CONI seeks 2 year ban for Valverde

Keith wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
I am waiting on the announcement of the futbollers (futbolluxes? )
suspended from play.

I never get this type of approach, not being able to catch everyone
who cheated doesn't mean you shouldn't put the hammer on the guys you
are able to catch !

The problem is (supposedly, at least also perceived by me) not that the
selection of those prosecuted is determined by evidence in one case and
lack of it in another, but the fact that the evidence seems to be evenly
spread while the disorganised sportsmen with the poor federation are
always targeted. It seems to be a lawyer's game.

It's JUST not fair!!11!

"Susan Walker" wrote in message
...
Keith wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
I am waiting on the announcement of the futbollers (futbolluxes? )
suspended from play.

I never get this type of approach, not being able to catch everyone
who cheated doesn't mean you shouldn't put the hammer on the guys you
are able to catch !

The problem is (supposedly, at least also perceived by me) not that the
selection of those prosecuted is determined by evidence in one case and
lack of it in another, but the fact that the evidence seems to be evenly
spread while the disorganised sportsmen with the poor federation are
always targeted. It seems to be a lawyer's game.

It's JUST not fair!!11!

Lawyers don't deal in fair! Pretty much no one does who wants to win.
That's not just about doping. It's about leaning on someone in a sprint. Or
the mistakes made at a closed train crossing. Or annuling a stage when half
the group has gone beyond the danger. Seeing a lawyer after saying magic
words, or seeing him after 48 hours of isolated detention, or seeing him
never at all.

On anyone's playground, it sucks to lose. Getting caught cheating is about
the getting caught part, not about the cheating part. Slavish adherence to
rules also sucks. Doing violence to the rules is a super high.

--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

"Keith" wrote in message
...

CONI contends that documents found in the raid also link Valverde to
the doctor, Eufemiano Fuentes. The documents indicate the amounts
the
rider paid and what substances were used in the blood doping
process,
Torri said after questioning Valverde.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read it at
http://www.google.com/hostednews/can...27n4bUweYhAQ3Q

I am waiting on the announcement of the futbollers (futbolluxes? )
suspended from play.

I never get this type of approach, not being able to catch everyone
who cheated doesn't mean you shouldn't put the hammer on the guys you
are able to catch !

There remains an issue of "fairness" in terms of media play and
sponsorship (the only way cycling gets $$$). Because we're less
organized, because we have less $$$ than other major sports, we're
easier to pick on. Because our fans are fewer in number, we don't get
the critical mass of folk who really don't care about much beyond the
spectacle. Instead we get the critical mass of generic sports "fans" who
want to believe that we're the bad apples in sport and the fact that
cyclists are caught and others generally aren't is an indication that
the other sports are more pure or whatever. And because doping goes on
in other sports and generally isn't exposed to the extent that it is in
cycling, the competitive cyclist may feel that part of the formula for
success is cheating without consequences, because that's what goes on
elsewhere.

There are all manner of reasons why doping in cycling shouldn't be
treated as if cycling is an island and not connected with sporting
endeavors in general.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

In article ,
"Sandy" wrote:

"Susan Walker" wrote in message
...
Keith wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
I am waiting on the announcement of the futbollers (futbolluxes? )
suspended from play.

I never get this type of approach, not being able to catch everyone
who cheated doesn't mean you shouldn't put the hammer on the guys you
are able to catch !

The problem is (supposedly, at least also perceived by me) not that the
selection of those prosecuted is determined by evidence in one case and
lack of it in another, but the fact that the evidence seems to be evenly
spread while the disorganised sportsmen with the poor federation are
always targeted. It seems to be a lawyer's game.

It's JUST not fair!!11!

Lawyers don't deal in fair! Pretty much no one does who wants to win.
That's not just about doping.

More fodder for the Sandy Files. It's clear that we need to grow the
sport of cycling and its fan base so that the riders can afford better
legal advice.

It's worth noting that cycling, most forms of athletics, and
powerlifting are the sports most conducive to doping: they're sports
that depend a lot on engine size, and very little on practiced skills.

Cyclists don't spend 8 hours on the road learning to pedal, they're just
tuning the engine the only way they can.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

I never get this type of approach, not being able to catch everyone
who cheated doesn't mean you shouldn't put the hammer on the guys you
are able to catch !

There remains an issue of "fairness" in terms of media play and
sponsorship (the only way cycling gets $$$). Because we're less
organized, because we have less $$$ than other major sports, we're
easier to pick on. Because our fans are fewer in number, we don't get
the critical mass of folk who really don't care about much beyond the
spectacle. Instead we get the critical mass of generic sports "fans" who
want to believe that we're the bad apples in sport and the fact that
cyclists are caught and others generally aren't is an indication that
the other sports are more pure or whatever. And because doping goes on
in other sports and generally isn't exposed to the extent that it is in
cycling, the competitive cyclist may feel that part of the formula for
success is cheating without consequences, because that's what goes on
elsewhere.

There are all manner of reasons why doping in cycling shouldn't be
treated as if cycling is an island and not connected with sporting
endeavors in general.

I see your point, I was thinking more along the lines of cylcling
internally, i.e. putting the hammer on Valverde and not the others who
possibly doped.

You raise good points as to why other sports haven't been involved so
much, although they have had their share of scandals (Maradona at 94
Soccer World Cup) for instance.

On Apr 2, 1:36*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:

There remains an issue of "fairness" in terms of media play and
sponsorship (the only way cycling gets $$$). Because we're less
organized, because we have less $$$ than other major sports, we're
easier to pick on. Because our fans are fewer in number, we don't get
the critical mass of folk who really don't care about much beyond the
spectacle. Instead we get the critical mass of generic sports "fans" who
want to believe that we're the bad apples in sport and the fact that
cyclists are caught and others generally aren't is an indication that
the other sports are more pure or whatever. And because doping goes on
in other sports and generally isn't exposed to the extent that it is in
cycling, the competitive cyclist may feel that part of the formula for
success is cheating without consequences, because that's what goes on
elsewhere.

There are all manner of reasons why doping in cycling shouldn't be
treated as if cycling is an island and not connected with sporting
endeavors in general.



Dumbass -


You're post is correct, but you're leaving out one thing: cycling
doesn't handle its doping scandals as well as other sports. Cycling
almost goes out of its way to maximize the publicity/fallout from
doping while the other sports sweep it under the rug.

The results can be seen in the bottom line.


thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

In article ,
Keith wrote:

I never get this type of approach, not being able to catch everyone
who cheated doesn't mean you shouldn't put the hammer on the guys you
are able to catch !

There remains an issue of "fairness" in terms of media play and
sponsorship (the only way cycling gets $$$). Because we're less
organized, because we have less $$$ than other major sports, we're
easier to pick on. Because our fans are fewer in number, we don't get
the critical mass of folk who really don't care about much beyond the
spectacle. Instead we get the critical mass of generic sports "fans" who
want to believe that we're the bad apples in sport and the fact that
cyclists are caught and others generally aren't is an indication that
the other sports are more pure or whatever. And because doping goes on
in other sports and generally isn't exposed to the extent that it is in
cycling, the competitive cyclist may feel that part of the formula for
success is cheating without consequences, because that's what goes on
elsewhere.

There are all manner of reasons why doping in cycling shouldn't be
treated as if cycling is an island and not connected with sporting
endeavors in general.

I see your point, I was thinking more along the lines of cylcling
internally, i.e. putting the hammer on Valverde and not the others who
possibly doped.

You raise good points as to why other sports haven't been involved so
much, although they have had their share of scandals (Maradona at 94
Soccer World Cup) for instance.

It's worth pointing out that cycling is also less popular than in the
past because it's less popular.

I know, I know, but my working theory is that 5-hour road races work
well as background radio broadcasts, and they work really well when
summarized in newspapers, but they aren't great TV. The awful truth is
that in a typical bike race, there's probably five or ten minutes of
really decisive and visually appealing racing, surrounded by several
hours of fairly uninteresting-looking racing. The fact that the
boring-looking work in those hours set up the ten crucial minutes means
nothing to a TV camera.

Cycling is different from other sports because it's different from other
sports. I can't figure out why several track events haven't turned into
TV spectaculars, because if there's a more visually appealing event than
a Madison, I don't know what it is.

Come on, it's NASCAR! And a 90-minute Madison is a pretty viable time
duration.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Cycling is different from other sports because it's different from
other
sports. I can't figure out why several track events haven't turned
into
TV spectaculars, because if there's a more visually appealing event
than
a Madison, I don't know what it is.

Come on, it's NASCAR! And a 90-minute Madison is a pretty viable time
duration.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/

Am I the only person who watched the original version of "Rollerball"
and thought hey, this is nothing more than a Madison on steroids?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Ryan Cousineau" wrote in message
]...
In article ,
Keith wrote:

I never get this type of approach, not being able to catch
everyone
who cheated doesn't mean you shouldn't put the hammer on the guys
you
are able to catch !

There remains an issue of "fairness" in terms of media play and
sponsorship (the only way cycling gets $$$). Because we're less
organized, because we have less $$$ than other major sports, we're
easier to pick on. Because our fans are fewer in number, we don't
get
the critical mass of folk who really don't care about much beyond
the
spectacle. Instead we get the critical mass of generic sports "fans"
who
want to believe that we're the bad apples in sport and the fact that
cyclists are caught and others generally aren't is an indication
that
the other sports are more pure or whatever. And because doping goes
on
in other sports and generally isn't exposed to the extent that it is
in
cycling, the competitive cyclist may feel that part of the formula
for
success is cheating without consequences, because that's what goes
on
elsewhere.

There are all manner of reasons why doping in cycling shouldn't be
treated as if cycling is an island and not connected with sporting
endeavors in general.

I see your point, I was thinking more along the lines of cylcling
internally, i.e. putting the hammer on Valverde and not the others
who
possibly doped.

You raise good points as to why other sports haven't been involved so
much, although they have had their share of scandals (Maradona at 94
Soccer World Cup) for instance.

It's worth pointing out that cycling is also less popular than in the
past because it's less popular.

I know, I know, but my working theory is that 5-hour road races work
well as background radio broadcasts, and they work really well when
summarized in newspapers, but they aren't great TV. The awful truth is
that in a typical bike race, there's probably five or ten minutes of
really decisive and visually appealing racing, surrounded by several
hours of fairly uninteresting-looking racing. The fact that the
boring-looking work in those hours set up the ten crucial minutes
means
nothing to a TV camera.

Cycling is different from other sports because it's different from
other
sports. I can't figure out why several track events haven't turned
into
TV spectaculars, because if there's a more visually appealing event
than
a Madison, I don't know what it is.

Come on, it's NASCAR! And a 90-minute Madison is a pretty viable time
duration.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

In article ,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:

Cycling is different from other sports because it's different from
other
sports. I can't figure out why several track events haven't turned
into
TV spectaculars, because if there's a more visually appealing event
than
a Madison, I don't know what it is.

Come on, it's NASCAR! And a 90-minute Madison is a pretty viable time
duration.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/

Am I the only person who watched the original version of "Rollerball"
and thought hey, this is nothing more than a Madison on steroids?

"The game was created to demonstrate the futility of individual effort."

--
tanx,
Howard

Caught playing safe
It's a bored game

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

It's worth pointing out that cycling is also less popular than in the
past because it's less popular.

I know, I know, but my working theory is that 5-hour road races work
well as background radio broadcasts, and they work really well when
summarized in newspapers, but they aren't great TV. The awful truth is
that in a typical bike race, there's probably five or ten minutes of
really decisive and visually appealing racing, surrounded by several
hours of fairly uninteresting-looking racing. The fact that the
boring-looking work in those hours set up the ten crucial minutes means
nothing to a TV camera.

The scenery is part of the fun really, during the Giro or Tour, I
generally grab my laptop and work on the couch. Granted, I'm more
excited when it's a mountain race but it's sill entertaining to me.

As will all sports it's an acquired test, I never managed to get
interested in the least in American football or Baseball during the 5
years I lived in the Silicon Valley.