question; if landis is cleared

if landis is cleared by the uci due to his defense, would you welcome
him as the tdf champion to start next years tdf ?


(meaning, as a fan of pro cycling, would you in your heart like to see
him start in yellow or would you be grumbling that he is the cheat that
got away ?)

to be honest, that even if he is cleared, I would most likely think the
latter...because, if innocent, you would say the test is wrong because
I did not cheat- instead of offering various explanations as to why the
test could be wrong as he did; he is just a cyclist, not a scientist,
why was he providing theories as to what caused his abnormal test
results ?

wrote:
if landis is cleared by the uci due to his defense, would you welcome
him as the tdf champion to start next years tdf ?


(meaning, as a fan of pro cycling, would you in your heart like to see
him start in yellow or would you be grumbling that he is the cheat that
got away ?)

to be honest, that even if he is cleared, I would most likely think the
latter...because, if innocent, you would say the test is wrong because
I did not cheat- instead of offering various explanations as to why the
test could be wrong as he did; he is just a cyclist, not a scientist,
why was he providing theories as to what caused his abnormal test
results ?

He HAS said the test is wrong, that he did not cheat. I consider him to
be the winner regardless of the outcome. I just don't trust the test.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

If FDR fought fascism the way Bush fights terrorism, we'd all be
speaking German now.

in message .com,
') wrote:

if landis is cleared by the uci due to his defense, would you welcome
him as the tdf champion to start next years tdf ?

Yes, of course.

(meaning, as a fan of pro cycling, would you in your heart like to see
him start in yellow or would you be grumbling that he is the cheat that
got away ?)

Look, we now have a very serious problem with doping.

The problem is no longer that some riders take dope, although that is a
serious problem in itself. The much more serious problem is that some
organisations now have so much political investment in traducing as cheats
the champions of other organisations that we can no longer take at face
value any accusation of cheating. Landis is essentially collateral damage
in the struggle for power between the UCI and the ASO. If the UCI ever
were interested in the truth of the matter, they aren't now, partly
because if Landis were to be found not guilty it would leave ASO with a
potentially popular champion, and partly because they have done so much
harm with their unethical early leak of the allegation that there will be
real and serious consequences for the UCI as an organisation if Landis is
not found guilty.

Perhaps Landis cheated. If so, it is serious. But it is not nearly as
serious as Pat McQuaid's and Dick Pound's efforts to destroy a rider in
order to win a political victory. Given that the water is now so muddy I
think we have very little choice but give Landis the benefit of the doubt.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
; gif ye hes forget our auld plane Scottis quhilk your mother lerit you,
; in tymes cuming I sall wryte to you my mind in Latin, for I am nocht
; acquyntit with your Southeron
;; Letter frae Ninian Winyet tae John Knox datit 27t October 1563

Simon Brooke wrote:
real and serious consequences for the UCI as an organisation if Landis is
not found guilty.

Hah!

--
E. Dronkert

Simon Brooke wrote:

Look, we now have a very serious problem with doping.

My take on it is: we now have a very serious problem with bad rules and
bad enforcement, and really really bad enforcers.

The problem is no longer that some riders take dope, although that is a
serious problem in itself. The much more serious problem is that some
organisations now have so much political investment in traducing as cheats
the champions of other organisations that we can no longer take at face
value any accusation of cheating.

Pound has needed ousting for a good long time, at least since the
Marion Jones affair.

Perhaps Landis cheated. If so, it is serious. But it is not nearly as
serious as Pat McQuaid's and Dick Pound's efforts to destroy a rider in
order to win a political victory. Given that the water is now so muddy I
think we have very little choice but give Landis the benefit of the doubt.

"Give me a reader in here that can find this guy guilty!" --D-y

wrote:
because, if innocent, you would say the test is wrong because
I did not cheat- instead of offering various explanations as to why the
test could be wrong as he did; he is just a cyclist, not a scientist,
why was he providing theories as to what caused his abnormal test
results ?

Caught in the glare of the media spotlight, with reporters hammering
away at you yelling "Did you cheat?", "You think the test is at
fault?", "If you didn't cheat why did the test come back positive?" and
so forth and so on - asking variations of the same question hundreds of
times - most people start to babble, and I think Landis did just that.


Subject to that kind of media scrutiny (media hounding?), with cameras
pointing at them and microphones in their faces, most folks are
uncomfortable saying "I don't know" and they're uncomfortable with
their own silence.

Simon Brooke wrote:
real and serious consequences for the UCI as an organisation if Landis is
not found guilty.

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
Hah!

What's Hah in Dutch ? Flemish ?

Donald Munro wrote:
Simon Brooke wrote:
real and serious consequences for the UCI as an organisation if Landis is
not found guilty.

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
Hah!

What's Hah in Dutch ? Flemish ?

"I believe it when I see it."

--
E. Dronkert

wrote:
if landis is cleared by the uci due to his defense, would you welcome
him as the tdf champion to start next years tdf ?

Dumbass,

Why not? We've welcomed the dopers back every other year.

wrote in message
s.com...

if landis is cleared by the uci due to his defense, would you welcome
him as the tdf champion to start next years tdf ?

Dumbass,

Why not? We've welcomed the dopers back every other year.


Who is "we"?