|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"I never tested positive."
In article
, Ryan Cousineau wrote: 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). I will go further. Fighting in ice hockey is healthy. Even then nutting is illegal and is sanctioned, beyond the coincidental five minute major penalty. -- Michael Press |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"I never tested positive."
In article ,
Michael Press wrote: In article , Ryan Cousineau wrote: 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). I will go further. Fighting in ice hockey is healthy. Even then nutting is illegal and is sanctioned, beyond the coincidental five minute major penalty. Absolutely. Indeed, it's generally seen as a practical, non-dangerous way to settle disputes when the gentlemen in question are out there with skates and sticks. On the other hand, diving in hockey, though it happens, is considered by most fans to be an utterly classless move. The NHL has made some effort to get rid of it, mainly through calling penalties on divers (or, in one of the most confusing plays in sport, the same incident can lead to one player getting a penalty for tripping/hooking/interference, and the other player getting a penalty for the dive). As far as I can tell from watching the World Cup, they must give a best supporting actor award at the season-end banquet. *** I hope the feeling in cycling is moving towards the idea that doping is an outre activity, and not 2 minutes for doping. -- 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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"I never tested positive."
Steve Freides a écrit :
"Gunsberg" wrote in message oups.com... Guilty until proven innocent is an essential concept--when dealing with crimnal cases where the defendant faces santions by the State. It is morally obtuse to assert that everybody is entitles to a presumption of innocence all of the time, even when facing non-criminal penalties from team owners or race organizers. I disagree. The bigger the consequences, the more important it is to be certain. The fact that the penalties are non-criminal means nothing here. -S- Are you under the impression that the guarda civil is not pursuing criminal prosecutions ? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"I never tested positive."
in message , Steve Freides
') wrote: "Mark" wrote in message ... Steve Freides wrote: There are places where appearances matter, e.g., politics - I know politicians sometimes can't do their jobs effectively if they are under suspicion of wrongdoing, even if nothing's been proven. But this is not that, and these guys could race. If we view the racers as product endorsers (they do have corporate names displayed all over their racing kit), their profession might qualify as one in which appearances matter. So they can lose their endorsement deals, but they still should be able to race, IMHO. So, "you can race round France for a month if you like, but you won't get paid and you'll have to pay your own masseurs, mechanics and team car drivers, and your hotel bills and food and petrol for the cars and..." Might be realistic if this was an individual sport, but it's not. Nor could it be. If every rider had his own support car the caravan would be even more chaotic; and, in any case, the emergence of the team system merely formalised the realities of road racing - a bunch of guys working together do better than individuals competing all the time. In a team where everyone dopes, of course, the riders could club together to pay their mechanics and drivers... until the money runs out. -- (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ ...but have you *seen* the size of the world wide spider? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"I never tested positive."
in message , Steve Freides
') wrote: This is a good point, but in my opinion, the concept of that agreement is flawed as well. Â*What is to stop a malicious person from creating "evidence", calling a press conference, and derailing an opportunity for a professional cyclist to compete. Â*How do we know, e.g., that the list of names found isn't a list of people they're planning to contact but haven't yet - or any of a milliion other possible explanations? I have not learned the particulars, and it may well be that the evidence is damning, but I would like to see what this evidence is. Again, just my opinion. Â*I find it difficult to believe the likes of Ulrich and Basso would throw away their chance at a TdF win, two different guys from two different teams, that they would have this same "Spanish connection" in common. Â*Just difficult for me to accept based on what I've heard to date. That's what's bothering me. It would be /extremely/ easy to manufacture false 'evidence' against the cyclists. It could well be that this whole thing is a betting fraud. The fact that it's /such/ a clean sweep of the people who were favourites a year ago is suspicious in itself. As I understand it, all the evidence against Basso that's been revealed so far is that the name of /his/ /dog/ was found written on the back of a business card, and the evidence against Ullrich is that 'Rudy's boy' has been found written on a blood bag. So if this is a fraud, Fuentes will be able to turn round later and say with a straight face 'no, of course Basso and Ullrich weren't involved, I never suggested they were'. If this is a fraud, I find it extremely hard to see what Fuentes could be charged with - is it illegal to keep 200 bags of blood? /Presumably/ the Guardia Civil have done DNA analysis on the contents of the bags, and certainly the UCI have samples of blood from all the cyclists against which those DNA analyses could be matched, and I assume by now someone has done this. But I wish someone would stand up and say "yes, definitely, three of the 200 bags contain [Basso|Ullrich]'s blood", or, conversely, "no, definitely, we have not found any trace of [Basso|Ullrich]'s blood here." Of course, if the word on the street a year ago was 'if you want to win you have to see Fuentes - he's expensive but he's the best there is' then you would, sadly, expect to see all the most ambitious and best paid dopers going to him, so I don't find the idea that '...two different guys from two different teams...' should go to the same blood doping clinic surprising in itself. -- (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ ;; An enamorata is for life, not just for weekends. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"I never tested positive."
That's what's bothering me. It would be /extremely/ easy to manufacture
false 'evidence' against the cyclists. So if all / some riders are found not guilty, would they have any legal recourse against UCI / ASO / Spanish police for the presumption of guilt without a trial and so onto loss of earnings etc. I think a well publisized legal case against these entities would stop the guilty by innuendo that we currently have, this would hopefully lead to a situation where there are no smear campaigns but actual facts to prosecute with. I do find it a little suspicious that this always seems to start a week or so before the TDF. J |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"I never tested positive."
in message , news.absamail.co.za
') wrote: in message , Simon Brooke ') wrote: That's what's bothering me. It would be /extremely/ easy to manufacture false 'evidence' against the cyclists. So if all / some riders are found not guilty, would they have any legal recourse against UCI / ASO / Spanish police for the presumption of guilt without a trial and so onto loss of earnings etc. I don't see why, sadly. le Tour is ASO's party. You can't make them invite you to their party, and if they do invite you and then withdraw the invitation, well tough. No-one has a /right/ to be invited. It is, essentially, a private event. I'm still hoping that some of the riders named will be found not guilty. I'm like a Christian. I /want/ to believe, against all the evidence. I know I'm clutching at straws. -- (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ ;; my other religion is Emacs |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"I never tested positive."
I don't see why, sadly. le Tour is ASO's party. You can't make them invite you to their party, and if they do invite you and then withdraw the invitation, well tough. No-one has a /right/ to be invited. It is, essentially, a private event. Mmmmmm.... don't know if it is a private party, the whole of cycling is controlled by the UCI, ASO runs under UCI rules, the riders run under UCI rules. But my bottom line is that riders are being /hurt/ by innuendo, no one that has been kicked out of this tour has had any way of defending himself. Surely there has to be some system in place for this, like someone said, perhaps this is a put up by the bookies, now all that money placed on the big names is theirs. I think the system needs to be challenged so that we get to a point where a rider does not suffer any sanction until the allegations have been tested in court. Jean |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"I never tested positive."
it says as much or just add very little?
it's interesting all of them, including lance, always say: "i never tested positive" instead of an enphatic: "i've never taken performance enhancing drugs" "Snippy Bobkins" wrote in message news:BScpg.85746$I61.76880@clgrps13... "B. Lafferty" wrote in message k.net... Ag2r's Francisco Mancebo, one of those ejected: "I consider myself innocent and I have never tested positive. I'm just going to see how this all evolves now. I'm sick of this world, I am going to hang to my bike up." http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2213 New excuses are needed Francisco. His I "consider myself" innocent says at least as much as the "I never tested positive." -- Snippy |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"I never tested positive."
"mimoso" wrote in message
news:HaTpg.116477$IK3.57640@pd7tw1no... it says as much or just add very little? it's interesting all of them, including lance, always say: "i never tested positive" instead of an enphatic: "i've never taken performance enhancing drugs" Lance has also said that but I don't feel like looking it up. -- Snippy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"I like your bike" | Michael | General | 13 | May 21st 06 06:03 AM |
21 tires tested | gerrit van wijk | Techniques | 1 | June 15th 04 02:10 AM |
Dope tests? | Merovingian | Racing | 4 | August 5th 03 10:21 PM |