Italy collects Basso-related blood bags

[[email protected]]

This does not look good for Basso or Discovery. Basso needs to act
fast and submit a DNA test if he feels he is innocent. I don't
understand why Discovery did not demand a DNA test before they signed
Basso.

Discovery needs to clear up this matter quickly if hope to have any
chances of finding a new sponsor.
(http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr24news2 )

"Interviú detailed previously unpublished
papers connecting Basso with Fuentes. This article contained what it
said was circumstantial evidence implicating the rider, including: 1)
An agenda with a schedule of blood extractions and transfusions since
2004. In the agenda the pseudonyms 'Birillo' and '2' are used. 2)
Payments in 2004 of around €35,000 and another €6000 for the freezing
the blood (or "gastos de Siberia"), and an advance payment of €70,000
in 2006 'to be defined individually'; there was also a message
received from Fuentes in Italian which talks of a Zurich bank account.
3) The analyses of blood, which could have been done in November 2005
in Madrid, with haematologist Merino Batres, a collaborator of
Fuentes. The Spanish Guardia Civil suspect that the cyclist visited
Madrid at least three times but he has always denied being there.
Interviú detailed previously unpublished papers connecting Basso with
Fuentes. This article contained what it said was circumstantial
evidence implicating the rider, including: 1) An agenda with a
schedule of blood extractions and transfusions since 2004. In the
agenda the pseudonyms 'Birillo' and '2' are used. 2) Payments in 2004
of around €35,000 and another €6000 for the freezing the blood (or
"gastos de Siberia"), and an advance payment of €70,000 in 2006 'to be
defined individually'; there was also a message received from Fuentes
in Italian which talks of a Zurich bank account. 3) The analyses of
blood, which could have been done in November 2005 in Madrid, with
haematologist Merino Batres, a collaborator of Fuentes. The Spanish
Guardia Civil suspect that the cyclist visited Madrid at least three
times but he has always denied being there.
"Interviú detailed previously unpublished papers connecting Basso with
Fuentes. This article contained what it said was circumstantial
evidence implicating the rider, including: 1) An agenda with a
schedule of blood extractions and transfusions since 2004. In the
agenda the pseudonyms 'Birillo' and '2' are used. 2) Payments in 2004
of around €35,000 and another €6000 for the freezing the blood (or
"gastos de Siberia"), and an advance payment of €70,000 in 2006 'to be
defined individually'; there was also a message received from Fuentes
in Italian which talks of a Zurich bank account. 3) The analyses of
blood, which could have been done in November 2005 in Madrid, with
haematologist Merino Batres, a collaborator of Fuentes. The Spanish
Guardia Civil suspect that the cyclist visited Madrid at least three
times but he has always denied being there."

[Dan Connelly]

What I don't understand is: have folks forgotten how to test blood type? Since when is the only identifiable feature of blood a DNA sequence?

Even if he's O+, if he's not involved, there is a >60% chance of clearing him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type

Surely his blood type is on record.

Dan

[Dan Connelly]

Why no blood type comparison? Even if Basso is O+, a simple type test will have a >60% chance of clearing him if it is not his blood:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type

Dan

[Curtis L. Russell]

On 24 Apr 2007 06:12:27 -0700, "
> wrote:

>This does not look good for Basso or Discovery. Basso needs to act
>fast and submit a DNA test if he feels he is innocent. I don't
>understand why Discovery did not demand a DNA test before they signed
>Basso.
>
>Discovery needs to clear up this matter quickly if hope to have any
>chances of finding a new sponsor.
>(http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr24news2 )

One side of the story with circumstantial but unsubstantiated
allegations - why does this look any different than it did yesterday?

I know you bring much more legal expertise to focus on this than the
Discovery Channel folks (or, for that matter, as best I know the real
team owners, Tailwind Sports Corp and Capital Sports & Entertainment -
Disco Channel really doesn't care who the next sponsor is), but I
would guess that there was some vetting done before the contract was
signed and no one who signed was a virgin. If someone gets screwed,
they knew the chances up front and probably had a good idea what it
feels like.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[trg]

"Curtis L. Russell" > a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
> On 24 Apr 2007 06:12:27 -0700, "
> > wrote:
>
>>This does not look good for Basso or Discovery. Basso needs to act
>>fast and submit a DNA test if he feels he is innocent. I don't
>>understand why Discovery did not demand a DNA test before they signed
>>Basso.
>>
>>Discovery needs to clear up this matter quickly if hope to have any
>>chances of finding a new sponsor.
>>(http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr24news2 )
>
> One side of the story with circumstantial but unsubstantiated
> allegations - why does this look any different than it did yesterday?
>
> I know you bring much more legal expertise to focus on this than the
> Discovery Channel folks (or, for that matter, as best I know the real
> team owners, Tailwind Sports Corp and Capital Sports & Entertainment -
> Disco Channel really doesn't care who the next sponsor is), but I
> would guess that there was some vetting done before the contract was
> signed and no one who signed was a virgin. If someone gets screwed,
> they knew the chances up front and probably had a good idea what it
> feels like.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

When Basso was signed, it looked like Puerto would go away, since doping was
not at the time illegal in Spain, hence his statement about giving DNA only
for "ongoing" investigations. Coni had declared the case closed. Discovery
might have made the bet that whether he was guilty or innocent, he wouldn't
be further harassed. If that's the case, then they might have made a
misjudgement.

Of course we don't know the terms of Basso's contract. It may be that he
agreed to go unpaid/give back his salary if he got caught, so he assumed the
risk rather than Disco. As it is, I remember reading that he is not the
highest paid rider in the peloton, (1.5 million), which under normal
circumstances you might expect him to be.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 24, 9:12 am, " > wrote:
> This does not look good for Basso or Discovery. Basso needs to act
> fast and submit a DNA test if he feels he is innocent.


dumbass,

he has always resisted a DNA test and will continue to for as long as
he can. why do you think that is ?

> I don't
> understand why Discovery did not demand a DNA test before they signed
> Basso.

unless they had the access to compare it to the puerto blood what
would be the point ?

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Curtis L. Russell
') wrote:

> On 24 Apr 2007 06:12:27 -0700, "
> > wrote:
>
>>This does not look good for Basso or Discovery. Basso needs to act
>>fast and submit a DNA test if he feels he is innocent. I don't
>>understand why Discovery did not demand a DNA test before they signed
>>Basso.
>>
>>Discovery needs to clear up this matter quickly if hope to have any
>>chances of finding a new sponsor.
>>(http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr24news2 )
>
> One side of the story with circumstantial but unsubstantiated
> allegations - why does this look any different than it did yesterday?

I understood that Basso had given Discovery a DNA sample when he signed?

Certainly this doesn't change my skepticism about his guilt. It will be a
real shame if he is kept out of this year's Giro and Tour, and is later
found not to have been guilty - so the sooner the DNA comparison is made,
the better for everyone.

Oh - and I'm still a Basso fan.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
;; Voltaire RIP Dr David Kelly 1945-2004

[Geraard Spergen]

Dan Connelly wrote:
> What I don't understand is: have folks forgotten how to test blood
> type? Since when is the only identifiable feature of blood a DNA sequence?
>
> Even if he's O+, if he's not involved, there is a >60% chance of
> clearing him:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type
>
> Surely his blood type is on record.
>
> Dan

Supposing Basso does provide his DNA, would it be compared only to the
Birillo bags? Or to all the bags found in Fuentes's office? I'd expect
they'd test the Birillo bags first but if they didn't match they'd keep
on comparing until they either found a match or had tested every bag
available.

[William Asher]

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

> And if they wanted his DNA and he trained in the U.S.A., it would take
> a personal attendant employed by Basso to keep Disco from getting
> legal samples of his DNA. If he had Sheryl as an advisor it would
> take, oh, an hour and a half.

Based on the information I've read in the other Sheryl Crow threads
thoughtfully cross-posted here, how would you separate Basso's dna from the
countless other dna samples undoubtedly collected by Sheryl that same day?

Which brings to mind the difference between a bitch and a slut.

--
Bill Asher

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:18:35 +0100, Simon Brooke
> wrote:

>> One side of the story with circumstantial but unsubstantiated
>> allegations - why does this look any different than it did yesterday?
>
>I understood that Basso had given Discovery a DNA sample when he signed?

And that doesn't change the storyline any, as there would no
particular avenue in for Disco to sue for permission to match the DNA
with Puerto. And until Disco perceives its interests as different than
that of Basso, then them having Basso's DNA and Basso having Basso's
DNA would pretty much be one and the same - no rush to match until it
needs to be done.

Or my short answer is, until there is a basis for Disco to match any
DNA they may have with the suspect DNA, it is irrelevant. Not even
legal. You need legal access to both samples.

And if they wanted his DNA and he trained in the U.S.A., it would take
a personal attendant employed by Basso to keep Disco from getting
legal samples of his DNA. If he had Sheryl as an advisor it would
take, oh, an hour and a half.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[need more sun]

On Apr 24, 3:12 pm, " > wrote:
> This does not look good for Basso or Discovery. Basso needs to act
> fast and submit a DNA test if he feels he is innocent. I don't
> understand why Discovery did not demand a DNA test before they signed
> Basso.


Because they knew he did it, but they didn't care... That's why.

[Tom Grosman]

"Donald Munro" > a écrit dans le message de news:
.. .
| trg wrote:
| > When Basso was signed, it looked like Puerto would go away, since doping
was
| > not at the time illegal in Spain, hence his statement about giving DNA
only
| > for "ongoing" investigations.
|
| I'd have thought the new laws could not be applied to 'crimes' committed
| before the law was enacted.

Exactly, which was why Basso was in the clear as far as any investigation in
Spain was concerned. However, that doesn't stop investigations in countries
where sporting fraud is a crime (like Floyd will likely face in France).

Also, ASO can exclude indivudual riders from their events, so even if there
were no convictions against Basso, it doesn't mean he would necessarily get
to participate in the Tour (or any other race for that matter).

[Donald Munro]

William Asher wrote:
> Based on the information I've read in the other Sheryl Crow threads
> thoughtfully cross-posted here, how would you separate Basso's dna from the
> countless other dna samples undoubtedly collected by Sheryl that same day?

So she uses a mouth swab to save the trees ? More useless information I
would rather not have known.

[Donald Munro]

trg wrote:
> When Basso was signed, it looked like Puerto would go away, since doping was
> not at the time illegal in Spain, hence his statement about giving DNA only
> for "ongoing" investigations.

I'd have thought the new laws could not be applied to 'crimes' committed
before the law was enacted.

> Of course we don't know the terms of Basso's contract. It may be that he
> agreed to go unpaid/give back his salary if he got caught, so he assumed the
> risk rather than Disco. As it is, I remember reading that he is not the
> highest paid rider in the peloton, (1.5 million), which under normal
> circumstances you might expect him to be.

Discovery got (or thought they got) a bargain since the other pro-tour
teams didn't want him so they didn 't have to have a bidding war. Perhaps
they decided it was a worthwhile risk at the time.

[Donald Munro]

Geraard Spergen wrote:
> Supposing Basso does provide his DNA, would it be compared only to the
> Birillo bags? Or to all the bags found in Fuentes's office? I'd expect
> they'd test the Birillo bags first but if they didn't match they'd keep
> on comparing until they either found a match or had tested every bag
> available.

If they have an unlimited budget - these DNA tests aren't cheap and
the last I heard the Spanish lab was still waiting to be paid.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 24, 9:12 am, " > wrote:
> This does not look good for Basso or Discovery. Basso needs to act
> fast and submit a DNA test if he feels he is innocent. I don't
> understand why Discovery did not demand a DNA test before they signed
> Basso.
>
> Discovery needs to clear up this matter quickly if hope to have any
> chances of finding a new sponsor.

Do you suppose that Basso's blood in those bags does not equate to
proving that he blood boosted? Or in your book does intent equal guilt
automatically?

You don't see the Belgian sponsors running from charges of doping on
the teams they sponsor do you?

[Simon Brooke]

in message om>,
') wrote:

> On Apr 24, 9:12 am, " > wrote:
>> This does not look good for Basso or Discovery. Basso needs to act
>> fast and submit a DNA test if he feels he is innocent. I don't
>> understand why Discovery did not demand a DNA test before they signed
>> Basso.
>>
>> Discovery needs to clear up this matter quickly if hope to have any
>> chances of finding a new sponsor.
>
> Do you suppose that Basso's blood in those bags does not equate to
> proving that he blood boosted? Or in your book does intent equal guilt
> automatically?

If his blood is in those bags, then he's at least guilty of intending to
cheat, and in my book intending to cheat is pretty much equivalent to
cheating. I'm still hoping his blood isn't in those bags.

--
(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 three years after this .sig was written: it's still relevant]

[[email protected]]

Seems as though Discovery took a very big chance in signing Basso.
This negative publicity may seal Discovery's fate.

On Apr 24, 4:22 pm, need more sun > wrote:
> On Apr 24, 3:12 pm, " > wrote:
>
> > This does not look good for Basso or Discovery. Basso needs to act
> > fast and submit a DNA test if he feels he is innocent. I don't
> > understand why Discovery did not demand a DNA test before they signed
> > Basso.
>
> Because they knew he did it, but they didn't care... That's why.

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:25:53 +0100, Simon Brooke
> wrote:

>If his blood is in those bags, then he's at least guilty of intending to
>cheat, and in my book intending to cheat is pretty much equivalent to
>cheating. I'm still hoping his blood isn't in those bags.

Technically you are jumping a step without the inclusion of a 'IMO' in
the first line, but I won't quibble. Now if Fuentes had just produced
a quick report or kept one as a cover, where there was an implication
that he was testing and reporting back the relative level of
'preparedness' of a riders blood, I'm wondering if this whole thing
could go anywhere. It would have IMO made it necessary to have a nexus
much closer to the act of cheating. After all, it is completely OK to
test someone's blood for anything at all, and who better than the
person that has the experience of 'fine-tuning' that very item.

Not saying I would have believed it either, but it would have possibly
let a whole bunch of riders stay in the last Tour. Fuentes needs a
better co-conspirator, one that can maintain a good cover.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Curtis L. Russell
') wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:25:53 +0100, Simon Brooke
> > wrote:
>
>>If his blood is in those bags, then he's at least guilty of intending to
>>cheat, and in my book intending to cheat is pretty much equivalent to
>>cheating. I'm still hoping his blood isn't in those bags.
>
> Technically you are jumping a step without the inclusion of a 'IMO' in
> the first line, but I won't quibble. Now if Fuentes had just produced
> a quick report or kept one as a cover, where there was an implication
> that he was testing and reporting back the relative level of
> 'preparedness' of a riders blood, I'm wondering if this whole thing
> could go anywhere. It would have IMO made it necessary to have a nexus
> much closer to the act of cheating. After all, it is completely OK to
> test someone's blood for anything at all, and who better than the
> person that has the experience of 'fine-tuning' that very item.

You don't need to hold litres of blood for testing. There is no conceivable
testing process - particularly for elite athletes - that would render the
storing of blood in this quantity explicable. This blood is clearly being
stored for reinfusion. Now, of course, it might be that Fuentes was
setting up a charitable blood-bank to serve needy patients in third world
countries... but I don't think so.

Still, a word to the wise: the domain name 'bloodforthirdworldbabies.org'
is still available.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

<p>Schroedinger's cat is <blink><strong>NOT</strong></blink> dead.</p>

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:48:02 +0100, Simon Brooke
> wrote:

>You don't need to hold litres of blood for testing. There is no conceivable
>testing process - particularly for elite athletes - that would render the
>storing of blood in this quantity explicable. This blood is clearly being
>stored for reinfusion.

Actually, you don't need a test tube of blood to do the testing - I
have a pretty good idea of what's needed, since they do it down the
hall. I'm talking excuses, not reasons.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[need more sun]

On Apr 27, 4:05 pm, Curtis L. Russell > wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:48:02 +0100, Simon Brooke
>
> > wrote:
> >You don't need to hold litres of blood for testing. There is no conceivable
> >testing process - particularly for elite athletes - that would render the
> >storing of blood in this quantity explicable. This blood is clearly being
> >stored for reinfusion.
>
> Actually, you don't need a test tube of blood to do the testing - I
> have a pretty good idea of what's needed, since they do it down the
> hall. I'm talking excuses, not reasons.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...


Disco - live by the sword, die by the sword. This is Karma after years
of bending the rules, methinks...

[Tom Kunich]

"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
>
> You don't need to hold litres of blood for testing. There is no
> conceivable
> testing process - particularly for elite athletes - that would render the
> storing of blood in this quantity explicable. This blood is clearly being
> stored for reinfusion.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that they MEANT to cheat. The point is
that meaning and accomplishment are two different things and if the UCI and
WADA and all the rest of the jackasses can't tell that they have to business
being in more power than it takes to write their names on an unemployment
benefit form.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 29, 10:09 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > You don't need to hold litres of blood for testing. There is no
> > conceivable
> > testing process - particularly for elite athletes - that would render the
> > storing of blood in this quantity explicable. This blood is clearly being
> > stored for reinfusion.
>
> I don't think that anyone is arguing that they MEANT to cheat. The point is
> that meaning and accomplishment are two different things and if the UCI and
> WADA and all the rest of the jackasses can't tell that they have to business
> being in more power than it takes to write their names on an unemployment
> benefit form.


dumbass,

someone thought of that dodge before you did.

the RULES don't consider that to be an important distinction :

http://www.uci.ch/english/about/rules_2004/ch14.pdf

art. 6

Material offence:
The success or failure of the use of a prohibited substance or a
prohibited method is not a prerequisite. The fact alone of the
presence, the use or an attempt to use the substance or method is
sufficient for the offence to be deemed to have occurred.

[Simon Brooke]

in message et>, Tom
Kunich ('cyclintom@yahoo. com') wrote:

> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> You don't need to hold litres of blood for testing. There is no
>> conceivable
>> testing process - particularly for elite athletes - that would render
>> the storing of blood in this quantity explicable. This blood is clearly
>> being stored for reinfusion.
>
> I don't think that anyone is arguing that they MEANT to cheat. The point
> is that meaning and accomplishment are two different things and if the
> UCI and WADA and all the rest of the jackasses can't tell that they have
> to business being in more power than it takes to write their names on an
> unemployment benefit form.

I would ban anyone who _provably_ intended to cheat. Wouldn't you?

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Due to financial constraints, the light at the end of the tunnel
has been switched off.

[Donald Munro]

wrote:
> Material offence:
> The success or failure of the use of a prohibited substance or a
> prohibited method is not a prerequisite. The fact alone of the
> presence, the use or an attempt to use the substance or method is
> sufficient for the offence to be deemed to have occurred.

Also known as the Viagra rule.

[Sandy]

Dans le message de ,
Curtis L. Russell > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:34:30 +0100, Simon Brooke
> > wrote:
>
>> in message et>,
>> Tom Kunich ('cyclintom@yahoo. com') wrote:
>>
>>> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> You don't need to hold litres of blood for testing. There is no
>>>> conceivable
>>>> testing process - particularly for elite athletes - that would
>>>> render the storing of blood in this quantity explicable. This
>>>> blood is clearly being stored for reinfusion.
>>>
>>> I don't think that anyone is arguing that they MEANT to cheat. The
>>> point is that meaning and accomplishment are two different things
>>> and if the UCI and WADA and all the rest of the jackasses can't
>>> tell that they have to business being in more power than it takes
>>> to write their names on an unemployment benefit form.
>>
>> I would ban anyone who _provably_ intended to cheat. Wouldn't you?
>
> Interesting position. What exactly constitutes 'provably intended to
> cheat'? You no doubt focus on the 'provable' part and I have an issue
> with the 'intended' part. So a bike racer buys a drug that has no
> other purpose than to enhance performance, and is on the banned list
> (but legal to possess) and they put it in their refrigerator and never
> ingest it. In fact, they keep it as a reminder of that point in their
> life that they intended to cheat but didn't.

This is nearly verbatim the story of Mederic Clain (formerly Cofidis), and
he is on his 2-year vacation.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:34:30 +0100, Simon Brooke
> wrote:

>in message et>, Tom
>Kunich ('cyclintom@yahoo. com') wrote:
>
>> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> You don't need to hold litres of blood for testing. There is no
>>> conceivable
>>> testing process - particularly for elite athletes - that would render
>>> the storing of blood in this quantity explicable. This blood is clearly
>>> being stored for reinfusion.
>>
>> I don't think that anyone is arguing that they MEANT to cheat. The point
>> is that meaning and accomplishment are two different things and if the
>> UCI and WADA and all the rest of the jackasses can't tell that they have
>> to business being in more power than it takes to write their names on an
>> unemployment benefit form.
>
>I would ban anyone who _provably_ intended to cheat. Wouldn't you?

Interesting position. What exactly constitutes 'provably intended to
cheat'? You no doubt focus on the 'provable' part and I have an issue
with the 'intended' part. So a bike racer buys a drug that has no
other purpose than to enhance performance, and is on the banned list
(but legal to possess) and they put it in their refrigerator and never
ingest it. In fact, they keep it as a reminder of that point in their
life that they intended to cheat but didn't. You come along with the
thought mafia: what do you do, shoot him or ban him for life?

I know, I know, it is enough for you to proclaim that 'this would
never happen', at least as far as you are concerned, so go ahead,
string him up.

By the way, should that point have a half life or anything? You know,
if you can prove that the Badger intended to cheat, say, back when he
was riding with a club, should we strip him of all of his TdF's or
just some of them?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[[email protected]]

On Apr 30, 9:35 am, Curtis L. Russell > wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:34:30 +0100, Simon Brooke
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >in message et>, Tom
> >Kunich ('cyclintom@yahoo. com') wrote:
>
> >> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>> You don't need to hold litres of blood for testing. There is no
> >>> conceivable
> >>> testing process - particularly for elite athletes - that would render
> >>> the storing of blood in this quantity explicable. This blood is clearly
> >>> being stored for reinfusion.
>
> >> I don't think that anyone is arguing that they MEANT to cheat. The point
> >> is that meaning and accomplishment are two different things and if the
> >> UCI and WADA and all the rest of the jackasses can't tell that they have
> >> to business being in more power than it takes to write their names on an
> >> unemployment benefit form.
>
> >I would ban anyone who _provably_ intended to cheat. Wouldn't you?
>
> Interesting position. What exactly constitutes 'provably intended to
> cheat'? You no doubt focus on the 'provable' part and I have an issue
> with the 'intended' part. So a bike racer buys a drug that has no
> other purpose than to enhance performance, and is on the banned list
> (but legal to possess) and they put it in their refrigerator and never
> ingest it. In fact, they keep it as a reminder of that point in their
> life that they intended to cheat but didn't. You come along with the
> thought mafia: what do you do, shoot him or ban him for life?
>
> I know, I know, it is enough for you to proclaim that 'this would
> never happen', at least as far as you are concerned, so go ahead,
> string him up.
>
> By the way, should that point have a half life or anything? You know,
> if you can prove that the Badger intended to cheat, say, back when he
> was riding with a club, should we strip him of all of his TdF's or
> just some of them?

dumbass,

read the link above. don't confuse the rules of bike racing with the
law.

the intention to cheat is punished the same as the offense.

also see art. 134. to answer your questions about the badger :

3. The rider or licence-holder shall not be penalised if it is
established that the use of doping substances or doping methods dates
back to more than five years before the declaration or admission.

4. The rider shall not suffer disqualification unless the facts relate
to a specific race.

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Curtis L. Russell
') wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:34:30 +0100, Simon Brooke
> > wrote:
>
>>I would ban anyone who _provably_ intended to cheat. Wouldn't you?
>
> Interesting position. What exactly constitutes 'provably intended to
> cheat'? You no doubt focus on the 'provable' part and I have an issue
> with the 'intended' part. So a bike racer buys a drug that has no
> other purpose than to enhance performance, and is on the banned list
> (but legal to possess) and they put it in their refrigerator and never
> ingest it. In fact, they keep it as a reminder of that point in their
> life that they intended to cheat but didn't.

The Millar line...

> You come along with the
> thought mafia: what do you do, shoot him or ban him for life?

Two years, plus (possibly, although this seems harsh) two years in
non-pro-tour teams.

> I know, I know, it is enough for you to proclaim that 'this would
> never happen', at least as far as you are concerned, so go ahead,
> string him up.

Of course it's possible. It's why it's 'possession' of banned recreational
drugs which is a crime. If you've got 'em, you go down.

> By the way, should that point have a half life or anything? You know,
> if you can prove that the Badger intended to cheat, say, back when he
> was riding with a club, should we strip him of all of his TdF's or
> just some of them?

None of them. This retrospectively stripping people of titles has no
dignity. Events in the past cannot be judged by the standards of the
present.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; IE 3 is dead, but Netscape 4 still shambles about the earth,
;; wreaking a horrific vengeance upon the living
;; anonymous