ulrich found guilty of doping results since may 2005 annulled [Archive]

raamman

February 9th 12, 03:30 PM

On Feb 9, 7:21*am, DirtRoadie > wrote:
> On Feb 9, 4:40*am, raamman > wrote:
>
> >http://www.iol.co.za/sport/cycling/ulrich-found-guilty-of-doping-1.12...
>
> Looks like each placing in any past UCI event will now need to be
> edited to include an asterisk with the qualification "still pending
> CAS review."
>
> Maybe the time has also come to end the ritual of assigning an order
> to racers based upon something as inconclusive as finish time and go
> right to the legal proceedings.
>
> DR

so, we'll see the legal representatives of the riders taking the
podium then

Fred Flintstein

February 9th 12, 04:03 PM

On 2/9/2012 6:21 AM, DirtRoadie wrote:
> On Feb 9, 4:40 am, > wrote:
>> http://www.iol.co.za/sport/cycling/ulrich-found-guilty-of-doping-1.12...
>
> Looks like each placing in any past UCI event will now need to be
> edited to include an asterisk with the qualification "still pending
> CAS review."
>
> Maybe the time has also come to end the ritual of assigning an order
> to racers based upon something as inconclusive as finish time and go
> right to the legal proceedings.
>
> DR

I remember seeing a picture of a past NFL championship game, the
play where the winning touchdown was scored. In the picture one
of the players on the winning team is clearly shown committing a
foul which the officials missed. But a penalty should have been
called and the winning touchdown called back.

This business of race finishes being malleable more than a decade
after the fact is evidence that it is time to call in an air
strike on the UCI headquarters in Lausanne. We are lucky that
cycling is the only sport they are allowed to screw up.

F

DirtRoadie

February 9th 12, 04:14 PM

On Feb 9, 8:30*am, raamman > wrote:
> On Feb 9, 7:21*am, DirtRoadie > wrote:
>
> > On Feb 9, 4:40*am, raamman > wrote:
>
> > >http://www.iol.co.za/sport/cycling/ulrich-found-guilty-of-doping-1.12....
>
> > Looks like each placing in any past UCI event will now need to be
> > edited to include an asterisk with the qualification "still pending
> > CAS review."
>
> > Maybe the time has also come to end the ritual of assigning an order
> > to racers based upon something as inconclusive as finish time and go
> > right to the legal proceedings.
>
> > DR
>
> so, we'll see the legal representatives of the riders taking the
> podium then

Only after peeing in a cup.
DR

DirtRoadie

February 9th 12, 04:15 PM

On Feb 9, 9:03*am, Fred Flintstein >
wrote:
> On 2/9/2012 6:21 AM, DirtRoadie wrote:
>
> > On Feb 9, 4:40 am, > *wrote:
> >>http://www.iol.co.za/sport/cycling/ulrich-found-guilty-of-doping-1.12....
>
> > Looks like each placing in any past UCI event will now need to be
> > edited to include an asterisk with the qualification "still pending
> > CAS review."
>
> > Maybe the time has also come to end the ritual of assigning an order
> > to racers based upon something as inconclusive as finish time and go
> > right to the legal proceedings.
>
> > DR
>
> I remember seeing a picture of a past NFL championship game, the
> play where the winning touchdown was scored. In the picture one
> of the players on the winning team is clearly shown committing a
> foul which the officials missed. But a penalty should have been
> called and the winning touchdown called back.
>
> This business of race finishes being malleable more than a decade
> after the fact is evidence that it is time to call in an air
> strike on the UCI headquarters in Lausanne. We are lucky that
> cycling is the only sport they are allowed to screw up.
>

Don't be silly. They give Poulidor fans hope that he will yet get the
all time record for the 8 or so TdF victories that he deserves.
But it gets complicated, I'm not sure how we factor in virtual wins by
those who did not compete in any given year.

DR

tritonrider

February 9th 12, 06:52 PM

On Feb 9, 11:15*am, DirtRoadie > wrote:

> Don't be silly. They give Poulidor fans hope that he will yet get the
> all time record for the 8 or so TdF victories that he deserves.
> But it gets complicated, I'm not sure how we factor in virtual wins by
> those who did not compete in any given year.
>
> DR

Yup "Go Big or Go Home" Merckx is next and that's a slam dunk. Gonna
be a slim record book after they remove all the "pot belge" folks from
the books.
Starting to look like, other than Lance, that I heard they doped,
somewhere, sometime, and they can't prove they didn't, ever is enough
for a guilty.
Once again the more money you have the more you can get away with.
Better lawyers, pr flaks, chemists, etc...
Bill C

Phil H

February 9th 12, 07:42 PM

On Feb 9, 9:03*am, Fred Flintstein >
wrote:
> On 2/9/2012 6:21 AM, DirtRoadie wrote:
>
> > On Feb 9, 4:40 am, > *wrote:
> >>http://www.iol.co.za/sport/cycling/ulrich-found-guilty-of-doping-1.12....
>
> > Looks like each placing in any past UCI event will now need to be
> > edited to include an asterisk with the qualification "still pending
> > CAS review."
>
> > Maybe the time has also come to end the ritual of assigning an order
> > to racers based upon something as inconclusive as finish time and go
> > right to the legal proceedings.
>
> > DR
>
> I remember seeing a picture of a past NFL championship game, the
> play where the winning touchdown was scored. In the picture one
> of the players on the winning team is clearly shown committing a
> foul which the officials missed. But a penalty should have been
> called and the winning touchdown called back.
>
> This business of race finishes being malleable more than a decade
> after the fact is evidence that it is time to call in an air
> strike on the UCI headquarters in Lausanne. We are lucky that
> cycling is the only sport they are allowed to screw up.
>
> F

In horse race betting, there is a 'first past the post" option, so no
matter what infractions happened, the finishing order remains the
same.
Maybe we should do the same in bike racing.
Phil H

Simply Fred

February 9th 12, 07:44 PM

Fred >
>> This business of race finishes being malleable more than a decade
>> after the fact is evidence that it is time to call in an air
>> strike on the UCI headquarters in Lausanne. We are lucky that
>> cycling is the only sport they are allowed to screw up.

DirtRoadie wrote:
> Don't be silly. They give Poulidor fans hope that he will yet get the
> all time record for the 8 or so TdF victories that he deserves.
> But it gets complicated, I'm not sure how we factor in virtual wins by
> those who did not compete in any given year.

Fortunately Kafka never thought of it first.

DirtRoadie

February 10th 12, 04:53 AM

On Feb 9, 11:52*am, tritonrider > wrote:
> On Feb 9, 11:15*am, DirtRoadie > wrote:
>
> > Don't be silly. They give Poulidor fans hope that he will yet get the
> > all time record for the 8 or so TdF victories that he deserves.
> > But it gets complicated, I'm not sure how we factor in virtual wins by
> > those who did not compete in any given year.
>
> > DR
>
> Yup "Go Big or Go Home" Merckx is next and that's a slam dunk. Gonna
> be a slim record book after they remove all the "pot belge" folks from
> the books.
> *Starting to look like, other than Lance, that I heard they doped,
> somewhere, sometime, and they can't prove they didn't, ever is enough
> for a guilty.
> *Once again the more money you have the more you can get away with.
> Better lawyers, pr flaks, chemists, etc...

My great fear is that, upon suspicion alone (and disregarding any
issues of jurisdiction), they will even posthumously revoke the _name_
of "Mile-a-Minute-Murphy."

DR

raamman

February 10th 12, 11:52 PM

On Feb 9, 1:52*pm, tritonrider > wrote:
> On Feb 9, 11:15*am, DirtRoadie > wrote:
>
> > Don't be silly. They give Poulidor fans hope that he will yet get the
> > all time record for the 8 or so TdF victories that he deserves.
> > But it gets complicated, I'm not sure how we factor in virtual wins by
> > those who did not compete in any given year.
>
> > DR
>
> Yup "Go Big or Go Home" Merckx is next and that's a slam dunk. Gonna
> be a slim record book after they remove all the "pot belge" folks from
> the books.
> *Starting to look like, other than Lance, that I heard they doped,
> somewhere, sometime, and they can't prove they didn't, ever is enough
> for a guilty.
> *Once again the more money you have the more you can get away with.
> Better lawyers, pr flaks, chemists, etc...
> *Bill C

no, I disagree- that is a logic that convicts without trial. where you
are charged with a serious offence the best defense is to get the best
lawyer you can afford- you should not be convicted because you do. and
especially in the circumstance where the accused is indeed innocent-
it is far more important to ensure one is not wrongfully convicted
than justly so.

tritonrider

February 12th 12, 04:22 PM

On Feb 10, 6:52*pm, raamman > wrote:

>
> no, I disagree- that is a logic that convicts without trial. where you
> are charged with a serious offence the best defense is to get the best
> lawyer you can afford- you should not be convicted because you do. and
> especially in the circumstance where the accused is indeed innocent-
> it is far more important to ensure one is not wrongfully convicted
> than justly so.

Think we aren't communicating well. I wasn't saying that you are
guilty because you can get the best defense, I was saying that you are
MUCH more likely to be cleared if you have huge resources to defend
yourself with. The wealthy can afford that type of defense the others
are pretty much screwed. Not saying either is more likely guilty, just
that some are better able to defend themselves.
Bill C

raamman

February 12th 12, 10:55 PM

On Feb 12, 11:22*am, tritonrider > wrote:
> On Feb 10, 6:52*pm, raamman > wrote:
>
>
>
> > no, I disagree- that is a logic that convicts without trial. where you
> > are charged with a serious offence the best defense is to get the best
> > lawyer you can afford- you should not be convicted because you do. and
> > especially in the circumstance where the accused is indeed innocent-
> > it is far more important to ensure one is not wrongfully convicted
> > than justly so.
>
> Think we aren't communicating well. I wasn't saying that you are
> guilty because you can get the best defense, I was saying that you are
> MUCH more likely to be cleared if you have huge resources to defend
> yourself with. The wealthy can afford that type of defense the others
> are pretty much screwed. Not saying either is more likely guilty, just
> that some are better able to defend themselves.
> *Bill C

Respectfully, if I may say,

I understood where you were coming from; and in our legal system it
seems statistically you are correct in your statement- but it seems
your arguement has a parallel logic that damns him by his trappings
than any merit. In the end, he wasn t charged, it didn t even get off
the ground legally- just really tarnished his image, and the way it
was dropped did not vindicate him, just kicked a little more mud.

Lets say the FBI start asking your neighbours about you regarding
child sexual abuse, and leave - regardless you being charged or not,
you realize your neighbours won t look at you the same way ever again.
If you retained expensive lawyers in the process your neighbours will
conclude the investigation was dropped because of that, not because
you are innocent. I just think that is wrong- and it bothers me that
an innocent man may be being strung up to satisfy the embittered
residue of a few fallen champions and their friends. I am just not
going to jump on that bandwagon, based on appearances, statistics or
numerous lies as told by known liars.

Where authorities feel a need to investigate, they should do so
without regard to appearances- no blind eye should be turned because
of a persons stature.

Fred Flintstein

February 13th 12, 03:22 AM

On 2/12/2012 4:55 PM, raamman wrote:
> On Feb 12, 11:22 am, > wrote:
>> On Feb 10, 6:52 pm, > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> no, I disagree- that is a logic that convicts without trial. where you
>>> are charged with a serious offence the best defense is to get the best
>>> lawyer you can afford- you should not be convicted because you do. and
>>> especially in the circumstance where the accused is indeed innocent-
>>> it is far more important to ensure one is not wrongfully convicted
>>> than justly so.
>>
>> Think we aren't communicating well. I wasn't saying that you are
>> guilty because you can get the best defense, I was saying that you are
>> MUCH more likely to be cleared if you have huge resources to defend
>> yourself with. The wealthy can afford that type of defense the others
>> are pretty much screwed. Not saying either is more likely guilty, just
>> that some are better able to defend themselves.
>> Bill C
>
> Respectfully, if I may say,
>
> I understood where you were coming from; and in our legal system it
> seems statistically you are correct in your statement- but it seems
> your arguement has a parallel logic that damns him by his trappings
> than any merit. In the end, he wasn t charged, it didn t even get off
> the ground legally- just really tarnished his image, and the way it
> was dropped did not vindicate him, just kicked a little more mud.
>
> Lets say the FBI start asking your neighbours about you regarding
> child sexual abuse, and leave - regardless you being charged or not,
> you realize your neighbours won t look at you the same way ever again.
> If you retained expensive lawyers in the process your neighbours will
> conclude the investigation was dropped because of that, not because
> you are innocent. I just think that is wrong- and it bothers me that
> an innocent man may be being strung up to satisfy the embittered
> residue of a few fallen champions and their friends. I am just not
> going to jump on that bandwagon, based on appearances, statistics or
> numerous lies as told by known liars.
>
> Where authorities feel a need to investigate, they should do so
> without regard to appearances- no blind eye should be turned because
> of a persons stature.

Dumbass,

Doping to win a bike race is not a criminal offense in Switzerland.
That is all.

F

Simply Fred

February 13th 12, 08:49 AM

Fred Flintstein wrote:
> Doping to win a bike race is not a criminal offense in Switzerland.
> That is all.

<http://www.bestplaces.net/crime/county/indiana/switzerland>

Steve Freides[_2_]

February 13th 12, 06:19 PM

Fred Flintstein wrote:
> I remember seeing a picture of a past NFL championship game, the
> play where the winning touchdown was scored. In the picture one
> of the players on the winning team is clearly shown committing a
> foul which the officials missed. But a penalty should have been
> called and the winning touchdown called back.
>
> This business of race finishes being malleable more than a decade
> after the fact is evidence that it is time to call in an air
> strike on the UCI headquarters in Lausanne. We are lucky that
> cycling is the only sport they are allowed to screw up.

I like your line of thinking on this one. When it's over, it's over.

-S-

atriage[_6_]

February 13th 12, 07:07 PM

On 13/02/2012 18:19, Steve Freides wrote:
> Fred Flintstein wrote:
>> I remember seeing a picture of a past NFL championship game, the
>> play where the winning touchdown was scored. In the picture one
>> of the players on the winning team is clearly shown committing a
>> foul which the officials missed. But a penalty should have been
>> called and the winning touchdown called back.
>>
>> This business of race finishes being malleable more than a decade
>> after the fact is evidence that it is time to call in an air
>> strike on the UCI headquarters in Lausanne. We are lucky that
>> cycling is the only sport they are allowed to screw up.
>
> When it's over, it's over.

It definitely would be for the UCI after an air strike on Lausanne, thinking
about it if the said strike had a yield in the region of 25 megatons it would
have the advantage of removing the FIFA HQ in Zurich as well. (Thus securing 25
bonus points, or 50 if Sep Blatter was in the building).

--

Simply Fred

February 13th 12, 07:30 PM

Fred Flintstein wrote:
>>> This business of race finishes being malleable more than a decade
>>> after the fact is evidence that it is time to call in an air
>>> strike on the UCI headquarters in Lausanne. We are lucky that
>>> cycling is the only sport they are allowed to screw up.

Steve Freides wrote:
>> When it's over, it's over.

atriage wrote:
> It definitely would be for the UCI after an air strike on Lausanne,
> thinking about it if the said strike had a yield in the region of 25
> megatons it would have the advantage of removing the FIFA HQ in Zurich
> as well. (Thus securing 25 bonus points, or 50 if Sep Blatter was in the
> building).

The Swiss would probably consider a neutron bomb cleaner. And if you an
get the IOC and CAS HQs while you're about it you could get free power
pills for life and a Rick Astley boombox (perhaps it would work on a
WADA vampire):
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n_8PRWvrPU>

atriage[_6_]

February 13th 12, 08:22 PM

On 13/02/2012 19:30, Simply Fred wrote:
> Fred Flintstein wrote:
>>>> This business of race finishes being malleable more than a decade
>>>> after the fact is evidence that it is time to call in an air
>>>> strike on the UCI headquarters in Lausanne. We are lucky that
>>>> cycling is the only sport they are allowed to screw up.
>
> Steve Freides wrote:
>>> When it's over, it's over.
>
> atriage wrote:
>> It definitely would be for the UCI after an air strike on Lausanne,
>> thinking about it if the said strike had a yield in the region of 25
>> megatons it would have the advantage of removing the FIFA HQ in Zurich
>> as well. (Thus securing 25 bonus points, or 50 if Sep Blatter was in the
>> building).
>
> The Swiss would probably consider a neutron bomb cleaner. And if you an get the
> IOC and CAS HQs while you're about it you could get free power pills for life
> and a Rick Astley boombox (perhaps it would work on a WADA vampire):
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n_8PRWvrPU>

Brilliant, haven't seen that before. :)

--

Steve Freides[_2_]

February 15th 12, 02:43 PM

atriage wrote:
> On 13/02/2012 18:19, Steve Freides wrote:
>> Fred Flintstein wrote:
>>> I remember seeing a picture of a past NFL championship game, the
>>> play where the winning touchdown was scored. In the picture one
>>> of the players on the winning team is clearly shown committing a
>>> foul which the officials missed. But a penalty should have been
>>> called and the winning touchdown called back.
>>>
>>> This business of race finishes being malleable more than a decade
>>> after the fact is evidence that it is time to call in an air
>>> strike on the UCI headquarters in Lausanne. We are lucky that
>>> cycling is the only sport they are allowed to screw up.
>>
>> When it's over, it's over.
>
> It definitely would be for the UCI after an air strike on Lausanne,
> thinking about it if the said strike had a yield in the region of 25
> megatons it would have the advantage of removing the FIFA HQ in
> Zurich as well. (Thus securing 25 bonus points, or 50 if Sep Blatter
> was in the building).

Er, uh, I wasn't agreeing with that part, just the idea that, once the
race was over, the results should stand. Maybe there could be 24 or 48
hours to review post-finish line test results or something like that,
but there needs to be a limit. Years later is just ridiculous,
particularly in light of the fact that any benefits a rider gets from
having won a race will already have been received, and any benefits the
former second place finisher might receive from being changed to winner
status simply don't exist years after. In short, absolutely no end is
served by nullifying a race result 5 years after, save someone's Puritan
agenda.

-S-

raamman

February 16th 12, 03:52 PM

On Feb 15, 9:43*am, "Steve Freides" > wrote:
> atriage wrote:
> > On 13/02/2012 18:19, Steve Freides wrote:
> >> Fred Flintstein wrote:
> >>> I remember seeing a picture of a past NFL championship game, the
> >>> play where the winning touchdown was scored. In the picture one
> >>> of the players on the winning team is clearly shown committing a
> >>> foul which the officials missed. But a penalty should have been
> >>> called and the winning touchdown called back.
>
> >>> This business of race finishes being malleable more than a decade
> >>> after the fact is evidence that it is time to call in an air
> >>> strike on the UCI headquarters in Lausanne. We are lucky that
> >>> cycling is the only sport they are allowed to screw up.
>
> >> When it's over, it's over.
>
> > It definitely would be for the UCI after an air strike on Lausanne,
> > thinking about it if the said strike had a yield in the region of 25
> > megatons it would have the advantage of removing the FIFA HQ in
> > Zurich as well. (Thus securing 25 bonus points, or 50 if Sep Blatter
> > was in the building).
>
> Er, uh, I wasn't agreeing with that part, just the idea that, once the
> race was over, the results should stand. *Maybe there could be 24 or 48
> hours to review post-finish line test results or something like that,
> but there needs to be a limit. *Years later is just ridiculous,
> particularly in light of the fact that any benefits a rider gets from
> having won a race will already have been received, and any benefits the
> former second place finisher might receive from being changed to winner
> status simply don't exist years after. *In short, absolutely no end is
> served by nullifying a race result 5 years after, save someone's Puritan
> agenda.
>
> -S-- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

what about stall and delay tactics ? or the time it takes for a lab to
test all the samples (remember not just the top 3 are provided to help
ensure anonymity) ? and use of newly found peds for which tests haven
t been developed or accepted ?

they still charge people for murder comitted 30 years ago when
fingerprints match

Fred Flintstein

February 16th 12, 05:07 PM

On 2/16/2012 9:52 AM, raamman wrote:
> On Feb 15, 9:43 am, "Steve > wrote:
>> atriage wrote:
>>> On 13/02/2012 18:19, Steve Freides wrote:
>>>> Fred Flintstein wrote:
>>>>> I remember seeing a picture of a past NFL championship game, the
>>>>> play where the winning touchdown was scored. In the picture one
>>>>> of the players on the winning team is clearly shown committing a
>>>>> foul which the officials missed. But a penalty should have been
>>>>> called and the winning touchdown called back.
>>
>>>>> This business of race finishes being malleable more than a decade
>>>>> after the fact is evidence that it is time to call in an air
>>>>> strike on the UCI headquarters in Lausanne. We are lucky that
>>>>> cycling is the only sport they are allowed to screw up.
>>
>>>> When it's over, it's over.
>>
>>> It definitely would be for the UCI after an air strike on Lausanne,
>>> thinking about it if the said strike had a yield in the region of 25
>>> megatons it would have the advantage of removing the FIFA HQ in
>>> Zurich as well. (Thus securing 25 bonus points, or 50 if Sep Blatter
>>> was in the building).
>>
>> Er, uh, I wasn't agreeing with that part, just the idea that, once the
>> race was over, the results should stand. Maybe there could be 24 or 48
>> hours to review post-finish line test results or something like that,
>> but there needs to be a limit. Years later is just ridiculous,
>> particularly in light of the fact that any benefits a rider gets from
>> having won a race will already have been received, and any benefits the
>> former second place finisher might receive from being changed to winner
>> status simply don't exist years after. In short, absolutely no end is
>> served by nullifying a race result 5 years after, save someone's Puritan
>> agenda.
>>
>> -S-- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> what about stall and delay tactics ? or the time it takes for a lab to
> test all the samples (remember not just the top 3 are provided to help
> ensure anonymity) ? and use of newly found peds for which tests haven
> t been developed or accepted ?
>
> they still charge people for murder comitted 30 years ago when
> fingerprints match

I'm not positive about this, but I'm pretty sure murder is a crime.
That's a pretty significant difference from doping in a bike race.

F

Steve Freides[_2_]

February 16th 12, 05:56 PM

Fred Flintstein wrote:

>> what about stall and delay tactics ? or the time it takes for a lab
>> to test all the samples (remember not just the top 3 are provided to
>> help ensure anonymity) ? and use of newly found peds for which tests
>> haven t been developed or accepted ?
>>
>> they still charge people for murder comitted 30 years ago when
>> fingerprints match
>
> I'm not positive about this, but I'm pretty sure murder is a crime.
> That's a pretty significant difference from doping in a bike race.
>
> F

Fred, you display ownage of this issue - rock on, seriously. The whole
thing is starting to feel like, well, America's drug war.

-S-

Simply Fred

February 16th 12, 07:45 PM

raamman wrote:
>>> they still charge people for murder comitted 30 years ago when
>>> fingerprints match

Fred Flintstein wrote:
>> I'm not positive about this, but I'm pretty sure murder is a crime.
>> That's a pretty significant difference from doping in a bike race.

Steve Freides wrote:
> Fred, you display ownage of this issue - rock on, seriously. The whole
> thing is starting to feel like, well, America's drug war.

In which case Reagan can be exhumed to be Captain Zombie Amerika.

Frederick the Great

February 17th 12, 09:16 PM

In article
>,
raamman > wrote:

> On Feb 15, 9:43Â*am, "Steve Freides" > wrote:
> > atriage wrote:
> > > On 13/02/2012 18:19, Steve Freides wrote:
> > >> Fred Flintstein wrote:
> > >>> I remember seeing a picture of a past NFL championship game, the
> > >>> play where the winning touchdown was scored. In the picture one
> > >>> of the players on the winning team is clearly shown committing a
> > >>> foul which the officials missed. But a penalty should have been
> > >>> called and the winning touchdown called back.
> >
> > >>> This business of race finishes being malleable more than a decade
> > >>> after the fact is evidence that it is time to call in an air
> > >>> strike on the UCI headquarters in Lausanne. We are lucky that
> > >>> cycling is the only sport they are allowed to screw up.
> >
> > >> When it's over, it's over.
> >
> > > It definitely would be for the UCI after an air strike on Lausanne,
> > > thinking about it if the said strike had a yield in the region of 25
> > > megatons it would have the advantage of removing the FIFA HQ in
> > > Zurich as well. (Thus securing 25 bonus points, or 50 if Sep Blatter
> > > was in the building).
> >
> > Er, uh, I wasn't agreeing with that part, just the idea that, once the
> > race was over, the results should stand. Â*Maybe there could be 24 or 48
> > hours to review post-finish line test results or something like that,
> > but there needs to be a limit. Â*Years later is just ridiculous,
> > particularly in light of the fact that any benefits a rider gets from
> > having won a race will already have been received, and any benefits the
> > former second place finisher might receive from being changed to winner
> > status simply don't exist years after. Â*In short, absolutely no end is
> > served by nullifying a race result 5 years after, save someone's Puritan
> > agenda.
>
> what about stall and delay tactics ? or the time it takes for a lab to
> test all the samples (remember not just the top 3 are provided to help
> ensure anonymity) ? and use of newly found peds for which tests haven
> t been developed or accepted ?
>
> they still charge people for murder comitted 30 years ago when
> fingerprints match

Murder is the only crime that
has no statute of limitations.
Taking dope is not a crime, not
even for a bicycle race.

--
Old Fritz