Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
Very few nits to pick.
Quoted message said:IMHO the French lab has serious procedural problems with how it
manages information. Adverse test results should never, ever be
leaked from the lab to the press- those results should be announced
only by the sanctioning body, and only after the athlete has been
notified.
You may recall that significant results have not been "leaked" by this lab,
but rather have been given following a release from the athlete or WADA. In
other moments, it has been the WADA or UCI that has made information public,
first.
Quoted message said:The French lab has screwed up on that in very high profile
ways a number of times.
I really don't recall this specific sin, but I also can't add anything to
the "scientific" arguments. In any case where the legitimacy of a test is
questioned, the challenge must to go the science, the competence, or the
veracity. There will always be two sides, at least, and the procedure for
arriving at a judgment (disciplinary sanction or not) is in the rules they
all agree to play by. The TAS procedural rules, and the substantial rules
of the disciplinary review, are enormously unfair to any athlete in any
sport. However, in order to compete in the organizer's league, the athletes
are compelled to accept that.
Just in relation to France, we do know that the most significant _criminal_
sports doping proceedings have been brought in this country, and that the
sanctions have been dealt out. This kind of legal violation is not quite at
the level of axe-murders, but then again, it is trendy, and it masks the
overall incapacity of nearly every nation to stem other criminal drug
delcits. If every member of the FFC uses performance enhancing drugs, that
is microscopic compared to the general population's use of illicit drugs.
For the latter, there is virtually no enforcement against end users. What
about where you are ?
Quoted message said:That said, I think Floyd has grounds for a libel lawsuit against [censored]
Pound, who is not exactly the exemplar of appropriate behavior in
carrying out his duties. He makes Donald Rumsfeld look circumspect.
I don't know what he has written, but often in speaking, and being quoted,
one can argue that tone and context are not reproduced in print, so the
speaker can argue that the implications of his speech were improperly
arrived at. Nonetheless, it is rather easy to speak of a fellow lawyer
badly, and I reserve my comments on Pound to private discussion. They are
not nice comments.
Quoted message said:Doping cases are invariably tried in the press and only in the courts
as an afterthought, and that is a problem with WADA.
As with many prosecutions of crimes, the prosecutor may lay out the
strongest points of his side, in the strongest language, for public
consumption. I am not really certain of the exact level of prosecutorial
immunity Pound may enjoy in his quango. It has not yet been tested.
Quoted message said:Without appearing
superhuman, they aren't going to get paid millions of dollars a year.
Yup.
--
Bonne route !
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
