ulrich found guilty of doping results since may 2005 annulled

On Feb 9, 1:52*pm, tritonrider wrote:
On Feb 9, 11:15*am, DirtRoadie wrote:

Don't be silly. They give Poulidor fans hope that he will yet get the
all time record for the 8 or so TdF victories that he deserves.
But it gets complicated, I'm not sure how we factor in virtual wins by
those who did not compete in any given year.

DR

Yup "Go Big or Go Home" Merckx is next and that's a slam dunk. Gonna
be a slim record book after they remove all the "pot belge" folks from
the books.
*Starting to look like, other than Lance, that I heard they doped,
somewhere, sometime, and they can't prove they didn't, ever is enough
for a guilty.
*Once again the more money you have the more you can get away with.
Better lawyers, pr flaks, chemists, etc...
*Bill C

no, I disagree- that is a logic that convicts without trial. where you
are charged with a serious offence the best defense is to get the best
lawyer you can afford- you should not be convicted because you do. and
especially in the circumstance where the accused is indeed innocent-
it is far more important to ensure one is not wrongfully convicted
than justly so.

On Feb 10, 6:52*pm, raamman wrote:


no, I disagree- that is a logic that convicts without trial. where you
are charged with a serious offence the best defense is to get the best
lawyer you can afford- you should not be convicted because you do. and
especially in the circumstance where the accused is indeed innocent-
it is far more important to ensure one is not wrongfully convicted
than justly so.

Think we aren't communicating well. I wasn't saying that you are
guilty because you can get the best defense, I was saying that you are
MUCH more likely to be cleared if you have huge resources to defend
yourself with. The wealthy can afford that type of defense the others
are pretty much screwed. Not saying either is more likely guilty, just
that some are better able to defend themselves.
Bill C

On Feb 12, 11:22*am, tritonrider wrote:
On Feb 10, 6:52*pm, raamman wrote:



no, I disagree- that is a logic that convicts without trial. where you
are charged with a serious offence the best defense is to get the best
lawyer you can afford- you should not be convicted because you do. and
especially in the circumstance where the accused is indeed innocent-
it is far more important to ensure one is not wrongfully convicted
than justly so.

Think we aren't communicating well. I wasn't saying that you are
guilty because you can get the best defense, I was saying that you are
MUCH more likely to be cleared if you have huge resources to defend
yourself with. The wealthy can afford that type of defense the others
are pretty much screwed. Not saying either is more likely guilty, just
that some are better able to defend themselves.
*Bill C

Respectfully, if I may say,

I understood where you were coming from; and in our legal system it
seems statistically you are correct in your statement- but it seems
your arguement has a parallel logic that damns him by his trappings
than any merit. In the end, he wasn t charged, it didn t even get off
the ground legally- just really tarnished his image, and the way it
was dropped did not vindicate him, just kicked a little more mud.

Lets say the FBI start asking your neighbours about you regarding
child sexual abuse, and leave - regardless you being charged or not,
you realize your neighbours won t look at you the same way ever again.
If you retained expensive lawyers in the process your neighbours will
conclude the investigation was dropped because of that, not because
you are innocent. I just think that is wrong- and it bothers me that
an innocent man may be being strung up to satisfy the embittered
residue of a few fallen champions and their friends. I am just not
going to jump on that bandwagon, based on appearances, statistics or
numerous lies as told by known liars.

Where authorities feel a need to investigate, they should do so
without regard to appearances- no blind eye should be turned because
of a persons stature.

On 2/12/2012 4:55 PM, raamman wrote:
On Feb 12, 11:22 am, wrote:
On Feb 10, 6:52 pm, wrote:



no, I disagree- that is a logic that convicts without trial. where you
are charged with a serious offence the best defense is to get the best
lawyer you can afford- you should not be convicted because you do. and
especially in the circumstance where the accused is indeed innocent-
it is far more important to ensure one is not wrongfully convicted
than justly so.

Think we aren't communicating well. I wasn't saying that you are
guilty because you can get the best defense, I was saying that you are
MUCH more likely to be cleared if you have huge resources to defend
yourself with. The wealthy can afford that type of defense the others
are pretty much screwed. Not saying either is more likely guilty, just
that some are better able to defend themselves.
Bill C

Respectfully, if I may say,

I understood where you were coming from; and in our legal system it
seems statistically you are correct in your statement- but it seems
your arguement has a parallel logic that damns him by his trappings
than any merit. In the end, he wasn t charged, it didn t even get off
the ground legally- just really tarnished his image, and the way it
was dropped did not vindicate him, just kicked a little more mud.

Lets say the FBI start asking your neighbours about you regarding
child sexual abuse, and leave - regardless you being charged or not,
you realize your neighbours won t look at you the same way ever again.
If you retained expensive lawyers in the process your neighbours will
conclude the investigation was dropped because of that, not because
you are innocent. I just think that is wrong- and it bothers me that
an innocent man may be being strung up to satisfy the embittered
residue of a few fallen champions and their friends. I am just not
going to jump on that bandwagon, based on appearances, statistics or
numerous lies as told by known liars.

Where authorities feel a need to investigate, they should do so
without regard to appearances- no blind eye should be turned because
of a persons stature.

Dumbass,

Doping to win a bike race is not a criminal offense in Switzerland.
That is all.

F

Fred Flintstein wrote:
Doping to win a bike race is not a criminal offense in Switzerland.
That is all.

http://www.bestplaces.net/crime/county/indiana/switzerland

Fred Flintstein wrote:
I remember seeing a picture of a past NFL championship game, the
play where the winning touchdown was scored. In the picture one
of the players on the winning team is clearly shown committing a
foul which the officials missed. But a penalty should have been
called and the winning touchdown called back.

This business of race finishes being malleable more than a decade
after the fact is evidence that it is time to call in an air
strike on the UCI headquarters in Lausanne. We are lucky that
cycling is the only sport they are allowed to screw up.

I like your line of thinking on this one. When it's over, it's over.

-S-

On 13/02/2012 18:19, Steve Freides wrote:
Fred Flintstein wrote:
I remember seeing a picture of a past NFL championship game, the
play where the winning touchdown was scored. In the picture one
of the players on the winning team is clearly shown committing a
foul which the officials missed. But a penalty should have been
called and the winning touchdown called back.

This business of race finishes being malleable more than a decade
after the fact is evidence that it is time to call in an air
strike on the UCI headquarters in Lausanne. We are lucky that
cycling is the only sport they are allowed to screw up.

When it's over, it's over.

It definitely would be for the UCI after an air strike on Lausanne, thinking
about it if the said strike had a yield in the region of 25 megatons it would
have the advantage of removing the FIFA HQ in Zurich as well. (Thus securing 25
bonus points, or 50 if Sep Blatter was in the building).

--

Fred Flintstein wrote:
This business of race finishes being malleable more than a decade
after the fact is evidence that it is time to call in an air
strike on the UCI headquarters in Lausanne. We are lucky that
cycling is the only sport they are allowed to screw up.

Steve Freides wrote:
When it's over, it's over.

atriage wrote:
It definitely would be for the UCI after an air strike on Lausanne,
thinking about it if the said strike had a yield in the region of 25
megatons it would have the advantage of removing the FIFA HQ in Zurich
as well. (Thus securing 25 bonus points, or 50 if Sep Blatter was in the
building).

The Swiss would probably consider a neutron bomb cleaner. And if you an
get the IOC and CAS HQs while you're about it you could get free power
pills for life and a Rick Astley boombox (perhaps it would work on a
WADA vampire):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n_8PRWvrPU

On 13/02/2012 19:30, Simply Fred wrote:
Fred Flintstein wrote:
This business of race finishes being malleable more than a decade
after the fact is evidence that it is time to call in an air
strike on the UCI headquarters in Lausanne. We are lucky that
cycling is the only sport they are allowed to screw up.

Steve Freides wrote:
When it's over, it's over.

atriage wrote:
It definitely would be for the UCI after an air strike on Lausanne,
thinking about it if the said strike had a yield in the region of 25
megatons it would have the advantage of removing the FIFA HQ in Zurich
as well. (Thus securing 25 bonus points, or 50 if Sep Blatter was in the
building).

The Swiss would probably consider a neutron bomb cleaner. And if you an get the
IOC and CAS HQs while you're about it you could get free power pills for life
and a Rick Astley boombox (perhaps it would work on a WADA vampire):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n_8PRWvrPU

Brilliant, haven't seen that before.

--

atriage wrote:
On 13/02/2012 18:19, Steve Freides wrote:
Fred Flintstein wrote:
I remember seeing a picture of a past NFL championship game, the
play where the winning touchdown was scored. In the picture one
of the players on the winning team is clearly shown committing a
foul which the officials missed. But a penalty should have been
called and the winning touchdown called back.

This business of race finishes being malleable more than a decade
after the fact is evidence that it is time to call in an air
strike on the UCI headquarters in Lausanne. We are lucky that
cycling is the only sport they are allowed to screw up.

When it's over, it's over.

It definitely would be for the UCI after an air strike on Lausanne,
thinking about it if the said strike had a yield in the region of 25
megatons it would have the advantage of removing the FIFA HQ in
Zurich as well. (Thus securing 25 bonus points, or 50 if Sep Blatter
was in the building).

Er, uh, I wasn't agreeing with that part, just the idea that, once the
race was over, the results should stand. Maybe there could be 24 or 48
hours to review post-finish line test results or something like that,
but there needs to be a limit. Years later is just ridiculous,
particularly in light of the fact that any benefits a rider gets from
having won a race will already have been received, and any benefits the
former second place finisher might receive from being changed to winner
status simply don't exist years after. In short, absolutely no end is
served by nullifying a race result 5 years after, save someone's Puritan
agenda.

-S-