particular, the
UCI people did the test at the Tour of Turkey but failed to take into
account the time zone, so they were one hour over the allowed lateness
limit.
Interestingly, human rights also involves Ciprelli, because he
confessed while in "garde a vue". In 2010, France was condemned by the
European Court of Human Rights for excessive use of this detention and
French law had to be modified so that "garde a vue" can only be used
in cases where the penalty is at least 5 years in prison. I doubt that
this is the case for CIprellli, and he can appeal for violation of the
law and his human rights (in fact, France had to change the law
because cases were being routinely overturned for this exact reason).
-ilan
Benjo Maso
Feb 10, 2012, 11:12:55 AM2/10/12
to
"ilan" schreef in bericht
news:bad4e2b1-7b4d-4883...@g27g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Thanks for that reference. Kasheshkin's lawyer also failed in his
first legal challenge. However, both that case and the one you cite
failed at the local Belgian level and were not brought before the
European court of human rights.
rights. To elude possible unpleasant decicions of the court is one of the
main reason why they established in Switserland, which isn't member of the
European Union.
Benjo
Frederick the Great
Feb 10, 2012, 12:17:18 PM2/10/12
to
In article
<80fe7fec-6529-491c...@g27g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
When it finally gets better, the attendant mess will make all
doping cases pale in comparison.
--
Old Fritz
<80fe7fec-6529-491c...@g27g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Jeff Jones <drjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 10, 12:35 am, ilan <ilan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 10, 1:04 am, "Benjo Maso" <benjo.m...@upcmail.nl> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > "ilan" schreef in berichtnews:037c933b-aad7-4db8...@b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > On Feb 9, 8:42 pm, Jeff Jones <drjone...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Yes, I see what you mean. The intent was the same, the outcome very
> > > > different because that's what the WADA code says.
> >
> > > > I don't know whether he could have argued 'accidental ingestion' and
> > > > hedged his bets a bit. Too late for that now.
> >
> > > > Flipping it the other way, if strict liability was removed from the code,
> > > > then there'd be a lot fewer sanctions. You'd basically have to be caught
> > > > red handed to get a penalty.
> >
> > > This basically comes down to the fact that strict liability is
> > > incorrect. The current WADA code goes against basic human rights, this
> > > was the basic argument proposed by Kasheshkin's Belgian lawyer a
> > > couple of years ago, but that idiot Kasheshkin ended up firing him
> > > before he could take it to the European court of human rights.
> >
> > > The Cas stated in 1994 that strict liability might be unfair, but is
> > > nevertheless necessary, since without it for sport federations it would be
> > > far too expensive to pursue the struggle against doping. It's also much
> > > cheaper to hang all the suspects, instead of spending a lot of money trying
> > > to find out who is really guilty.
> >
> On Feb 10, 12:35 am, ilan <ilan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 10, 1:04 am, "Benjo Maso" <benjo.m...@upcmail.nl> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > "ilan" schreef in berichtnews:037c933b-aad7-4db8...@b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > On Feb 9, 8:42 pm, Jeff Jones <drjone...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Yes, I see what you mean. The intent was the same, the outcome very
> > > > different because that's what the WADA code says.
> >
> > > > I don't know whether he could have argued 'accidental ingestion' and
> > > > hedged his bets a bit. Too late for that now.
> >
> > > > Flipping it the other way, if strict liability was removed from the code,
> > > > then there'd be a lot fewer sanctions. You'd basically have to be caught
> > > > red handed to get a penalty.
> >
> > > This basically comes down to the fact that strict liability is
> > > incorrect. The current WADA code goes against basic human rights, this
> > > was the basic argument proposed by Kasheshkin's Belgian lawyer a
> > > couple of years ago, but that idiot Kasheshkin ended up firing him
> > > before he could take it to the European court of human rights.
> >
> > > The Cas stated in 1994 that strict liability might be unfair, but is
> > > nevertheless necessary, since without it for sport federations it would be
> > > far too expensive to pursue the struggle against doping. It's also much
> > > cheaper to hang all the suspects, instead of spending a lot of money trying
> > > to find out who is really guilty.
> >
> > Thanks for that information which confirms the CAS's bizarre stance.
> > The argument that anti-doping practices violate human rights is
> > simple: I assume that in most countries any "search and seizure" must
> > be ordered by a prosecutor of approved by a judge, that is certainly
> > the case in the US and France. In particular, in France, the police
> > does not have the right to do a full body search without an explicit
> > request by a prosecutor, and then must be done in the presence of a
> > doctor, not a technician, but a medical doctor)(of course, that is
> > routinely violated by the police, but that is another question).
> > Since drawing blood consists of a search and seizure, to do it without
> > any legal (that is, criminal justice) justification is a violation of
> > individual rights. Now, as the CAS has ruled, these searches are
> > necessary to fight doping, but that doesn't mean that they should be
> > allowed.
>
> > The argument that anti-doping practices violate human rights is
> > simple: I assume that in most countries any "search and seizure" must
> > be ordered by a prosecutor of approved by a judge, that is certainly
> > the case in the US and France. In particular, in France, the police
> > does not have the right to do a full body search without an explicit
> > request by a prosecutor, and then must be done in the presence of a
> > doctor, not a technician, but a medical doctor)(of course, that is
> > routinely violated by the police, but that is another question).
> > Since drawing blood consists of a search and seizure, to do it without
> > any legal (that is, criminal justice) justification is a violation of
> > individual rights. Now, as the CAS has ruled, these searches are
> > necessary to fight doping, but that doesn't mean that they should be
> > allowed.
>
> There have been human rights challenges to parts of the WADA code,
> e.g. the whereabouts system http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/front_page/7844918.stm
> but none have been successful so far.
The UCI is bent on destruction. This will get worse before it gets better.
> e.g. the whereabouts system http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/front_page/7844918.stm
> but none have been successful so far.
When it finally gets better, the attendant mess will make all
doping cases pale in comparison.
--
Old Fritz
ilan
Feb 10, 2012, 5:12:55 PM2/10/12
to
On Feb 10, 5:12 pm, "Benjo Maso" <benjo.m...@upcmail.nl> wrote:
> "ilan" schreef in berichtnews:bad4e2b1-7b4d-4883...@g27g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
That is a good point and an attempt to discourage this process.
However, since the events are taking place in the European Union, that
means that the European Court of Human Rights has final jurisdiction.
Basically, it can disallow the UCI from continuing its current doping
programme in EU countries. This is the basis of the process started by
Kasheshkin's lawyer and by Jeff's reference above.
-ilan
> "ilan" schreef in berichtnews:bad4e2b1-7b4d-4883...@g27g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
However, since the events are taking place in the European Union, that
means that the European Court of Human Rights has final jurisdiction.
Basically, it can disallow the UCI from continuing its current doping
programme in EU countries. This is the basis of the process started by
Kasheshkin's lawyer and by Jeff's reference above.
-ilan
0 new messages