If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...

On May 25, 4:00 pm, Doug Taylor wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:57:11 GMT, Bob Schwartz





wrote:

Even so, you don't flush someone with test results that
were improperly conducted. And you don't rig the process
so that you regularly hand out sanctions to innocent
people like they did with Beke, like they did with
Berasategui, like they did with Rodríguez, like they did
with Lund. The damage you do to the credibility of the
process extends way beyond the individual case. A lawyer
ought to understand that. Are you sure you're a lawyer?
Or do you just play one on TV.
The point of the Meese quote was that he felt that there
was no need for any protections because innocent people
aren't accused of crimes. That sailed completely over
your head. Very well. Once someone takes out a pro
license any accusation that anyone pulls out of their
ass is as good as gold and they should be banned. They
all do it, so testing positive for a pro license should
be enough.

I'm enough of a lawyer not to confuse US criminal law with WADA
hearing. Apples and oranges.

Yes, the athlete is presumed innocent and WADA has to prove its case,
but the standard is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the US
Constitution is 100% irrelevant. As are other athlete's cases. We'll
see how it plays out, but, yeah, my mind was made up in July 2006
listening to Floyd's lame excuses and non-explanations. He's guilty
as sin.

Meanwhile, I'm enough of a normal citizen to be outraged and disgusted
that one pampered athlete who can't take responsibility for his own
actions engages high paid suits and throws innocent people under the
bus in the process of turning a hearing on a positive drug test into a
media circus.

Which is what it is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That explains a lot.
What a contrast between Sandy who believes in justice, rational,
reasoned thought, and equitable treatment and someone who obviously
has a man crush on Alberto Gonzales.
Bill C

On May 25, 12:59 pm, "Sandy" wrote:
Dans le message ,
Doug Taylor a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Being a blue state intellectual snob lawyer, I'm smart enough to know
when to cite Miranda and when to read handriting on the wall.

sad

Everyone can serve as an example, as both of you do. Not much question
who I think is typical of the worst of the profession.
Bill C

In article
.
com,
Howard Kveck wrote:

Zabel did it, therefore Floyd *surely* did. Nice logic. I hope that you're one of
the jillions of people who ignore their jury summonses...

I did not know folks ignore the summons. What are the
consequences?

Not that I would ignore them. I show up in a suit, and
am so scrupulous and forthright that nobody wants
anything to do with me.

Once I filled out a prospective juror survey in a
capital murder case. It was a model of fair-mindedness
and rectitude. When I came in for voir dire nobody
asked me questions. The prosecutor got up and said that
counsel for defense and for prosecution excused me.

--
Michael Press

On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:00:10 -0400, Doug Taylor wrote:

On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:57:11 GMT, Bob Schwartz
wrote:


Even so, you don't flush someone with test results that
were improperly conducted. And you don't rig the process
so that you regularly hand out sanctions to innocent
people like they did with Beke, like they did with
Berasategui, like they did with Rodríguez, like they did
with Lund. The damage you do to the credibility of the
process extends way beyond the individual case. A lawyer
ought to understand that. Are you sure you're a lawyer?
Or do you just play one on TV.


The point of the Meese quote was that he felt that there
was no need for any protections because innocent people
aren't accused of crimes. That sailed completely over
your head. Very well. Once someone takes out a pro
license any accusation that anyone pulls out of their
ass is as good as gold and they should be banned. They
all do it, so testing positive for a pro license should
be enough.

I'm enough of a lawyer not to confuse US criminal law with WADA
hearing. Apples and oranges.

Yes, the athlete is presumed innocent and WADA has to prove its case,
but the standard is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the US
Constitution is 100% irrelevant. As are other athlete's cases. We'll
see how it plays out, but, yeah, my mind was made up in July 2006
listening to Floyd's lame excuses and non-explanations. He's guilty
as sin.

Meanwhile, I'm enough of a normal citizen to be outraged and disgusted
that one pampered athlete who can't take responsibility for his own
actions engages high paid suits and throws innocent people under the
bus in the process of turning a hearing on a positive drug test into a
media circus.

Which is what it is.

The main debate is when did it become a circus. My vote is when the ringmaster
said "we are publicly announcing this information that we aren't supposed to
because we're afraid it'll be leaked." Or whatever phrasing was used.

The clowns started piling out of the car to the tune of "with IRMS no error is
possible."

Ron

On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:41:53 -0700, Michael Press wrote:

In article
.
com,
Howard Kveck wrote:

Zabel did it, therefore Floyd *surely* did. Nice logic. I hope that you're one of
the jillions of people who ignore their jury summonses...

I did not know folks ignore the summons. What are the
consequences?

Not that I would ignore them. I show up in a suit, and
am so scrupulous and forthright that nobody wants
anything to do with me.

Once I filled out a prospective juror survey in a
capital murder case. It was a model of fair-mindedness
and rectitude. When I came in for voir dire nobody
asked me questions. The prosecutor got up and said that
counsel for defense and for prosecution excused me.

I make them use up a pre-emptive challenge. In criminal cases it'll be the
defense and in civil, the plaintiff.

Your problem is being obviously thoughtful and articulate. You present the
danger of being influential in deliberations. They don't like that.

Ron

Ron

Effect pedal demo's up at http://www.soundclick.com/ronsonicpedalry

On May 25, 6:14 am, Doug Taylor wrote:

Dumbass. I'm not on any jury, don't have any requirement to be
impartial, and don't even have to pretend I don't have a brain and
can't think critically.

Let's talk logic and statistics:

O.J. Simpson case: Married woman is murdered.
Statistical likelihood it was the husband: close to 100%

Floyd Landis case: Professional cyclist TESTS POSTIVE for dope.
Statistical likelihood the test was correct?

You tell me, retard.

Dumbass,

Bob Schwartz already more or less summed up my
position, but I'll just point out that you failed
to comprehend my last post. I am not a Landis
defender. I think he did something. But I also
think that the testing lab only marginally caught
him, and that they and the dope-testing authorities
are now forced into railroading him because they
cannot admit any sloppiness or error in their
procedures. As Bob alluded to, I've said many times
in rbr that even a guilty man can be framed.

Although this is not a US criminal law proceeding
and the standards of proof are different, someone
who supports the dope testing regimen as a means
to cleaning up doping should be disturbed by
irregularities in the procedure. It makes the process
useless as a clean-up instrument: you don't know
whether it catches the worst dopers, the unluckiest
dopers, or the unlucky whether doping or not (for ex
Beke, Berasategui, Zach Lund.) On the other hand,
if you know they're all dopers and it's only a question
of bringing in as many as the net can hold, qualms
like mine are irrelevant. Suspend 'em all and let
the sponsors sort it out; individual athletes are
replaceable. Up to a point.

Ben

In article
,
RonSonic wrote:

The main debate is when did it become a circus. My vote is when the ringmaster
said "we are publicly announcing this information that we aren't supposed to
because we're afraid it'll be leaked." Or whatever phrasing was used.

'Twas Paddy McQuart got out the news to preempt the
Chatenay-Malabry---l'Equipe axis.

"When Pat McQuaid, president of the International Cycling Union,
explained why the union leaked the initial news of Landis's
positive test, he said, "We know that the French laboratory has a
close connection with L'Equipe" - France's leading sports
newspaper - "and we did not want this news to come through the
press, because we are sure they would have leaked it." Labs are
not supposed to be able to identify samples or leak information.
This is a fundamental principle of ethical scientific testing."

Ah, ethics.

The clowns started piling out of the car to the tune of "with IRMS no error is
possible."

--
Michael Press

In article ,
Doug Taylor wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2007 23:33:33 -0700, Howard Kveck
wrote:

Zabel did it, therefore Floyd *surely* did. Nice logic. I hope that
you're one of
the jillions of people who ignore their jury summonses...

Dumbass. I'm not on any jury, don't have any requirement to be
impartial, and don't even have to pretend I don't have a brain and
can't think critically.

After reading a few of your posts on this, I'm really starting to agree with you
on those last two points (heh)...

Let's talk logic and statistics:

O.J. Simpson case: Married woman is murdered.
Statistical likelihood it was the husband: close to 100%

Floyd Landis case: Professional cyclist TESTS POSTIVE for dope.
Statistical likelihood the test was correct?

You tell me, retard.

As has been pointed out by multiple people, there are some good questions
regarding the accuracy of the tests or propriety of the procedures. As for whether or
not FL actually did take something, well, I'm not sure. But the issues with the tests
and procedures make me question the whole thing. I know you believe that the
arbitration procedure and a criminal case are "apples and oranges" but there are some
similarities. It is the defense's job not to show that their guy didn't do it but
that the case against them isn't good enough, for whatever reason. The idea that he's
been charged seems to be good enough for you (hence the Meese comments are apt). You
seem to like using the Simpson case as an example, so I'll do that too. Even though I
believe that OJ did kill two people, if I was on the jury, I would have voted to
acquit because the prosecution presented a case that was full of holes and didn't
rise to the level needed to convict.

You're really a lawyer? Wow.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:57:11 GMT, Bob Schwartz
wrote:


Dumbass,

I think he did it. What I don't think is that the test
performed by the lab proves he did it.

As bjw has pointed out many times, even guilty people
can be framed. If the test is not valid, even if he
totally ****ing did it, there is no proof that he did
it. That is something that you seem to be totally
unable to grasp.

If he totally ****ing did it - which is as obvious from the miraculous
performance and his inability to convincingly explain the test
results, even assuming your assertion that the test was invalid (which
is b.s.) - then he totally should ****ing admit it.

Instead, he hires slick lawyers TO GET HIM OFF, assassinating the
characters of innocent people in the process.

That is what sucks.

He is a guilty person milking the system, throwing anyone is his way
under the bus.

He is NOT an innocent person trying to prove his innocence.

That is something that you seem to be totally unable to grasp.

You're a dumbass.

Welcome to the club.

Doug Taylor wrote:
If he totally ****ing did it - which is as obvious from the miraculous
performance and his inability to convincingly explain the test
results, even assuming your assertion that the test was invalid (which
is b.s.) - then he totally should ****ing admit it.

If you're a defense lawyer then you must get totally ****ing no clients.