Gotta let them race.

[Bill C]

I don't like it, but I can't see any other objective and just way out
unless CAS rules for ASO in this:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/jun06/jun29news

Nataf will base its argumentation on Article 28 of the Tour de France
rules, which states, "An organiser has the right to refuse a team or a
member of a team whose presence is susceptible of blemishing the image
of cycling, of the organiser or of the race." This regulation is
slightly different to the UCI article 2.6.036, according to which "a
licence holder or a team may be excluded from a race if he/it seriously
blemishes the image of cycling or of the race", in that persons even
susceptible of tainting the image of the event may be refused.

This is a really tough one because nothing has been adjudicated and
the investigation is ongoing. No one has been found guilty yet, and I
haven't seen formal charges brought against any of the racers named, so
I couldn't, in good conscience, exclude them.
If there was a way to recompense those who don't end up being, at
least, formally charged for the damage done to their incomes, and
reputations then I'd say put them on paid leave for the race, but
missing the race really is like taking the season away from some of
these teams and riders.They've made a massive investment in preparing
for this and unless they are willing to charge them before the race
then they need to let them race.
Misconduct deserves a fair hearing before being punished, and in this
case suspending them now would be punishment that far outweighs
allegations, and that's what they are at this point.
Maybe pretty damned solid allegations with serious circumstantial
evidence, but I just couldn't suspend them until they were at least
formally charged.
Bill C

 

[Bill C]

I Guess that I'm agreeing with this:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10155.0.html

"We disagree with the prejudices of certain organizations and people
who judge professional cyclists on information found exclusively in the
press," the CPA said in a statement issued Wednesday.

The cat's already out of the bag, and everyone looks like ****. Let's
not compund it by a Kangaroo Court/ Lynch mob mentality.
Bill C

 

[Jonathan v.d. Sluis]

"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1151597313.383791.89380
@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

I think there have been examples of riders who were excluded just on the
basis of them being under investigation. Wasn't it the case with DiLuca?

If the tour decides to let all 58 riders race, and they're all found
guilty, then this year's tour will have been a too obvious farce. It's a
possibility they should avoid and from that viewpoint I could somewhat
understand Basso and Ullrich both being banned from the race.

 

[[email protected]]

Sure to an american. But the french legal system is rather backwards.
Guilty until proven innocent and they still won't let it go.

USCF has rule which is rather the opposite of Article 28:

"1G9. Limitiations. Except for invitational races, the organizer must
provide an equal opportunity for all qualified applicants to
participate without discrimination."

The TDF is not purely an invational race since the pro-tour teams are
automatics.

R


Bill C wrote:
> I don't like it, but I can't see any other objective and just way out
> unless CAS rules for ASO in this:
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/jun06/jun29news
>
> Nataf will base its argumentation on Article 28 of the Tour de France
> rules, which states, "An organiser has the right to refuse a team or a
> member of a team whose presence is susceptible of blemishing the image
> of cycling, of the organiser or of the race." This regulation is
> slightly different to the UCI article 2.6.036, according to which "a
> licence holder or a team may be excluded from a race if he/it seriously
> blemishes the image of cycling or of the race", in that persons even
> susceptible of tainting the image of the event may be refused.
>
> This is a really tough one because nothing has been adjudicated and
> the investigation is ongoing. No one has been found guilty yet, and I
> haven't seen formal charges brought against any of the racers named, so
> I couldn't, in good conscience, exclude them.
> If there was a way to recompense those who don't end up being, at
> least, formally charged for the damage done to their incomes, and
> reputations then I'd say put them on paid leave for the race, but
> missing the race really is like taking the season away from some of
> these teams and riders.They've made a massive investment in preparing
> for this and unless they are willing to charge them before the race
> then they need to let them race.
> Misconduct deserves a fair hearing before being punished, and in this
> case suspending them now would be punishment that far outweighs
> allegations, and that's what they are at this point.
> Maybe pretty damned solid allegations with serious circumstantial
> evidence, but I just couldn't suspend them until they were at least
> formally charged.
> Bill C

 

[Sandy]

[email protected] a écrit :
> Sure to an american. But the french legal system is rather backwards.
> Guilty until proven innocent and they still won't let it go.
>
> USCF has rule which is rather the opposite of Article 28:
>
> "1G9. Limitiations. Except for invitational races, the organizer must
> provide an equal opportunity for all qualified applicants to
> participate without discrimination."
>
> The TDF is not purely an invational race since the pro-tour teams are
> automatics.
>
> R
>
>
> Bill C wrote:
This isn't entirely directed at you - I don't know you.
However, Iowa is a big beef state, I hear.
Beef with the best hormonal additives you can buy.
France refuses to admit imports of this beef, for the reasons of that
"doping".
Do you want to reconsider the logic that led you to write ?
Especially as to "backward". You really don't have a clue, but you can
author anything you like on the internet, as anyone may.

I'm not at all interested in promoting one legal system over another.
It would help you - not that you're typically American - to learn what
you're writing about.
After all, you have and .EDU address. Get EDUcated a little. It won't
hurt.

--

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

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On 29 Jun 2006 09:19:13 -0700, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"1G9. Limitiations. Except for invitational races, the organizer must
>provide an equal opportunity for all qualified applicants to
>participate without discrimination."

I doubt that one excludes the other. Equal opportunity speaks to the
issue of not discriminating on the basis of a particular class of
individuals for reasons not relevant to the competition.

You can't interpret that too broadly, or you would be forced to
accomodate any and all handicapped racers that otherwise qualify and
request entry, as an example.

The greater problem is simply that at the level that drug suspicion
has reached, they could exclude everyone and shut the Tour down under
the para that Bill quoted.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[RJG]

You have to look at the letters before the "edu" as well.

I was waiting for you to pounce on the "backwards" sentence.


"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] a écrit :
>> Sure to an american. But the french legal system is rather backwards.
>> Guilty until proven innocent and they still won't let it go.
>>
>> USCF has rule which is rather the opposite of Article 28:
>>
>> "1G9. Limitiations. Except for invitational races, the organizer must
>> provide an equal opportunity for all qualified applicants to
>> participate without discrimination."
>>
>> The TDF is not purely an invational race since the pro-tour teams are
>> automatics.
>>
>> R
>>
>>
>> Bill C wrote:
> This isn't entirely directed at you - I don't know you.
> However, Iowa is a big beef state, I hear.
> Beef with the best hormonal additives you can buy.
> France refuses to admit imports of this beef, for the reasons of that
> "doping".
> Do you want to reconsider the logic that led you to write ?
> Especially as to "backward". You really don't have a clue, but you can
> author anything you like on the internet, as anyone may.
>
> I'm not at all interested in promoting one legal system over another.
> It would help you - not that you're typically American - to learn what
> you're writing about.
> After all, you have and .EDU address. Get EDUcated a little. It won't
> hurt.
>
> --
>
> Sandy Verneuil-sur-Seine
> *******
> La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette, il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre
> l'équilibre.
> -- Einstein, A.

 

[Donald Munro]

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> You can't interpret that too broadly, or you would be forced to
> accomodate any and all handicapped racers that otherwise qualify and
> request entry, as an example.

So tj from az could have participated in the TDF after all.

 

[Donald Munro]

Sandy wrote:
> This isn't entirely directed at you - I don't know you.
> However, Iowa is a big beef state, I hear.

I was under the impression Iowa was the cultural heart of the US.

 

[Bill C]

Sandy wrote:
>
> I'm not at all interested in promoting one legal system over another.
> It would help you - not that you're typically American - to learn what
> you're writing about.
> After all, you have and .EDU address. Get EDUcated a little. It won't
> hurt.
>
> --
>
> Sandy Verneuil-sur-Seine
> *******
> La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette, il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre
> l'équilibre.
> -- Einstein, A.

Looks like a Belgian judge has a different slant that would seem to
say the accusations are wrong.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/jun06/jun29news3

CAS ruled that the team of Alexandre Vinokourov will be able to
participate in the race. Belgian judge Guido de Croock decided the
matter, basing his sentence on the fact that no official information on
the team's links to the doping network had yet been revealed.

Granted my experience with the court systems in Europe is limited, and
to family and friends, but they seemed to work fine, maybe a little
slower and more bureaucratic than ours, but sometimes slow justice is
better justice.
Either way the job generally gets done pretty well IMO. It was always
meant to be a messy system, no way to avoid it when rights are in
conflict and you are trying very hard to provide justice.
Bill C

 

[Mark]

Bill C wrote:

> Looks like a Belgian judge has a different slant that would seem to
> say the accusations are wrong.

I didn't see him saying accusations were *wrong*, rather that so far
they were only coming from the press, and not *yet* from official sources.

> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/jun06/jun29news3
>
> CAS ruled that the team of Alexandre Vinokourov will be able to
> participate in the race. Belgian judge Guido de Croock decided the
> matter, basing his sentence on the fact that no official information on
> the team's links to the doping network had yet been revealed.

I agree that this is a reasonable approach, but a real headache for
everyone if official charges *do* get made 2 weeks into the tour. This
could make '98 look like a cake-walk.

Mark

 

[Bill C]

Mark wrote:
..
>
> I agree that this is a reasonable approach, but a real headache for
> everyone if official charges *do* get made 2 weeks into the tour. This
> could make '98 look like a cake-walk.
>
> Mark

No doubt it's a complete disaster either way, but if you let them ride
you have the cover of due process.
How stupid does everyone, in cycling, involved look for concentrating
on **** that happened in 1999 while this was boiling away right under
their noses. They were all so busy with their little public pissing
match that they were clueless. Pound is so obsessed with his vendettas
and personal agenda that he's totally unfit to lead an investgative
agency. He proved that by finding no wrong doing in the IOC bribery
scandal. This should jump way over the bar of incomptence required for
him to be forced out.
This shouldn't get just him either, it should take the top right off
the sport before it's all over.
Bill C

 

[Les Earnest]

[email protected] wrote:
> Sure to an american. But the french legal system is rather backwards.
> Guilty until proven innocent and they still won't let it go.
>
> USCF has rule which is rather the opposite of Article 28:
>
> "1G9. Limitiations. Except for invitational races, the organizer must
> provide an equal opportunity for all qualified applicants to
> participate without discrimination."

Yes, I introduced that rule in the 1980s as an antidote to promoters who
wanted to exclude people they didn't like. It led to a lot of squawking
but it worked.

-Les Earnest

 

[RonSonic]

On 29 Jun 2006 13:36:00 -0700, "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Mark wrote:
>.
>>
>> I agree that this is a reasonable approach, but a real headache for
>> everyone if official charges *do* get made 2 weeks into the tour. This
>> could make '98 look like a cake-walk.
>>
>> Mark
>
> No doubt it's a complete disaster either way, but if you let them ride
>you have the cover of due process.
> How stupid does everyone, in cycling, involved look for concentrating
>on **** that happened in 1999 while this was boiling away right under
>their noses.

Doncha know, they were busy "safing" the sport from itself.

The important thing is, this was a serious, professional investigation that is
going to deliver legitimate, usable evidence. Not some tabloid driven drivel.

> They were all so busy with their little public pissing
>match that they were clueless. Pound is so obsessed with his vendettas
>and personal agenda that he's totally unfit to lead an investgative
>agency. He proved that by finding no wrong doing in the IOC bribery
>scandal. This should jump way over the bar of incomptence required for
>him to be forced out.

We can only hope. He'll hide behind excuses, claim UCI interfered and prevented
him from getting the job done.

> This shouldn't get just him either, it should take the top right off
>the sport before it's all over.

I'll hate to see it happen, but if it must, and apparently that is the case,
it'll be done by professional investigators acting lawfully. Not the previous
lynchings that caught one out of 500 and punished him enough to try to make up
for all the ones they know they didn't get.

Ron

 

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1151597313.383791.89380
>@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>I think there have been examples of riders who were excluded just on the
>basis of them being under investigation. Wasn't it the case with DiLuca?
>
>If the tour decides to let all 58 riders race, and they're all found
>guilty, then this year's tour will have been a too obvious farce. It's a
>possibility they should avoid and from that viewpoint I could somewhat
>understand Basso and Ullrich both being banned from the race.

True. But this story broke a couple of weeks ago. Why are they waiting till
the day before the start of the race to exclude riders? If a rider had proof
of his innocense, he won't have time to put it all together to defend himself.
What they are doing is the right thing, but the timing is way off.
-----------------
Alex