DiLuca On Armstrong

[B. Lafferty]

"I also wonder if Armstrong will take the start after the
revelations in the book in France, in which it's said that
he has used banned substances and which the French courts
allowed to be published

[Tm]

"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
news:najDc.28939$Y3.4674@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "I also wonder if Armstrong will take the start after the
> revelations in
the
> book in France, in which it's said that he has used banned
> substances and which the French courts allowed to be
> published
>

I wondered about Leblanc stating that being accused of
wrongdoing was enough to preclude starting the tour. I think
DiLuca has taken the point to the absurd, because obviously,
Leblanc meant accused by the justice system and not the
press. It opens the door, however, to every prosecutor to
disqualify any rider by bringing charges no matter how
strong the evidence on which they are based.

They should be able to race until proven guilty.

[Dave H]

"TM" <lkjd@lkjk.com> wrote in message
news:10drisclon1dne1@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message news:na-
> jDc.28939$Y3.4674@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > "I also wonder if Armstrong will take the start after
> > the revelations in
> the
> > book in France, in which it's said that he has used
> > banned substances
and
> > which the French courts allowed to be published
> >
>
> I wondered about Leblanc stating that being accused of
> wrongdoing was
enough
> to preclude starting the tour. I think DiLuca has taken
> the point to the absurd, because obviously, Leblanc meant
> accused by the justice system and not the press. It opens
> the door, however, to every prosecutor to disqualify any
> rider by bringing charges no matter how strong the
> evidence on which they are based.
>
> They should be able to race until proven guilty.

He didn't say accused y the justice system, he said any
rider involved in a formal investigation Lance is not under
investigation, DiLuca is

Dave

[Richard Adams]

Dave H wrote:

> "TM" <lkjd@lkjk.com> wrote in message
> news:10drisclon1dne1@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message news:na-
>>jDc.28939$Y3.4674@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>"I also wonder if Armstrong will take the start after the
>>>revelations in
>>
>>the
>>
>>>book in France, in which it's said that he has used
>>>banned substances
>
> and
>
>>>which the French courts allowed to be published
>>>
>>
>>I wondered about Leblanc stating that being accused of
>>wrongdoing was
>
> enough
>
>>to preclude starting the tour. I think DiLuca has taken
>>the point to the absurd, because obviously, Leblanc meant
>>accused by the justice system and not the press. It opens
>>the door, however, to every prosecutor to disqualify any
>>rider by bringing charges no matter how strong the
>>evidence on which they are based.
>>
>>They should be able to race until proven guilty.
>
>
> He didn't say accused y the justice system, he said any
> rider involved in a formal investigation Lance is not
> under investigation, DiLuca is
>
> Dave
>
>

But wasn't Lance under formal investigation until last year?
If so then by that same yardstick Lance would have been
excluded. How does LeBlanc feel about that?

[Tm]

"Dave H" <dhansen2@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:HlkDc.535$Fy.107@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> He didn't say accused y the justice system, he said any
> rider involved in
a
> formal investigation Lance is not under investigation,
> DiLuca is
>
> Dave
>
What? Are they investigating people they suspect of
being innocent now? Of course those being investigated
are accused.

I never said anything about Lance. My point was that it was
unfair to prohibit a rider from racing because some
authority suspects they may have broken the law but has not
yet proven it to be a fact.

[B. Lafferty]

"TM" <lkjd@lkjk.com> wrote in message
news:10drn0ght575p9c@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Dave H" <dhansen2@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:HlkDc.535$Fy.107@twister.socal.rr.com...
> >
> > He didn't say accused y the justice system, he said any
> > rider involved
in
> a
> > formal investigation Lance is not under investigation,
> > DiLuca is
> >
> > Dave
> >
> What? Are they investigating people they suspect of being
> innocent now?
Of
> course those being investigated are accused.
>
> I never said anything about Lance. My point was that it
> was unfair to prohibit a rider from racing because some
> authority suspects they may have broken the law but has
> not yet proven it to be a fact.

It may not be a fully accurate analogy, but I think you
could say that being under investigation in the French
judicial system is akin to being the "target" of a US grand
jury investigation.

[Rich Clark]

"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
news:cllDc.15231$bs4.8277@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

> It may not be a fully accurate analogy, but I think you
> could say that being under investigation in the French
> judicial system is akin to being
the
> "target" of a US grand jury investigation.

I think you could say that being under investigation in the
French judicial system is akin to being the subject of an
expose in the National Enquirer.

RichC

[Dave H]

"Richard Adams" <ackthpt@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:cbkkb2$d2l@dispatch.concentric.net...
> Dave H wrote:
>
> > "TM" <lkjd@lkjk.com> wrote in message
> > news:10drisclon1dne1@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >>"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message news:-
> >>najDc.28939$Y3.4674@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >>
> >>>"I also wonder if Armstrong will take the start after
> >>>the revelations
in
> >>
> >>the
> >>
> >>>book in France, in which it's said that he has used
> >>>banned substances
> >
> > and
> >
> >>>which the French courts allowed to be published
> >>>
> >>
> >>I wondered about Leblanc stating that being accused of
> >>wrongdoing was
> >
> > enough
> >
> >>to preclude starting the tour. I think DiLuca has taken
> >>the point to
the
> >>absurd, because obviously, Leblanc meant accused by the
> >>justice system
and
> >>not the press. It opens the door, however, to every
> >>prosecutor to disqualify any rider by bringing charges
> >>no matter how strong the evidence on which they are
> >>based.
> >>
> >>They should be able to race until proven guilty.
> >
> >
> > He didn't say accused y the justice system, he said any
> > rider involved
in a
> > formal investigation Lance is not under investigation,
> > DiLuca is
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
>
> But wasn't Lance under formal investigation until last
> year? If so then by that same yardstick Lance would have
> been excluded. How does LeBlanc feel about that?

No that investigation was closed before the TDF started last
year, and this development by the Societe' D' Tour just came
to be in the last month Dave

[Richard Adams]

Dave H wrote:

> "Richard Adams" <ackthpt@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:cbkkb2$d2l@dispatch.concentric.net...
>
>>Dave H wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"TM" <lkjd@lkjk.com> wrote in message
>>>news:10drisclon1dne1@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message news:-
>>>>najDc.28939$Y3.4674@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"I also wonder if Armstrong will take the start after
>>>>>the revelations
>
> in
>
>>>>the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>book in France, in which it's said that he has used
>>>>>banned substances
>>>
>>>and
>>>
>>>
>>>>>which the French courts allowed to be published
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I wondered about Leblanc stating that being accused of
>>>>wrongdoing was
>>>
>>>enough
>>>
>>>
>>>>to preclude starting the tour. I think DiLuca has taken
>>>>the point to
>
> the
>
>>>>absurd, because obviously, Leblanc meant accused by the
>>>>justice system
>
> and
>
>>>>not the press. It opens the door, however, to every
>>>>prosecutor to disqualify any rider by bringing charges
>>>>no matter how strong the evidence on which they are
>>>>based.
>>>>
>>>>They should be able to race until proven guilty.
>>>
>>>
>>>He didn't say accused y the justice system, he said any
>>>rider involved
>
> in a
>
>>>formal investigation Lance is not under investigation,
>>>DiLuca is
>>>
>>>Dave
>>>
>>>
>>
>>But wasn't Lance under formal investigation until last
>>year? If so then by that same yardstick Lance would have
>>been excluded. How does LeBlanc feel about that?
>
>
> No that investigation was closed before the TDF started
> last year, and this development by the Societe' D' Tour
> just came to be in the last month Dave
>
>

Right, but the investigation had being going on a couple
years. A few well placed people who dislike any racer
could certainly trump up some bogus charges and voila the
racer is out.

[Tm]

"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
news:cllDc.15231$bs4.8277@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> It may not be a fully accurate analogy, but I think you
> could say that being under investigation in the French
> judicial system is akin to being
the
> "target" of a US grand jury investigation.
>

Isn't it still calling the winner before the line?

[Stewart Fleming]

TM wrote:

> I never said anything about Lance. My point was that it
> was unfair to prohibit a rider from racing because some
> authority suspects they may have broken the law but has
> not yet proven it to be a fact.

In athletics, the fall-out from Kelli White's testimony has
set up this exact situation, where a positive test is "only
one form of evidence".

The difference with cycling is that instead of there being a
very tight ring of influence (Victor Conte + BALCO +
associated coaches/trainers/athletes), doping is more
distributed - riders get their own rather than there being
one overall "fixer". My conjecture is as a result, cycling
will never be truly clean as a sport.

To draw a further parallel, when Nebiolo headed up the IAAF,
the attitude towards doping was much the same as it is
within the UCI under Verbruggen. We've seen a wholesale
change in approach by WADA in the last 2 years and the IOC
obviously making a stand in Olympic year. Can the Tour
afford to have a PR disaster of many positive tests and
suspensions this year and suffer by comparison?

But, as others have commented, what should be done about
doping - go back to the 1950s attitude and ignore it? Make
the health risks known and let it happen? Would performances
overall really suffer if we tolerated a testosterone-based
preparation programme and the use of selected "recovery
products" for the tours?

[Carl Sundquist]

"Stewart Fleming" <stewart.fleming@paradise.net.nz> wrote
in message
>
> To draw a further parallel, when Nebiolo headed up the
> IAAF, the attitude towards doping was much the same as it
> is within the UCI under Verbruggen.

Tell it to Butch Reynolds.

[Tm]

"Stewart Fleming" <stewart.fleming@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:f%%DC.5274$NA1.486457@news02.tsnz.net...
>
> But, as others have commented, what should be done about
> doping - go back to the 1950s attitude and ignore it? Make
> the health risks known and let it happen? Would
> performances overall really suffer if we tolerated a testosterone-
> based preparation programme and the use of selected
> "recovery products" for the tours?
>

I think the real problem is that no rider can prove that
they are clean. Until a protocol exists whereby someone
can be assumed to be clean the sport is doomed on
perception alone.

I would rather keep the police out of it all together. If
they have to be involved, I would hope that they would have
to do their job properly and completely before they effect
some athlete's life and the outcome of a sporting event.

As for opening the flood gates, we have that sport already
and it is called horse racing! I mean that on two levels.
One a joke. Two, on a serious note, I don't want to find out
who has the best trainer (or doctor), but who is the best
racer. Legalizing doping would reduce the role of rider to
that no greater than a horse born with the right blood
lines. The true stars would be in the lab.

[Stewart Fleming]

Carl Sundquist wrote:

> "Stewart Fleming" <stewart.fleming@paradise.net.nz> wrote
> in message
>
>>To draw a further parallel, when Nebiolo headed up the
>>IAAF, the attitude towards doping was much the same as it
>>is within the UCI under Verbruggen.
>
>
> Tell it to Butch Reynolds.

By "much the same attitude", I was referring to suspension
after positive test only, which would cover the Reynolds
case. Now, the situation is one where "other forms of
evidence", such as testimony from witnesses, even
association with guilty parties can be used to determine
suspensions.

OK, so entry to this year's Tour is closed to those under
investigation for doping offences. But how many of those
investigations have been initiated by the UCI?