Postal's Padrnos Bull****

From: "B. Lafferty"

(I asked):
So you are hoping this can be your way of confronting LA without ever
actually
having to meet him? --TP

(BL dodged):
You're getting too easy to hook. Relax and go have a Krispy Kreme.

I finally tried KK a couple of weeks ago. Boy liked, me not.

Go ahead, Brian. Present yourself and face the evil you perceive. --TP

"B. Lafferty" wrote:
"B. Lafferty" wrote :
From VeloNews:

The 10 others appealed for fast-track trials. They were cyclists Daniele De
Paoli, Giuseppe Di Grande, Alberto Elli, Giuliano De Haro Figueras, Dario
Frigo, Giampaolo Mondini, Pavel Padrnos and Stefano Zanini; and physical
therapists Primo Pregnolato and Javier Francisco Fernandez.

Not the issue. The fact is, the people at the top levels of the sport are a
bunch of bull**** artists. What I've merely done is point out that the
reality they asserted in July is Padrnos' reality before the Italian courts.
Padrnos is going to trial on drug charges. His case was not dismissed as
Postal assured everyone it would be. Postal has a zero tolerance policy for
drugs. They've fired a rider in the past based on the policy. What will
they now do with Padrnos. I'm asking a question Phil Liggett will never ask
Lance or Johan.

Lafferty,

The original Giro blitz was in spring 2001, three and a half years ago.
The cases haven't come to trial yet. I don't really understand how the
Italian judicial system works, but given that timescale, it's not clear
that Postal's July statement about eventual dismissal of the charges
and his current request for an expedited trial are inconsistent.
"Expedited" may mean it gets processed in the current decade.
Apparently you can't apply instincts derived from Anglo speedy-trial
jurisprudence here.

Given the glacial pace of this and other investigations, rules about
suspending riders under investigation or not letting them ride the
Tour are a farce, since an innocent rider, should there be such a thing,
has no chance to clear his name in a reasonable time. The idea might
have merit, but the execution by the drug squads and prosecutors
undermines it.

gwhite wrote in message

I'm still trying to figure out why you care about dope in cycling so much.

this should be in the FAQ.

lafferty doesn't (care aboout dope), he just hates armstrong

postal is full of **** cause did not Jocheim test postive a few years back

On 29 Oct 2004 10:31:54 -0700, (Amit) wrote:

gwhite wrote in message

I'm still trying to figure out why you care about dope in cycling so much.

this should be in the FAQ.

lafferty doesn't (care aboout dope), he just hates armstrong

Lafferty, I've -seen- Armstrong haters, and you? You're an amateur...

-B
ok, talented amateur, but still... ;-D

"Benjamin Weiner" wrote in message The original
Giro blitz was in spring 2001, three and a half years ago.
The cases haven't come to trial yet. I don't really understand how the
Italian judicial system works, but given that timescale, it's not clear
that Postal's July statement about eventual dismissal of the charges
and his current request for an expedited trial are inconsistent.

Incorrect. From CyclingNews 7/16/04:
US Postal Service-Berry Floor team media manager Jogi Muller informed
Cyclingnews this morning that Pavel Padrnos will not be excluded from the
2004 Tour de France, despite ongoing speculation that he would be. His case
has been reviewed by the Tour organisers and the UCI, and although the Tour
de France felt that he should leave, the UCI didn't agree, and both parties
had to agree in order to exclude him.

Padrnos' attorney has a letter from the Italian investigators that has
absolved him of any wrongdoing in terms of possession of illegal substances
after the blitz of San Remo in the 2001 Giro d'Italia. Trace elements of
mannitol were found in his L-carnitine amino acid supplements, but mannitol
is no longer on the banned list, according to Muller. Although the
investigation is still open, the Italian police have closed their file on
Padrnos. An October 27 hearing in front of the judge in San Remo is
reportedly merely a procedural matter which will take the case off the
books.



And from CyclingNews 7/17/04:

Cyclingnews spoke to Lance Armstrong's agent Bill Stapleton about the Pavel
Padrnos case. "The team's position is that Pavel has been cleared by the
police in Italy," said Stapleton. Padrnos' attorney in Italy allegedly has a
letter from the NAS clearing his client of any wrongdoing. "As far as we're
concerned, it's just a procedural issue at this point."

In October, Padrnos, Zanini and other riders will have their case reviewed
in court in San Remo, Italy. Stapleton expects Padrnos' case to be
dismissed. "Our opinion is that the standard that ASO is applying - that all
riders under investigation cannot ride - is unfair to the riders."


"Expedited" may mean it gets processed in the current decade.
Apparently you can't apply instincts derived from Anglo speedy-trial
jurisprudence here.

Given the glacial pace of this and other investigations, rules about
suspending riders under investigation or not letting them ride the
Tour are a farce, since an innocent rider, should there be such a thing,
has no chance to clear his name in a reasonable time. The idea might
have merit, but the execution by the drug squads and prosecutors
undermines it.

Not the position of ASO. From CyclingNews 7/17/04:

The response of the ASO, which was on the losing side of the appeal, was
predictably one of disappointment and frustration. "The direction of the
Tour de France wants to remember that before the race started they decided
to apply the principle of precaution regarding doping matters without
prejudging the culpability of the individual. The teams signing the code at
the start agreed to that in the case where any team is under investigation.
The Tour de France acknowledges the decision of the PCC, however states that
there is a disagreement with the UCI and the PCC on this point."



And so, no dismissal didn't happen, and Postal/Discovery continue to pay a
rider facing trial on drug charges. And Postal's zero tolerance position?

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
link.net...

"Benjamin Weiner" wrote in message The
original Giro blitz was in spring 2001, three and a half years ago.
The cases haven't come to trial yet. I don't really understand how
the
Italian judicial system works, but given that timescale, it's not
clear
that Postal's July statement about eventual dismissal of the charges
and his current request for an expedited trial are inconsistent.

Incorrect. From CyclingNews 7/16/04:
US Postal Service-Berry Floor team media manager Jogi Muller informed
Cyclingnews this morning that Pavel Padrnos will not be excluded from
the 2004 Tour de France, despite ongoing speculation that he would be.
His case has been reviewed by the Tour organisers and the UCI, and
although the Tour de France felt that he should leave, the UCI didn't
agree, and both parties had to agree in order to exclude him.

Padrnos' attorney has a letter from the Italian investigators that has
absolved him of any wrongdoing in terms of possession of illegal
substances after the blitz of San Remo in the 2001 Giro d'Italia.
Trace elements of mannitol were found in his L-carnitine amino acid
supplements, but mannitol is no longer on the banned list, according
to Muller. Although the investigation is still open, the Italian
police have closed their file on Padrnos. An October 27 hearing in
front of the judge in San Remo is reportedly merely a procedural
matter which will take the case off the books.



And from CyclingNews 7/17/04:

Cyclingnews spoke to Lance Armstrong's agent Bill Stapleton about the
Pavel Padrnos case. "The team's position is that Pavel has been
cleared by the police in Italy," said Stapleton. Padrnos' attorney in
Italy allegedly has a letter from the NAS clearing his client of any
wrongdoing. "As far as we're concerned, it's just a procedural issue
at this point."

In October, Padrnos, Zanini and other riders will have their case
reviewed in court in San Remo, Italy. Stapleton expects Padrnos' case
to be dismissed. "Our opinion is that the standard that ASO is
applying - that all riders under investigation cannot ride - is unfair
to the riders."


"Expedited" may mean it gets processed in the current decade.
Apparently you can't apply instincts derived from Anglo speedy-trial
jurisprudence here.

Given the glacial pace of this and other investigations, rules about
suspending riders under investigation or not letting them ride the
Tour are a farce, since an innocent rider, should there be such a
thing,
has no chance to clear his name in a reasonable time. The idea might
have merit, but the execution by the drug squads and prosecutors
undermines it.

Not the position of ASO. From CyclingNews 7/17/04:

The response of the ASO, which was on the losing side of the appeal,
was predictably one of disappointment and frustration. "The direction
of the Tour de France wants to remember that before the race started
they decided to apply the principle of precaution regarding doping
matters without prejudging the culpability of the individual. The
teams signing the code at the start agreed to that in the case where
any team is under investigation. The Tour de France acknowledges the
decision of the PCC, however states that there is a disagreement with
the UCI and the PCC on this point."



And so, no dismissal didn't happen, and Postal/Discovery continue to
pay a rider facing trial on drug charges. And Postal's zero tolerance
position?

And given the circumstances.......Il n'ya que les imbeciles qui ne
changent pas d'avis.

PH

B. Lafferty wrote:

Padrnos' attorney has a letter from the Italian investigators that has
absolved him of any wrongdoing in terms of possession of illegal substances

Ah.
X's Y has a letter from Z absolving _Y_ of any wrongdoing...

"Stewart Fleming" wrote in message
news


B. Lafferty wrote:

Padrnos' attorney has a letter from the Italian investigators that has
absolved him of any wrongdoing in terms of possession of illegal
substances

Ah.
X's Y has a letter from Z absolving _Y_ of any wrongdoing...

So said Postal's PR man and Bill Stapleton. But will they keep him on with
charges and a trial pending. Zero tolerance?