The Presumption of Innocence No Longer Exists

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
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.

The form Boogerd showed, its really a waste to retire.

Dan Connelly wrote:
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.

You don't get banned for 2 years for crossing the center line.

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.

On Jul 26, 9:41 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.

Tell me, if you were a bus driver what would you think if your
employer wanted to show up at your door in the middle of the night and
demand a blood test to make sure that you weren't going to be hung
over and consequently dangerous in the morning commute?

If you can't tell what a rider's been up to by looking at him AT THE
RACES, then you have no business following him around and watching him
pee.

On Jul 26, 4:30 pm, wrote:
On Jul 26, 9:41 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.

Tell me, if you were a bus driver what would you think if your
employer wanted to show up at your door in the middle of the night and
demand a blood test to make sure that you weren't going to be hung
over and consequently dangerous in the morning commute?

If you can't tell what a rider's been up to by looking at him AT THE
RACES, then you have no business following him around and watching him
pee.

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.

You just cannot face the truth can you

On Jul 26, 1:30 pm, wrote:

Tell me, if you were a bus driver what would you think if your
employer wanted to show up at your door in the middle of the night and
demand a blood test to make sure that you weren't going to be hung
over and consequently dangerous in the morning commute?

I don't really like the commie guvmint of California, but they got the
at-will part right.

They can sack you anytime for no reason. You can quit at any time for
no reason. (That is barring any other contract saying otherwise.)

If they want you to pee, you pee, or accept the consequences of not
peeing.

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.

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.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

"Le Vin est la plus saine et la plus hygiénique des boissons."
- Louis Pasteur

On Jul 26, 1:30 pm, wrote:

Tell me, if you were a bus driver what would you think if your
employer wanted to show up at your door in the middle of the night and
demand a blood test to make sure that you weren't going to be hung
over and consequently dangerous in the morning commute?

If you can't tell what a rider's been up to by looking at him AT THE
RACES, then you have no business following him around and watching him
pee.

Dumbass,

Funny you should choose that example, because bus drivers
actually do get ****-tested, probably much more than
you do.

Ben

wrote:

On Jul 26, 9:41 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.

Tell me, if you were a bus driver what would you think if your
employer wanted to show up at your door in the middle of the night and
demand a blood test to make sure that you weren't going to be hung
over and consequently dangerous in the morning commute?

Random drug tests are a part of life for several professions besides
cyclists. Most of them makes lots less in endorsements and personal
appearances and you dont retire at 38 or 39 either.


If you can't tell what a rider's been up to by looking at him AT THE
RACES, then you have no business following him around and watching him
pee.

Yes, the you-can-tell-he's-dirty-by-the-look-of-him test is much
better and fairer.

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
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.

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.

--
Morten Reippuert Knudsen :-) http://blog.reippuert.dk

Merlin Works CR-3/2.5 & Campagnolo Chorus 2007.