DiLuca On Armstrong

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by B. Lafferty, Jun 26, 2004.

  1. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "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
     
    Tags:


  2. TM

    TM Guest

    "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "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.
     
  3. Dave H

    Dave H Guest

    "TM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > "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
     
  4. Dave H wrote:

    > "TM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >>"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>news:[email protected]
    >>
    >>>"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?
     
  5. TM

    TM Guest

    "Dave H" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > 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.
     
  6. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "TM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "Dave H" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > > 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.
     
  7. Rich Clark

    Rich Clark Guest

    "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    > 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
     
  8. Dave H

    Dave H Guest

    "Richard Adams" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Dave H wrote:
    >
    > > "TM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > >>"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >>news:[email protected]
    > >>
    > >>>"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
     
  9. Dave H wrote:

    > "Richard Adams" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >>Dave H wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>"TM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>news:[email protected]
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>news:[email protected]
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>"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.
     
  10. TM

    TM Guest

    "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > 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?
     
  11. 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?
     
  12. "Stewart Fleming" <[email protected]> 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.
     
  13. TM

    TM Guest

    "Stewart Fleming" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:f%%[email protected]
    >
    > 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.
     
  14. Carl Sundquist wrote:

    > "Stewart Fleming" <[email protected]> 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?
     
Loading...
Loading...