Today Equipe"s Editorial

LES NEGATIONS DE L'UCI



The today editorial of l'Equipe. (september 10 2005)

Sorry but in french ; may be someone can help in the translation



DIX SEPT JOURS.

Dix sept jours, du mardi 23 août à hier, vendredi 9 septembre : tel est le
délai qu'il a fallu à l 'Union cycliste internationale (UCI) et à son
président, Hein Verbruggen, pour réagir (voir page 16) à la révélation, dans
l'Equipe de la présence d'EPO, produit dopant lourd interdit depuis le début
des années 90n dans six échantillons d'urine différents de Lance Armstrong
conservés depuis le Tour de France 1999

Normal, Lance Armstrong n'est après tout que le vainqueur des sept derniers
Tour de France, et à ce titre recordman de l'épreuve la plus prestigieuse et
la plus emblématique du sport cycliste, dont l'UCI est le gouvernement. Et
les pièces publiées dans l'Equipe du 23 août n'auraient rien démontré d
'essentiel : juste qu "Armstrong avait triché pour remporter son premier
Tour de France et qu'il avait menti tout au long de sa carrière, en
affirmant qu'il n'avait jamais, pendant l'exercice de celle-ci, consommé de
produit dopant.

Pareille information valait-elle que l'UCI et son président s'interrogent
sur le fond : les règles et l'éthique du sport ; et sur cette question
essentielle : Lance Armstrong a-t-il triché ou menti ? Bien sûr que non. Les
préoccupations de l'UCI et de M. Verbruggen sont ailleurs : qui sont les
responsables de cette nouvelle atteinte à la probité du cyclisme et de son
plus éminent champion ? Qui a permis la fuite d'informations censées rester
confidentielle ? De quel droit Richard Pound, président de l'Agence mondiale
antidopage, s'exprime-t-il sur le sujet, etc. ?

L'attitude de l'Union cycliste internationale nous a souvent interpellé
quant à sa propre hiérarchie des combats à mener. Elle est cette fois
confondante. Hein Verbruggen le reconnaissait lui-même, avec un brin de
fatalisme, dans les colonnes du Figaro, hier matin : " Je sais déjà qu'il y
aura des reproches avançant que nous ne nous attaquons qu'à la procédure.. "

Oui, sur ce dossier Armstrong, on peut légitimement reprocher à l'UCI et à
M. Verbruggen de ne pas se soucier du devenir de leur sport, qui court
pourtant de très graves dangers.

Au passage, bien entendu, ils ont également mis en cause la rigueur et l'objectivité
du travail de l'Equipe. Nos lecteurs en sont juges. C'est bien connu : ce n'est
pas dans les pelotons que le dopage est une abomination, mais bien dans les
colonnes des journaux.

Claude Droussent

Montesquiou wrote:
LES NEGATIONS DE L'UCI

The today editorial of l'Equipe. (september 10 2005)

Sorry but in french ; may be someone can help in the translation

Shorter version: "Hein? Thhpppbbbttt."

"Robert Chung" wrote in message
...
Montesquiou wrote:
LES NEGATIONS DE L'UCI

The today editorial of l'Equipe. (september 10 2005)

Sorry but in french ; may be someone can help in the translation

Shorter version: "Hein? Thhpppbbbttt."


Indeed. And Droussent is correct, the essential question is, "Lance
Armstrong a-t-il triché ou menti ?"

Il parait qui'll a fait tout les deux...tricher et mentir.

B. Lafferty wrote:

Indeed. And Droussent is correct, the essential question is, "Lance
Armstrong a-t-il triché ou menti ?"

In much the same way that the essential question is "Who really killed
Nicole Simpson?"

B. Lafferty wrote:
"Robert Chung" wrote

Shorter version: "Hein? Thhpppbbbttt."

Indeed. And Droussent is correct, the essential question is, "Lance
Armstrong a-t-il triché ou menti ?"

Brian? Thhpppbbbttt.

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

"Robert Chung" wrote in message
...
Montesquiou wrote:
LES NEGATIONS DE L'UCI

The today editorial of l'Equipe. (september 10 2005)

Sorry but in french ; may be someone can help in the translation

Shorter version: "Hein? Thhpppbbbttt."


Indeed. And Droussent is correct, the essential question is, "Lance
Armstrong a-t-il triché ou menti ?"

It's okay, Brian. _I_ believe you.

ROFL

--
All men dream, but not equally.
Those who dream by night in the dusty
recesses of their minds
Awake to find that it was vanity;
But the dreamers of day are dangerous men,
That they may act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible.
-- T. E. Lawrence

http://spaces.msn.com/members/flomblog/

Dans le message de news:tTDUe.222154$9A2.57252@edtnps89,
Jim Flom a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Chung" wrote in message
...
Montesquiou wrote:
LES NEGATIONS DE L'UCI

The today editorial of l'Equipe. (september 10 2005)

Sorry but in french ; may be someone can help in the translation

Shorter version: "Hein? Thhpppbbbttt."


Indeed. And Droussent is correct, the essential question is, "Lance
Armstrong a-t-il triché ou menti ?"

It's okay, Brian. _I_ believe you.

Golly, Jim, spending all your time obsessing over Lafferty ?
Like me and you, he is a speck in cycling. You seem offended that Armstrong
can be put in the spotlight, and a glaring one. Let's just stick to the big
guy, OK. You are saying that the stuff Lafferty has reproduced (without
appartent permission - attention, Brian), is just gross turds ? I think
that, whether or not you like the messenger (yes he harps on a single
theme), it's hard to see where that leaves Armstrong in such a cool
position.

There are results of scientific analysis. Not one person (make sure you
read the entirety of comments) has disputed the actual methodology, except
(in rbr) Andy Coggan, who didn't give a good clue as to how to create EPO,
in frozen samples, from the stuff we ****.

So, pass on the messenger, stop (yourself !) obsessing, and take a clear
look. Frankly, why not let all the guys who want short but financially
profitable lives, do their thing, stop thinking that a race that takes place
in France should have labs in Ecuador do the analysis, and admit that the
shoulder and head that McEwen gave was no more and no less cheating than
Armstrong seems to have done. Cheating, not biochemistry, is the part of
competition that makes this no longer a sport.

Since I don't pay much attention to the other sports often referred to
here - is it true that the Red Sox finally won a World Series. Yeah, I
could look that up, but that would be examining reported facts, which, as we
know, is not reliable history.

Many thanks
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine
*******

La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
-- Einstein, A.

"Sandy" wrote in message
...
Dans le message de news:tTDUe.222154$9A2.57252@edtnps89,
Jim Flom a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Chung" wrote in message
...
Montesquiou wrote:
LES NEGATIONS DE L'UCI

The today editorial of l'Equipe. (september 10 2005)

Sorry but in french ; may be someone can help in the translation

Shorter version: "Hein? Thhpppbbbttt."


Indeed. And Droussent is correct, the essential question is, "Lance
Armstrong a-t-il triché ou menti ?"

It's okay, Brian. _I_ believe you.

Golly, Jim, spending all your time obsessing over Lafferty ?
Like me and you, he is a speck in cycling. You seem offended that
Armstrong can be put in the spotlight, and a glaring one. Let's just
stick to the big guy, OK. You are saying that the stuff Lafferty has
reproduced (without appartent permission - attention, Brian), is just
gross turds ? I think that, whether or not you like the messenger (yes he
harps on a single theme), it's hard to see where that leaves Armstrong in
such a cool position.

You and I are but specks of that rhythmic urge which is Brahma, which is
Allah, which is God.--Ruth St. Denis


There are results of scientific analysis. Not one person (make sure you
read the entirety of comments) has disputed the actual methodology, except
(in rbr) Andy Coggan, who didn't give a good clue as to how to create EPO,
in frozen samples, from the stuff we ****.

So, pass on the messenger, stop (yourself !) obsessing, and take a clear
look. Frankly, why not let all the guys who want short but financially
profitable lives, do their thing, stop thinking that a race that takes
place in France should have labs in Ecuador do the analysis, and admit
that the shoulder and head that McEwen gave was no more and no less
cheating than Armstrong seems to have done. Cheating, not biochemistry,
is the part of competition that makes this no longer a sport.

Since I don't pay much attention to the other sports often referred to
here - is it true that the Red Sox finally won a World Series. Yeah, I
could look that up, but that would be examining reported facts, which, as
we know, is not reliable history.




Many thanks
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine
*******

La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
-- Einstein, A.

Sandy wrote:

Cheating, not biochemistry, is the part of
competition that makes this no longer a sport.




Dumbass -


You've got your head up your ass.

Biochemistry is now a part of *all* professional sports and has been
for quite some time. Cycling is not unique in this regard.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.