Vaughters Oughters?

Vaughters is now a team manager and is stuck in the position that he must
suspend the riders whom the UCI proclaims to be positive even if Vaughters
knows the guy well enough to actually believe that he wasn't purposely
doping.

The question is - what if Zirbel in FACT didn't purposely use illegal drugs?

In article ,
"Tom Kunich" wrote:

Vaughters is now a team manager and is stuck in the position that he must
suspend the riders whom the UCI proclaims to be positive even if Vaughters
knows the guy well enough to actually believe that he wasn't purposely
doping.

The question is - what if Zirbel in FACT didn't purposely use illegal drugs?

It's possible, maybe even probable. But he's damned by a generation of
"the dog ate my steroids" excuses that made a mockery of drug testing
and clean sports.

Just like speeding in your car, doping violations are a case of strict
liability, and conspiracy theories aside, this is almost always
reasonable.

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

On Dec 29, 7:16*pm, "Tom Kunich" wrote:
Vaughters is now a team manager and is stuck in the position that he must
suspend the riders whom the UCI proclaims to be positive even if Vaughters
knows the guy well enough to actually believe that he wasn't purposely
doping.

The question is - what if Zirbel in FACT didn't purposely use illegal drugs?



Dumbass -

That doesn't matter.

If it did, then teams could have the soigneurs administer the
treatments without the riders' knowledge and the riders could get off.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

On Dec 29, 7:16*pm, "Tom Kunich" wrote:
Vaughters is now a team manager and is stuck in the position that he must
suspend the riders whom the UCI proclaims to be positive even if Vaughters
knows the guy well enough to actually believe that he wasn't purposely
doping.

The question is - what if Zirbel in FACT didn't purposely use illegal drugs?

How would Vaughters know one way or the other?

On Dec 30, 5:53*am, birdbrain wrote:
On Dec 29, 7:16*pm, "Tom Kunich" wrote:

Vaughters is now a team manager and is stuck in the position that he must
suspend the riders whom the UCI proclaims to be positive even if Vaughters
knows the guy well enough to actually believe that he wasn't purposely
doping.

The question is - what if Zirbel in FACT didn't purposely use illegal drugs?

How would Vaughters know one way or the other?

Exactly. Why would any assume that Vaughters knows Zirbel at all,
beyond his race results and maybe having met him a time or three?

In article ,
"Tom Kunich" wrote:

Vaughters is now a team manager and is stuck in the position that he must
suspend the riders whom the UCI proclaims to be positive even if Vaughters
knows the guy well enough to actually believe that he wasn't purposely
doping.

The question is - what if Zirbel in FACT didn't purposely use illegal drugs?

Nothing can sting worse than that bee.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
"Tom Kunich" wrote:

Vaughters is now a team manager and is stuck in the position that he must
suspend the riders whom the UCI proclaims to be positive even if Vaughters
knows the guy well enough to actually believe that he wasn't purposely
doping.

The question is - what if Zirbel in FACT didn't purposely use illegal drugs?

Nothing can sting worse than that bee.


It's a busy, busy bee.