"I never tested positive."

Ag2r's Francisco Mancebo, one of those ejected: "I consider myself innocent
and I have never tested positive. I'm just going to see how this all evolves
now. I'm sick of this world, I am going to hang to my bike up."
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2213

New excuses are needed Francisco.

B. Lafferty wrote:
I'm sick of this world, I am going to hang to my bike up."

Oh dear, should we call a suicide watch?

B. Lafferty wrote:
Ag2r's Francisco Mancebo, one of those ejected: "I consider myself innocent
and I have never tested positive. I'm just going to see how this all evolves
now. I'm sick of this world, I am going to hang to my bike up."
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2213

New excuses are needed Francisco.

The whole "I never tested positive" concept is interesting, in that it
implies that it's not cheating if you don't get caught. While some of
us view cheating as cheating, some folks, in fact some cultures, only
see cheating as dishonorable if you're not very good at it. For some,
it's an integral part of how they approach life in general and sport in
particular. In fact, for some it's honorable to be able to cheat
undetected.

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
k.net...
Ag2r's Francisco Mancebo, one of those ejected: "I consider myself
innocent and I have never tested positive. I'm just going to see how
this all evolves now. I'm sick of this world, I am going to hang to my
bike up."
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2213

New excuses are needed Francisco.

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" The presumption of
guilt and the corresponding need to prove innocence, however seemingly
justifiable given the circumstances, are still wrong. If he has not
tested positive and he has not been proven guilty of an offense, he is
entitled to be assumed innocent, in my opinion.

-S-

Scott wrote:

The whole "I never tested positive" concept is interesting, in that it
implies that it's not cheating if you don't get caught. While some of
us view cheating as cheating, some folks, in fact some cultures, only
see cheating as dishonorable if you're not very good at it. For some,
it's an integral part of how they approach life in general and sport in
particular. In fact, for some it's honorable to be able to cheat
undetected.

Well, we are talking about a sport where riders hang on to support
vehicles, take unauthorized feeds, throw elbows and more in sprints,
and sell results... naturally it's a sport dominated by Italians and
Belgians...

In article .com,
wrote:

Scott wrote:

The whole "I never tested positive" concept is interesting, in that it
implies that it's not cheating if you don't get caught. While some of
us view cheating as cheating, some folks, in fact some cultures, only
see cheating as dishonorable if you're not very good at it. For some,
it's an integral part of how they approach life in general and sport in
particular. In fact, for some it's honorable to be able to cheat
undetected.

Well, we are talking about a sport where riders hang on to support
vehicles, take unauthorized feeds, throw elbows and more in sprints,
and sell results... naturally it's a sport dominated by Italians and
Belgians...

Well, there is such a concept as gamesmanship, and also, the spirit of
the sport.

To give an example from hockey, fighting is penalized by a 5-minute
sit-down. You don't get ejected, you don't get sanctioned. Indeed, there
are circumstances in which the etiquette of the game would demand that
two players fight (ie if one player goons your star player, then the
toughest guy on the ice from your team is expected to skate up and drop
gloves. If the goon doesn't reciprocate, it's VERY bad manners, with
consequences akin to perpetually not working in a breakaway).

In cycling, getting a water-bottle ride is, within reason, not a serious
offense. It's a question, largely, of whether you are a contender for GC
placing. Similarly, you're all but expected to draft your way through
the support caravan.

On the other hand, flicking a rider is a pretty grave thing to do.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Scott a critics :
B. Lafferty wrote:

Ag2r's Francisco Mancebo, one of those ejected: "I consider myself innocent
and I have never tested positive. I'm just going to see how this all evolves
now. I'm sick of this world, I am going to hang to my bike up."
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2213

New excuses are needed Francisco.


The whole "I never tested positive" concept is interesting, in that it
implies that it's not cheating if you don't get caught. While some of
us view cheating as cheating, some folks, in fact some cultures, only
see cheating as dishonorable if you're not very good at it. For some,
it's an integral part of how they approach life in general and sport in
particular. In fact, for some it's honorable to be able to cheat
undetected.


How does this grab you : a person is guilty when the proper authority
proves a set of facts adequate to convince a tribunal that the accused
has committed a specified offense. And, conversely, the same person is
considered innocent if the proper authority fails in this proof. Apply
it to yourself, in your own life, for anything people may have wrongly
accused you of. Do you consider yourself innocent ? Or do you prefer
"angelic" ?

Steve Freides a écrit :
"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
k.net...

Ag2r's Francisco Mancebo, one of those ejected: "I consider myself
innocent and I have never tested positive. I'm just going to see how
this all evolves now. I'm sick of this world, I am going to hang to my
bike up."
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2213

New excuses are needed Francisco.


What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" The presumption of
guilt and the corresponding need to prove innocence, however seemingly
justifiable given the circumstances, are still wrong. If he has not
tested positive and he has not been proven guilty of an offense, he is
entitled to be assumed innocent, in my opinion.

-S-



One thing to face : that most times, popular opinion is that charges are
enough to determine guilt. The logic being, that a prosecutor wouldn't
waste time unless the proof were there. Really. That's how real life
works. In court and out.

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:18:57 -0400, "Steve Freides"
wrote:

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" The presumption of
guilt and the corresponding need to prove innocence, however seemingly
justifiable given the circumstances, are still wrong. If he has not
tested positive and he has not been proven guilty of an offense, he is
entitled to be assumed innocent, in my opinion.

Forget that idea, presume everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) is as guilty
as f*ck. It saves a hell of a lot of time, money, effort and debate.

There was a time, maybe 10-15 years ago when I thought testing might
improve to such a level only the truly clean riders would succeed. How
wrong I was.


--

"Sandy" wrote in message
...
Scott a critics :
B. Lafferty wrote:

Ag2r's Francisco Mancebo, one of those ejected: "I consider myself
innocent
and I have never tested positive. I'm just going to see how this all
evolves
now. I'm sick of this world, I am going to hang to my bike up."
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2213

New excuses are needed Francisco.


The whole "I never tested positive" concept is interesting, in that it
implies that it's not cheating if you don't get caught. While some of
us view cheating as cheating, some folks, in fact some cultures, only
see cheating as dishonorable if you're not very good at it. For some,
it's an integral part of how they approach life in general and sport in
particular. In fact, for some it's honorable to be able to cheat
undetected.


How does this grab you : a person is guilty when the proper authority
proves a set of facts adequate to convince a tribunal that the accused has
committed a specified offense. And, conversely, the same person is
considered innocent if the proper authority fails in this proof. Apply it
to yourself, in your own life, for anything people may have wrongly
accused you of. Do you consider yourself innocent ? Or do you prefer
"angelic" ?

Can't I be both?