#1
|
|||
|
|||
Where's Brian
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/?id=2004/witchhunt2
I think that Brian would do well to read the final paragraph in this rather good article. Perhaps he might find that a law student has a better grasp of the world than he. |
Ads |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Where's Brian
"K. J. Papai" a écrit dans le message de : m... (Tom Kunich) wrote .google.com... http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/?id=2004/witchhunt2 I think that Brian would do well to read the final paragraph in this rather good article. Perhaps he might find that a law student has a better grasp of the world than he. About the author "Michelle Gallen is researching for a PhD in international law, examining the legal issues surrounding drugs in sport in a range of jurisdictions, with an end view to recommending a model law for anti-doping. She worked for several years as a senior advisor at the Australian Sports Drug Agency; is a selector for Triathlon Australia; was an elite swimmer with the Australian Institute of Sport and now races triathlons. Having worked for some years on-site in legal reform projects (USAID, etc.) in the ex-Soviet Union, and having co-authored, commented on and redacted "model laws" in their national implementations, I can assure you that the American industrial interests have primary, though "informal", rights of redaction over all content. This has been particularly true in the petroleum industry, as well as associated environmental laws. In one drafting exercise, we were warned *not* to resolve the lacunae of land regulation between two ministries affecting petroleum sludge disposal. The reasoning was, that under the existing legislation, the law on subsoil resources did not cover dumping it directly on the ground, just prevented burying it. That's to moral purpose your tax monies support. Don't expect any holy text to arise, uless it contains commercial benefits to existing giants. So, I imagine that the pharmaceutical industry, the medical field, and testing laboratories will all be able to make their contributions well ahead of anyone writing here, in the NY Times, or "in cahoots". Sorry for the extent of the reply, but those who don't craft laws don't understand the overreaching purposes. -- Bonne route, Sandy Paris FR |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Where's Brian
"SMMB" wrote in message ...
"K. J. Papai" a écrit dans le message de : m... (Tom Kunich) wrote .google.com... http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/?id=2004/witchhunt2 I think that Brian would do well to read the final paragraph in this rather good article. Perhaps he might find that a law student has a better grasp of the world than he. About the author "Michelle Gallen is researching for a PhD in international law, examining the legal issues surrounding drugs in sport in a range of jurisdictions, with an end view to recommending a model law for anti-doping. She worked for several years as a senior advisor at the Australian Sports Drug Agency; is a selector for Triathlon Australia; was an elite swimmer with the Australian Institute of Sport and now races triathlons. Having worked for some years on-site in legal reform projects (USAID, etc.) in the ex-Soviet Union, and having co-authored, commented on and redacted "model laws" in their national implementations, I can assure you that the American industrial interests have primary, though "informal", rights of redaction over all content. This has been particularly true in the petroleum industry, as well as associated environmental laws. In one drafting exercise, we were warned *not* to resolve the lacunae of land regulation between two ministries affecting petroleum sludge disposal. The reasoning was, that under the existing legislation, the law on subsoil resources did not cover dumping it directly on the ground, just prevented burying it. That's to moral purpose your tax monies support. Don't expect any holy text to arise, uless it contains commercial benefits to existing giants. So, I imagine that the pharmaceutical industry, the medical field, and testing laboratories will all be able to make their contributions well ahead of anyone writing here, in the NY Times, or "in cahoots". Sorry for the extent of the reply, but those who don't craft laws don't understand the overreaching purposes. Well written and well said Sandy. My sister-in-law works for USAID (food & nutrition in 3rd world), but in any case, what you say has a lot of relevant meaning, especially to the legal world. Certain people are all too eager (or happy?) to convict anyone who "tests positive" (most probably are cheats so no tears from me), but worse, to convict in a discussion forum, such as RBR, and drag those atheletes through the mud, of those certain world-class atheletes who have NEVER tested psotive for doping. (****ty grammatical sentence I know -Ken |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Brian the Trials Clown | Sofa | Unicycling | 14 | November 2nd 03 06:13 AM |