|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
ulrich found guilty of doping results since may 2005 annulled
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
ulrich found guilty of doping results since may 2005 annulled
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
ulrich found guilty of doping results since may 2005 annulled
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
ulrich found guilty of doping results since may 2005 annulled
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
ulrich found guilty of doping results since may 2005 annulled
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- |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
ulrich found guilty of doping results since may 2005 annulled
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). -- |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
ulrich found guilty of doping results since may 2005 annulled
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
ulrich found guilty of doping results since may 2005 annulled
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. -- |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
ulrich found guilty of doping results since may 2005 annulled
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- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Van driver found guilty of racist abuse. | Simon Mason[_4_] | UK | 2 | August 5th 11 12:58 AM |
Landis found guilty of doping | Kenny | General | 10 | September 27th 07 07:10 PM |
Lifetime ban for riders found guilty of doping.................!!! | [email protected] | Racing | 10 | July 28th 06 04:00 AM |
TYLER HAMILTON FOUND GUILTY | MagillaGorilla | Racing | 1 | April 12th 05 08:45 PM |
Driver of HGV that killed Sebastian Lukomski found guilty & sentenced | Buffalo Bill | Social Issues | 79 | December 2nd 04 09:51 AM |