The Presumption of Innocence No Longer Exists

Esteemed Knuckleheads:

Patrice Clerc: "...the presumption of innocence no longer exists.
That's why we have to make sure we go all the way to achieve clarity.
This must be done to reinstate the right of a presumption of
innocence." (http://www.letour.fr/2007/TDF/LIVE/us/1700/
depeches.html)

Yikes.

Three words: military tribunal Gitmo.

Discuss.

I O N U S

writes:

Esteemed Knuckleheads:

Patrice Clerc: "...the presumption of innocence no longer exists.
That's why we have to make sure we go all the way to achieve clarity.
This must be done to reinstate the right of a presumption of
innocence." (http://www.letour.fr/2007/TDF/LIVE/us/1700/
depeches.html)

Yikes.

Three words: military tribunal Gitmo.

Discuss.


Hey, I just thought that we could add "Denunciation" as a reason for
Banning/Suspension/Termination_of_Contract/etc

It would make bike racing even more interesting

--
Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply
-
Official truths are sometimes powerful illusions,
more often downright lies

On Jul 26, 7:14 am, wrote:
Esteemed Knuckleheads:

Patrice Clerc: "...the presumption of innocence no longer exists.
That's why we have to make sure we go all the way to achieve clarity.
This must be done to reinstate the right of a presumption of
innocence." (http://www.letour.fr/2007/TDF/LIVE/us/1700/
depeches.html)

Yikes.

Three words: military tribunal Gitmo.

Discuss.

I O N U S

Moreni taken away by the police at the end of the stage for a "garde a
vue", which is a barbaric
practice where they keep you in a holding cell without food, water, or
place to lie down. Not such a
nice environment for someone who has just done a 200km stage in the
Pyrenees. A couple of
years ago, they increased the period until you could talk to a lawyer
from 48 hours to 72 hours (so
until you could have a clear idea of your rights).

-ilan

Davey Crockett wrote:
Hey, I just thought that we could add "Denunciation" as a reason for
Banning/Suspension/Termination_of_Contract/etc

It would make bike racing even more interesting

While you're about it add rumour and hearsay.

ilanpsi wrote:
Moreni taken away by the police at the end of the stage for a "garde a
vue", which is a barbaric
practice where they keep you in a holding cell without food, water, or
place to lie down.

Don't they have any real criminals to catch or was the publicity
irresistible.

wrote:

Esteemed Knuckleheads:

Patrice Clerc: "...the presumption of innocence no longer exists.
That's why we have to make sure we go all the way to achieve clarity.
This must be done to reinstate the right of a presumption of
innocence." (http://www.letour.fr/2007/TDF/LIVE/us/1700/
depeches.html)

Yikes.

Three words: military tribunal Gitmo.

Discuss.

Another Loony heard from.

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. It is a prerequisite to competing; the rider
agrees to the testing and the rider(s) know the consequences of
failing a test.

More importantly, the presumption of innocence is a concept of (most)
developed country's system of justice. Since expulsion from the TdF
imperils neither life nor liberty, it really doesnt apply. The
organizers can run the event however they want. The polizei get
involved acting on information made public at a public event as a
seperate consequence.

In the case of MR, the TdF that they didnt even expel him! MR is out
of the race because his sponsor fired him. Rabobank sponsors the team
to get GOOD publicity; sponsoring a doper doesnt quite do that. They
DID give him the benefit of the doubt in standing behind him when the
early allegations surfaced. When it became obvious he was blatantly
lying to his employer, they withdrew their support..

Arguably this was a good move. Given the atmosphere and esteem of
the race in Europe, they stood to get more positive publicity
supporting a clean race rather than a liar (besides they already got
many days of publicity as he led the tour and KoM). When both evading
the tests and lying are considered, all indications are that he is
cheating. There are almost certainly clauses in his contract to
abide by the rules, comply with testing etc.

In the end, MR is quite clearly in the wrong via a vis his employer on
several counts and rightfully dismissed no matter what the tests
reveal (or dont reveal).

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

On Jul 26, 10:41 am, Bike Mike none@ 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. It is a prerequisite to competing; the rider
agrees to the testing and the rider(s) know the consequences of
failing a test.

Very lame excuse. Hardly the same as banning a rider based on rumor...
and of course the riders agree to this, because they have no choice.
Reminds me of signing away my rights while working at a National Park
one summer. It was illegal for the employer to enforce the unfair
rules *unless* we signed a waiver... and once you've already moved
there, what sort of choice is that? In the case of the riders, there
is only one system in which to work, period.

When both evading
the tests and lying are considered, all indications are that he is
cheating.

True... but is this the way you want justice to be served in *your*
life?

It seems that most of the officials and fans suffer under the delusion
that doping can be eliminated. If the dope works and there is a way to
avoid being tested positive, it will continue to be used. Lifetime
bans and public hangings won't stop it. What then do we do?

Ron Ruff wrote:

On Jul 26, 10:41 am, Bike Mike none@ 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. It is a prerequisite to competing; the rider
agrees to the testing and the rider(s) know the consequences of
failing a test.

Very lame excuse. Hardly the same as banning a rider based on rumor...
and of course the riders agree to this, because they have no choice.

He wasnt banned (yet, anyway), his employer fired him, the consequence
of which was that he had to withdraw. The cause was not mere rumor.
It is a fact that he evaded multiple drug tests; it is a fact that he
lied about where he was.

No one held a gun to his head to sign on. No one forced him to lie
about which continent he was on or what he was doing.


When both evading
the tests and lying are considered, all indications are that he is
cheating.

True... but is this the way you want justice to be served in *your*
life?

It has nothing to do with serving justice, it is a personal and common
sense conclusion. I can view the evidence on OJ, Vino or MR and come
to my own conclusion that they are guilty, guilty, guilty without
regard to legal procedings.

Neither the TdF nor Rabo has claimed MR was using drugs. Nor was he
let go for using drugs. His liberty is not endangered nor is his life
(except from Rabo riders who likely want to strangle him). He was
apparently let go for lying and casting his employer in an unfavorable
light. Happens all the time.


It seems that most of the officials and fans suffer under the delusion
that doping can be eliminated. If the dope works and there is a way to

You seem to suffer from the delusion it should be tolerated.

avoid being tested positive, it will continue to be used. Lifetime
bans and public hangings won't stop it. What then do we do?

Provide attachments to the bikes so that riders can hang IV bags to
the bike and juice themselves as they ride.

Bike Mike schreef:
Rabo riders who likely want to strangle him).

Apparently not. In a pre-stage interview, Boogerd *almost* said right
out that he disagreed with the decision of the team to withdraw
Rasmussen. He was weighing his words and clearly couldn't conceal his
sentiments. He did say that he was not angry with Rasmussen but instead
felt sorry for him, and that he didn't feel like riding at all. In a
post-stage interview Bram de Groot expressed about the same. He spoke
highly of the fabulous team spirit, team actions and the feeling of
having the yellow jersey in the team. It sounded like he, too, would
have preferred to keep the whole group intact.


--
E. Dronkert