A Double Standard?

Looks that way.
http://www.eurosport.com/cycling/tou...to915706.shtml

B. Lafferty wrote:
Looks that way.
http://www.eurosport.com/cycling/tou...to915706.shtml

If they'd announced that Jan could ride at the same time they tried to
deny everyone else, then I'd say there was a double standard.

This announcement was made after they've already been rebuked in their
efforts at denying others who've been implicated, but not prosecuted.
My guess is they've just decided it wasn't worth the effort to single
Jan out at this time, considering they would be denied there as well.

There is a huge difference between a document with a one-word reference
to a *possible* nickname for Ulrich's coach, and an entire team that is
quite obviously on a program (with full team ownership/support).

C'mon, lets at least give Ulrich a few moments to breathe.


B. Lafferty wrote:
Looks that way.
http://www.eurosport.com/cycling/tou...to915706.shtml

wrote in message
oups.com...
There is a huge difference between a document with a one-word reference
to a *possible* nickname for Ulrich's coach, and an entire team that is
quite obviously on a program (with full team ownership/support).

It's more than a one word reference. You also have his right hand man for
the mountains implicated. Nothing has thus far been "proved" that wuld
allow the UCI to take disiplinary action against any of them on any of the
teams involved. Yet, Communidad is out and the Tour is seeking to have
Wurth barred as well. Perhaps Vino is not seen as the contender that Jan
is. That's not exactly equal treatment of the teams.




C'mon, lets at least give Ulrich a few moments to breathe.


B. Lafferty wrote:
Looks that way.
http://www.eurosport.com/cycling/tou...to915706.shtml

The IOC should just say "Ciao" to cycling and cut us loose. Then
they'll no longer have to worry about Dick Pound (or what Lance
Armstrong thinks of Dick Pound).

Then the UCI can just deregulate doping, being that "so few" riders
test positive anyway. That's what they wish for anyway. Not being
involved.




B. Lafferty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
There is a huge difference between a document with a one-word reference
to a *possible* nickname for Ulrich's coach, and an entire team that is
quite obviously on a program (with full team ownership/support).

It's more than a one word reference. You also have his right hand man for
the mountains implicated. Nothing has thus far been "proved" that wuld
allow the UCI to take disiplinary action against any of them on any of the
teams involved. Yet, Communidad is out and the Tour is seeking to have
Wurth barred as well. Perhaps Vino is not seen as the contender that Jan
is. That's not exactly equal treatment of the teams.




C'mon, lets at least give Ulrich a few moments to breathe.


B. Lafferty wrote:
Looks that way.
http://www.eurosport.com/cycling/tou...to915706.shtml

wrote in message
oups.com...
The IOC should just say "Ciao" to cycling and cut us loose. Then
they'll no longer have to worry about Dick Pound (or what Lance
Armstrong thinks of Dick Pound).

Then the UCI can just deregulate doping, being that "so few" riders
test positive anyway. That's what they wish for anyway. Not being
involved.

The business of cycling is a bit more complicated than that.

wrote:
There is a huge difference between a document with a one-word reference
to a *possible* nickname for Ulrich's coach, and an entire team that is
quite obviously on a program (with full team ownership/support).

True, but it's enough evidence to warrant a DNA test on the blood.
Maybe they are doing that. If so, you'd think they'd make sure they had
a result before the Tour starts.

Bret

B. Lafferty wrote:
wrote :
There is a huge difference between a document with a one-word reference
to a *possible* nickname for Ulrich's coach, and an entire team that is
quite obviously on a program (with full team ownership/support).

It's more than a one word reference. You also have his right hand man for
the mountains implicated. Nothing has thus far been "proved" that wuld
allow the UCI to take disiplinary action against any of them on any of the
teams involved. Yet, Communidad is out and the Tour is seeking to have
Wurth barred as well. Perhaps Vino is not seen as the contender that Jan
is. That's not exactly equal treatment of the teams.

It's not a double standard - that would imply the riders are on
an equal basis. But calculate the number of Germans likely
to come to the Tour, buy products of the Tour sponsors and so on.
Now compare that to the number of Kazaks likely to. There's a
clear difference, by which ASO may make an impartial distinction.
Isn't the war on doping grand? Without it, we might not have any
moral standards!

wrote in message
ups.com...
B. Lafferty wrote:
wrote :
There is a huge difference between a document with a one-word reference
to a *possible* nickname for Ulrich's coach, and an entire team that is
quite obviously on a program (with full team ownership/support).

It's more than a one word reference. You also have his right hand man
for
the mountains implicated. Nothing has thus far been "proved" that wuld
allow the UCI to take disiplinary action against any of them on any of
the
teams involved. Yet, Communidad is out and the Tour is seeking to have
Wurth barred as well. Perhaps Vino is not seen as the contender that Jan
is. That's not exactly equal treatment of the teams.

It's not a double standard - that would imply the riders are on
an equal basis. But calculate the number of Germans likely
to come to the Tour, buy products of the Tour sponsors and so on.
Now compare that to the number of Kazaks likely to. There's a
clear difference, by which ASO may make an impartial distinction.
Isn't the war on doping grand? Without it, we might not have any
moral standards!

"Money talks; nobody walks." Dennison, the Men's Clothier, Paramus, New
Jersey.

In article
. net,
"B. Lafferty" wrote:

Looks that way.
http://www.eurosport.com/cycling/tou...to915706.shtml

It's not in French is it?

--
Michael Press