"Curtis L. Russell" a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
On Thu, 24 May 2007 20:18:29 +0200, Montesquiou wrote:


I agree with the idea of the amnesty for the drug takers as soon as the
cheaters give the stolen money back.

To who? The promoters that knew that cheating was rampant and made the
real money from it? The next racer who may or may not have been
cheating? Our Little Sisters of Mercy who, as far as I know, have not
been tested, period?

Put a statute of limitations on the infraction for penalties within
the sport - the UCI will have no impact on some prosecutor with
evidence of a real crime. Don't change it. Let everyone know that
after a certain date, they can talk until they are blue in the face
and history remains history and not subject to any official discussion
- leave the past to the historians and the books.

That way you don't have self-serving confessions or the issue of
confessions threading the needle to avoid implicating friends.
Everyone wants WADA and UCI to focus on the future? That is simply a
matter of making the decision to do so. Since they are the same people
that will have to sign off on this 'amnesty', the amnesty really isn't
needed.

And the other problem with amnesties is that they're like potato chips
- if they work at all, you won't have just one.

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

Curtis,

Let say that I agree with you. My post was a little bit 'ironic'.
Amnesty never solved any problem. It is a recompense for the cheater and
inequity for the innocents.