The Presumption of Innocence No Longer Exists

wrote in message
oups.com...

Rules are rules pal. If you want the quiet life, be a Bus Driver. if
you want to win the TDF clean, take the tests.

Indeed and fascist are forever fascists.

You just cannot face the truth can you

What truth is that?

On Jul 26, 1:59 pm, "Sandy" wrote:
Dans le message groups.com,
SLAVE of THE STATE a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

On Jul 26, 10:03 am, Dan Connelly
wrote:

Drug use rules are just a subset of a greater body of sporting
rules. Fairness is preferred, but don't hold them to the standard
of criminal justice.

I agree with what you said, but that knife has two sides. I mean,
there likewise isn't the need for any presumption of innocence (until
proven guilty) as in the criminal case.

Bike racing is a matter of consent. Living under a guvmint legal
system isn't.

When will the amateur Perry Masons give up, finally ?!

The initial presumption in most situations, criminal or not, is of guilt,
culpability, responsibility, whatever.

You missed the point. You didn't address Dan's idea that "standards
for criminal conviction in a just legal system" are higher. Instead,
you just nitpicked about the language "presumption of innocence,"
which regardless of its technical precision, is a shorthand for what
people will understand as a need for accusers to provide compelling
proof to convict.

Getting booted from bike racing does not result in a loss of freedom
as conviction of criminal behavior can. Paricipation is by consent,
including getting tested. This doesn't mean that contracts should not
be adhered to, or that the governing body in a consensual professional
sport should not adhere to the rules it claims it will play by. If
there are violations of contract, then it does certainly move towards
legal responsibilty if harm can be shown.

Dans le message de
ups.com,
SLAVE of THE STATE a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
On Jul 26, 1:59 pm, "Sandy" wrote:
Dans le message
groups.com, SLAVE
of THE STATE a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

On Jul 26, 10:03 am, Dan Connelly
wrote:

Drug use rules are just a subset of a greater body of sporting
rules. Fairness is preferred, but don't hold them to the standard
of criminal justice.

I agree with what you said, but that knife has two sides. I mean,
there likewise isn't the need for any presumption of innocence
(until proven guilty) as in the criminal case.

Bike racing is a matter of consent. Living under a guvmint legal
system isn't.

When will the amateur Perry Masons give up, finally ?!

The initial presumption in most situations, criminal or not, is of
guilt, culpability, responsibility, whatever.

You missed the point. You didn't address Dan's idea that "standards
for criminal conviction in a just legal system" are higher. Instead,
you just nitpicked about the language "presumption of innocence,"
which regardless of its technical precision, is a shorthand for what
people will understand as a need for accusers to provide compelling
proof to convict.

There is no actively operating JUST legal system, and criminal conviction in
the existing ones varies so much you would have trouble identifying the
varieties. But you don't get my point - you don't get to mumbling about
justice until you have passed the primitive, mostly accurate way of
assigning culpability - that something wrong was done by someone
identifiable. Justice is a cool concept that ends as the umbilicus is rent.

Getting booted from bike racing does not result in a loss of freedom
as conviction of criminal behavior can. Paricipation is by consent,
including getting tested. This doesn't mean that contracts should not
be adhered to, or that the governing body in a consensual professional
sport should not adhere to the rules it claims it will play by. If
there are violations of contract, then it does certainly move towards
legal responsibilty if harm can be shown.

Why should a contract be honored? Do you really think that all the
litigation in courts over big money is about honorable people mutually
seeking prosperity? I began in court, and my first lesson was that the
brainiest lawyers from the most prestigious firms put out contracts that get
litigated.

And if you think that exchanging ILLEGAL promises (about 30% of the UCI form
contract for rider and pro team) is a good idea to defend, you are one of
the insiders benefitting, whether that's as organizer, regulator, sponsor,
management, rider or employee.

PS: levels of proof are a gas - get some impressions from jurors how well
they understood or applied those rules.

"Sandy" writes:


Prudhomme is an offensive prig, who wants to say that accusation is good
enough - no need to sink or swim in a river of truth. And, of course, his
word is golden, just as he said this was the year of renewal, a clean tour,
etc., etc.

Tour de France with thumbscrews, yeah, that's coming up next.


Hey right on. I never thought until you just mentioned it

But if we turn the clock back a few hundred years we have Trial by
Water, Trial by Fire and Trial by Combat.

The Trial by Combat is interesting. And could have been very easily
implemented by letting Rasmussen continue to the end of the Tour.

If he won he would be Innocent and McBoggy and Prudhomme and the
RobberBank ******s accusing him could be burnt at the Stake

And with his lack of fat, there's a good chance that he would sink - a
presumption of innocence in Trial by Water

--
Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply
-
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate,
tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds
of men." --Samuel Adams

Morten Reippuert writes:


I noticed that as well. Dekker the elder supported him too, and help
him get a way from the hotel, stayed with him for an hour on the other
hotel.
There is an interview with Rasmussen in tomorrws Berlingske Tidende
http://berlingske.dk where he says that he has contacted a layer
today.

Apperantly ASO did put a lot more pressuere on Rabobank than what
their are admitting. Secondly it seems that the sponsor pulled the
plug after the pressconference tuesday didn't turn the media arround.
The Cassani story seems to be the opetunity Theo de Roy was looking
for.

Right on

Davey smells a Rat here

There's much more to this than meets the eye

Rasmussen has been shamelessly treated

--
Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply

On Jul 26, 6:37 pm, "Sandy" wrote:
Dans le message roups.com,
SLAVE of THE STATE a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

On Jul 26, 1:59 pm, "Sandy" wrote:
Dans le message
groups.com, SLAVE
of THE STATE a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

On Jul 26, 10:03 am, Dan Connelly
wrote:

Drug use rules are just a subset of a greater body of sporting
rules. Fairness is preferred, but don't hold them to the standard
of criminal justice.

I agree with what you said, but that knife has two sides. I mean,
there likewise isn't the need for any presumption of innocence
(until proven guilty) as in the criminal case.

Bike racing is a matter of consent. Living under a guvmint legal
system isn't.

When will the amateur Perry Masons give up, finally ?!

The initial presumption in most situations, criminal or not, is of
guilt, culpability, responsibility, whatever.

You missed the point. You didn't address Dan's idea that "standards
for criminal conviction in a just legal system" are higher. Instead,
you just nitpicked about the language "presumption of innocence,"
which regardless of its technical precision, is a shorthand for what
people will understand as a need for accusers to provide compelling
proof to convict.

There is no actively operating JUST legal system, and criminal conviction in
the existing ones varies so much you would have trouble identifying the
varieties.

No ****, but I don't have time for that. So there's where the
shorthand and broad brushstrokes come in.

But you don't get my point - you don't get to mumbling about
justice until you have passed the primitive, mostly accurate way of
assigning culpability - that something wrong was done by someone
identifiable. Justice is a cool concept that ends as the umbilicus is rent.

In article ,
"Sandy" wrote:

Dans le message de
oups.com,
SLAVE of THE STATE a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
On Jul 26, 10:03 am, Dan Connelly
wrote:

Drug use rules are just a subset of a greater body of sporting
rules. Fairness is preferred, but don't hold them to the standard
of criminal justice.


I agree with what you said, but that knife has two sides. I mean,
there likewise isn't the need for any presumption of innocence (until
proven guilty) as in the criminal case.

Bike racing is a matter of consent. Living under a guvmint legal
system isn't.

When will the amateur Perry Masons give up, finally ?!

The initial presumption in most situations, criminal or not, is of guilt,
culpability, responsibility, whatever.

"Hey! I just saw, from five feet away, a guy I know - the defendant here -
stab this other guy to death." Witness is yours to examine, defense
counsel...

What polite civilizations have done is to give the dirty ******* a chance to
prove this initial and strong impression wrong. That kindness, a
superfluity in so many instances, is NOT natural logic, law or order. It
does, however, allow the accused to make a positive defense case, or gamble
that an inadequate level of proof will let the conscience of the accusers
and judges and society at large be calmed. Then you hang the dirty *******,
as you could have done much earlier, but now you have pious declarations of
fair play to make it perfectly right and just.

I was a prospective juror in a capital murder case. I
wanted to send a note to the defense counsel. "Tell you
client to stop shooting filthy looks at the prospective
jurors." As a matter of fact I start from an honest
position or presumption of innocence. But I would
happily jail an obvious malefactor for shooting me
filthy looks.

So, given generations of inept inquisitors and the talents of brothers and
sisters at law, the accuser accuses much too early, invents good looking and
false proof, and the circus takes place on another plane of another reality.

Ask 100 potential jurors if they will apply this presumption of innocence,
and the cultural mandate will make most of them say "yes". Ask them,
differently, why they think the accused is going to trial, and most of them
will admit that they think "he _must_ have done something wrong."

Prudhomme is an offensive prig, who wants to say that accusation is good
enough - no need to sink or swim in a river of truth. And, of course, his
word is golden, just as he said this was the year of renewal, a clean tour,
etc., etc.

Tour de France with thumbscrews, yeah, that's coming up next.

--
Michael Press

On Jul 26, 12:03 pm, Dan Connelly
wrote:
Bike Mike wrote:
The entire program of drug testing, especially out of season, could be
said to go against the presumption of innocence. And yet there is
nothing unfair about it.

If an official claims rider # 142 crossed the center line and is DQ'ed, that's it, rider # 142 is DQ'ed. There's no trial. No presumption of innocence.

Drug use rules are just a subset of a greater body of sporting rules. Fairness is preferred, but don't hold them to the standard of criminal justice.

Dan

Criminal justice it is; Italy has prosecuted several athletes on
charges of sporting fraud. As the Versus crew was pontificating, I was
considering cyclists to be "on the job", just like other working
stiffs. Workplace rules are very similar to the UCI/WADA doping rules
- essentially, by accepting a job, the employee leaves the Bill of
Rights at the door. Add the Patriot Act(I know I'm stretching here)
and corporations, as proxies for the government, become virtual
private law enforcement agencies. Just as in the US, the current UCI
ruling regime is more concerned with maintaining order than in the
rule of law. The UCI, National sport governing bodies, et al. can all
say "look how tough on crime we are" while sport crumbles away around
them. Unfortunately, an adversarial system would not be an
improvement. Fairness indeed. Rasmussen was done in by a TV reporter
who claimed to have spotted the cyclist training in the Dolomites. All
Rabobank would have had to do was look at Rasmussen's passport stamps.
If he really went to Mexico, he would have had visa entry and exit
stamps. The EU allows citizens of member countries to work throughout
the EU, but they still get stamps on their passports(as far as I know.
I could be wrong) but they don't need to apply for visas to go back
and forth. Rasmussen did miss two mandatory out of competition tests -
enough to have Denmark yank him from the National Team, but not enough
for the UCI to take action. Does farting in church now lead to
excommunication?

Stay Cool,
Tom P.

Davey Crockett wrote:



Davey smells a Rat here

There's much more to this than meets the eye

Yea, like enforcing the rule that you cant start in the TdF if you
missed a dope test in the 45 days prior to the start.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2007...ul07/jul27news

Rasmussen has been shamelessly treated

TdF and cycling fans have been ruthlessly victimized.

Revtom wrote:
stamps. The EU allows citizens of member countries to work throughout
the EU, but they still get stamps on their passports(as far as I know.

No stamps.


--
E. Dronkert