Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:09:43 -0700, Bill C
wrote:

Please show me ANY "war on drugs" that has been won? Lots of
collateral damage, lots of people's rights violated, lots of people
jailed and there are more users now than ever.
Good business model.

As a pot smoker for approximately 40 years, I have no sympathy for
anybody's "War on Drugs."

I wonder what that has to do with performance enhancement cheating in
sports? Sorry, but I don't think that cheating is "victimless" -
even if everybody does it. But my opinion is beside the point.

The point is that WADA has inserted itself into professional cycling
and they are not going away. It wasn't my idea - but it's a fact.

So you can whine complain bitch moan and flame away, but you're stuck
with them, and a current system of enforcement in cycling that is
inconsistent, arbitrary, capricious, and unfair.

The sport will never go back to the good old days when nobody cared.

So what has to be figured out if there is anyway of effectively and
fairly enforcing the rules.

Good luck.

On Jul 30, 5:06 am, Doug Taylor wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 23:56:49 -0700, Kurgan Gringioni

wrote:
Drug use in western culture is a part of everyday life. I choose not
to get outraged about it. I wouldn't wnat to change it even if I was
suddenly omnipotent. Your mileage may vary.

It's also a part of virtually all athletic competition and that is so
obvious that "outrage" would be a naive and hypocritical response.
Annoyance is more apt.

You weren't annoyed when three or four crucial riders (including the
yellow jersey), and one important team, left in the middle of the
race? If you say no, I seriously doubt you.

snip


Dumbass -


No, I wasn't annoyed.

Since I don't have illusions about drug use in professional athletics
or society at large why would I? I accept the reality.

Does it ever occur to you that not everyone has the same worldview as
yourself?


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:28:49 -0700, Kurgan Gringioni
wrote:

You weren't annoyed when three or four crucial riders (including the
yellow jersey), and one important team, left in the middle of the
race? If you say no, I seriously doubt you.

Dumbass -


No, I wasn't annoyed.

Since I don't have illusions about drug use in professional athletics
or society at large why would I? I accept the reality.

You have nerves of steel and balls of brass, dude, ready and able to
take in stride life in all its absurdity and insanity. Either that or
you're another rbr bodhisattva. Good for you. Pat yourself on the
back. You da man.

Does it ever occur to you that not everyone has the same worldview as
yourself?

Yeah, it did. I thought it sucked. I seriously doubt I am alone in
that world view.

On Jul 30, 12:50 pm, Doug Taylor wrote:


So what has to be figured out if there is anyway of effectively and
fairly enforcing the rules.

Good luck.

That's what most of us are looking for. I wouldn't have included you
in that group. Fair, honoring the contracts, verifiable, transparent,
due process, aren't things I would associate with what you've had to
say.
Same problem, same cops, worse jurisprudence. I assume you advocate
at least 5 year bans for spitballs, corked bats, chop blocks, out of
spec race cars, etc???
Bill C

On Jul 30, 11:50 am, Doug Taylor wrote:
The sport will never go back to the good old days when nobody cared.

That's admitting that Omerta worked, Doug. (g)

So what has to be figured out if there is anyway of effectively and
fairly enforcing the rules.

I think we need different rules.

If you've really been a fugitive from justice for 40 years (ouch?),
I'd guess you'd be sympathetic to that line of reasoning.

--D-y

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:32:44 -0700, Bill C
wrote:

On Jul 30, 12:50 pm, Doug Taylor wrote:


So what has to be figured out if there is anyway of effectively and
fairly enforcing the rules.

Good luck.

That's what most of us are looking for. I wouldn't have included you
in that group. Fair, honoring the contracts, verifiable, transparent,
due process, aren't things I would associate with what you've had to
say.

Let me summarize:

Sports cannot operate without rules (unless you want a "Chinese
Downhill" http://www.tahoe-world.com/content/view/6319/37/)

Bicycle racing has many rules, equipment related as well as athlete
related, etc.

It's too late to go back to not enforcing rules against the use of
performance enhancing drugs: WADA is now embedded in the sport; most
of the public is against it; some European countries have outlawed it;
the press is all over it like flies on ****.

Consequently, it follows that the rules must be enforced.

Currently, they are enforced in an inconsistent, half assed, and
unfair manner. What I think is unfair is while the entire peloton now
dopes, smart dopers are rewarded while stupid ones are punished.
E.g.: Lance was a smart doper: he was never caught and won 7 TdF's.
Vino was a stupid doper: he got caught using an easily detectable
blood transfusion, and a great rider is now toast.

So what is needed is a consistent and fair enforcement of the rules.
In a perfect world, there would be perfect and easily administered
tests that would catch every possible banned drug. But the world is
not perfect, and so we are stuck in a dilemma.

It is very difficult to conceive how the rules could be enforced in a
manner that even a majority could agree with. You would have to
appease the two extremes of the "due process bleeding hearts" (who
have no problem with cyclists lawyering up and pulling Floyd
Landis-like circus trials) and the zero tolerance nazis (who would
punish even inadvertent use of over the counter medications which have
nothing to do with performance enhancement).

That's the "good luck" part.

Somebody came up with amnesty now, and lifetime ban later as a policy.
So far, that is the best I've heard.

You got something better?

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:32:44 -0700, Bill C
wrote:

On Jul 30, 12:50 pm, Doug Taylor wrote:


So what has to be figured out if there is anyway of effectively and
fairly enforcing the rules.

Good luck.

That's what most of us are looking for. I wouldn't have included you
in that group. Fair, honoring the contracts, verifiable, transparent,
due process, aren't things I would associate with what you've had to
say.
Same problem, same cops, worse jurisprudence. I assume you advocate
at least 5 year bans for spitballs, corked bats, chop blocks, out of
spec race cars, etc???

Of course! Please think of the children! Won't someone please think
of the children?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

"Doug Taylor" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 03:23:11 GMT, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com
wrote:

Finally, you are in denial if you just **** on the point of the Boston
Globe article Lafferty posted.

You mean like Dan Rather's claim that although those so-called memos about
Bush were fraudulent they were really true?

Yeah, if there's one group of people that have shown themselves to be
honest, trustworthy and reliable it's the news media - especially when
we're
learning about how Linsey Lohan is getting an abortion.

Can you say "non-sequitur"?

What's the matter? Can't decifer the posting letting you know that only
animals get led around by the nose like you're allowing yourself?

Did anyone ever tell you what a lame tool you are?

Yeah, lots of people here but none brave enough to say it to my face. Guess
that puts your in a general catagory of whimps.

"mal" wrote in message
. ..

"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in message
link.net...
"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
news:_r5ri.749$Kk4.163@trndny09...
.......Despite the massive fallout from doping at this year's Tour, some
teams still clam up when it comes to talking about drug use in the
sport.

It sure must turn you on to be so frightened of the truth.


Who's truth and what truth?

Truth defined by the Boston Globe, Dick Pound?

If this wasn't about sponsorship money, it'd be a non issue.

The mistake here is that the revisionist history is coming from the
outside not the inside.

As soon as they realize that DP and others are not about cycling, but
about a personal agenda, they can try to get on top of the sport.

I'm afraid that you're right.

And where is David Millar coming from? No one likes a hematocrit
hypocrite.

well, you have to remember that there are no critics as harsh as past
offenders.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:06:40 -0400, Doug Taylor wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:32:44 -0700, Bill C
wrote:

On Jul 30, 12:50 pm, Doug Taylor wrote:


So what has to be figured out if there is anyway of effectively and
fairly enforcing the rules.

Good luck.

That's what most of us are looking for. I wouldn't have included you
in that group. Fair, honoring the contracts, verifiable, transparent,
due process, aren't things I would associate with what you've had to
say.

Let me summarize:

Sports cannot operate without rules (unless you want a "Chinese
Downhill" http://www.tahoe-world.com/content/view/6319/37/)

Make a pretty fair replacement for WADA and the CAS, dope testing by combat.

It is very difficult to conceive how the rules could be enforced in a
manner that even a majority could agree with. You would have to
appease the two extremes of the "due process bleeding hearts" (who
have no problem with cyclists lawyering up and pulling Floyd
Landis-like circus trials) and the zero tolerance nazis (who would
punish even inadvertent use of over the counter medications which have
nothing to do with performance enhancement).

The first thing about the rules is that they be seen to be enforced consistently
upon all parties. Some variables are hard to control, like the varying response
to doping by the different national bodies. Others are essential to credibility.
Lab and other leaks to the press have to stop That's the first thing. The lab
work and its administration have to be a hell of a lot better than what the
Landis case showed. Penalties have to be realistic in comparison to the offense
and other professional sports. Directors of WADA, UCI and the major promoters
have to start thinking things through and acting like businessmen with a trust
instead of a pack of squabbling princelings. Apparently even Dick Pound has seen
the need to moderate his mouth.

That's the "good luck" part.

Somebody came up with amnesty now, and lifetime ban later as a policy.
So far, that is the best I've heard.

You got something better?

Why life? The four year protour ban is about the same thing and it isn't
working. Like law enforcement a high likelihood of being caught is more
deterence than a draconian penalty. All the career ending penalties do is give
the rider an incentive to lawyer up and deny everything. The retroactive
penalties have a similar problem.

I say demand something reasonable and get it rather than insist on perfection
and being disappointed.

Ron