My own twisted vision ...



S

Sandy

Guest
It has all the trappings of the guys in the write hats winning,
perhaps. I have my doubts, first that they are the good guys, second
that we know the bad guys, and third, that business interests and well
executed PR are fully capable of eviscerating basic human values,
rights, ideals.

First, the fact underlying the TdF's aggressive move to force
disqualification of riders and teams puts it a league or two ahead of
the UCI, which appears intractably slow. If you recall that ASO is
making every effort to disjoin the Pro Tour from the shows put on by
itself and the other two Grand Tour organizations, you can see that it
is striking a big blow on the monopoly of the UCI, and at the same time
presenting itself as the only arbiter of justice. It is bound, one
could think, by the TAS decision of yesterday, yet it makes clear that
it will not abide by that ruling. Here's some hard work for some good
lawyers this very day. So, I call into question ASO's motives, deplore
the passivity of the UCI, and start wondering about the next players -
The Guardia civil and the press.

The Guardia civil is not the _judge_ of the matter, it is the organ of
prosecution. Try to think if they may want to present the strongest
case they can - well, of course ! The publicity of this case will far
outweigh (I predict - and call me on it later) the level of success they
eventually may have after court proceedings are complete. Try to recall
the ineffective but loud intrusion the Carabinieri had in the Giro, with
virtually no conviction results to crow about. The Guardia civil is
doing what it can to get the matter settled without actual proceedings,
and I find it hard to imagine that the culminated investigation was not
disclosed - there was no effort in /El Pais/ obtaining the information.

Without a proper (substantively and procedurally) court determination of
the guilt or innocence of the individuals whose names have been
published, they are not the bad guys. People will believe something bad
about a person if they wish to, using thin or no evidence to support
that belief, and ignoring the contrary. Until a finder of fact has
examined everything presented, we will only have rumormongers and
ideologues of all camps to listen to. Not to mention, again, the press,
which earn its living by publishing, not by nicely respecting the civil
rights, the humane treatment, of those whose careers they put in jeopardy.

Finally, it is this collection of rights : rights to a presumption of
innocence ; right to fair and free access to justice ; right to
contradict the organs of state - these rights are being dismembered. By
the press, the state, the ASO and UCI.
BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY - by the members of the public *especially in this
forum* who think they have the moral qualifications to intuit truth,
form judgments, castigate others, all without having enough knowledge to
tie their own shoelaces.

This is turning into an event of mobocracy, with all kinds of actors of
all spheres.
My opinion - the dopers (whoever they are) have done less damage to
cycling that have all the above. Yeah - I suppose lots of you plan to
burn the witches.



--

Sandy

Ce n'est pas que j'ai peur de la mort.
Je veux seulement ne pas être là quand elle arrivera.
 
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:19:14 +0200, Sandy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Finally, it is this collection of rights : rights to a presumption of
>innocence ; right to fair and free access to justice ; right to
>contradict the organs of state - these rights are being dismembered. By
>the press, the state, the ASO and UCI.


All this is irrelevant when you have sponsors financing these teams.
Even the appearance of wrongdoing or unethical behavior is bad
publicity for them and to be seen as complacent makes them appear to
be sponsoring the behavior.
 
"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It has all the trappings of the guys in the write hats winning, perhaps.
> I have my doubts, first that they are the good guys, second that we know
> the bad guys, and third, that business interests and well executed PR are
> fully capable of eviscerating basic human values, rights, ideals.
>
> First, the fact underlying the TdF's aggressive move to force
> disqualification of riders and teams puts it a league or two ahead of the
> UCI, which appears intractably slow. If you recall that ASO is making
> every effort to disjoin the Pro Tour from the shows put on by itself and
> the other two Grand Tour organizations, you can see that it is striking a
> big blow on the monopoly of the UCI, and at the same time presenting
> itself as the only arbiter of justice. It is bound, one could think, by
> the TAS decision of yesterday, yet it makes clear that it will not abide
> by that ruling. Here's some hard work for some good lawyers this very
> day. So, I call into question ASO's motives, deplore the passivity of the
> UCI, and start wondering about the next players - The Guardia civil and
> the press.
>
> The Guardia civil is not the _judge_ of the matter, it is the organ of
> prosecution. Try to think if they may want to present the strongest case
> they can - well, of course ! The publicity of this case will far outweigh
> (I predict - and call me on it later) the level of success they eventually
> may have after court proceedings are complete. Try to recall the
> ineffective but loud intrusion the Carabinieri had in the Giro, with
> virtually no conviction results to crow about. The Guardia civil is doing
> what it can to get the matter settled without actual proceedings, and I
> find it hard to imagine that the culminated investigation was not
> disclosed - there was no effort in /El Pais/ obtaining the information.
>
> Without a proper (substantively and procedurally) court determination of
> the guilt or innocence of the individuals whose names have been published,
> they are not the bad guys. People will believe something bad about a
> person if they wish to, using thin or no evidence to support that belief,
> and ignoring the contrary. Until a finder of fact has examined everything
> presented, we will only have rumormongers and ideologues of all camps to
> listen to. Not to mention, again, the press, which earn its living by
> publishing, not by nicely respecting the civil rights, the humane
> treatment, of those whose careers they put in jeopardy.
>
> Finally, it is this collection of rights : rights to a presumption of
> innocence ; right to fair and free access to justice ; right to contradict
> the organs of state - these rights are being dismembered. By the press,
> the state, the ASO and UCI.
> BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY - by the members of the public *especially in this
> forum* who think they have the moral qualifications to intuit truth, form
> judgments, castigate others, all without having enough knowledge to tie
> their own shoelaces.
>
> This is turning into an event of mobocracy, with all kinds of actors of
> all spheres.
> My opinion - the dopers (whoever they are) have done less damage to
> cycling that have all the above. Yeah - I suppose lots of you plan to
> burn the witches.


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to tie shoe laces or a judge and/or jury
for that matter. :)
 
Sandy wrote:
> It has all the trappings of the guys in the write hats winning,
> perhaps. I have my doubts, first that they are the good guys, second
> that we know the bad guys, and third, that business interests and well
> executed PR are fully capable of eviscerating basic human values,
> rights, ideals.
>
> First, the fact underlying the TdF's aggressive move to force
> disqualification of riders and teams puts it a league or two ahead of
> the UCI, which appears intractably slow. If you recall that ASO is
> making every effort to disjoin the Pro Tour from the shows put on by
> itself and the other two Grand Tour organizations, you can see that it
> is striking a big blow on the monopoly of the UCI, and at the same time
> presenting itself as the only arbiter of justice. It is bound, one
> could think, by the TAS decision of yesterday, yet it makes clear that
> it will not abide by that ruling. Here's some hard work for some good
> lawyers this very day. So, I call into question ASO's motives, deplore
> the passivity of the UCI, and start wondering about the next players -
> The Guardia civil and the press.
>
> The Guardia civil is not the _judge_ of the matter, it is the organ of
> prosecution. Try to think if they may want to present the strongest
> case they can - well, of course ! The publicity of this case will far
> outweigh (I predict - and call me on it later) the level of success they
> eventually may have after court proceedings are complete. Try to recall
> the ineffective but loud intrusion the Carabinieri had in the Giro, with
> virtually no conviction results to crow about. The Guardia civil is
> doing what it can to get the matter settled without actual proceedings,
> and I find it hard to imagine that the culminated investigation was not
> disclosed - there was no effort in /El Pais/ obtaining the information.
>
> Without a proper (substantively and procedurally) court determination of
> the guilt or innocence of the individuals whose names have been
> published, they are not the bad guys. People will believe something bad
> about a person if they wish to, using thin or no evidence to support
> that belief, and ignoring the contrary. Until a finder of fact has
> examined everything presented, we will only have rumormongers and
> ideologues of all camps to listen to. Not to mention, again, the press,
> which earn its living by publishing, not by nicely respecting the civil
> rights, the humane treatment, of those whose careers they put in jeopardy.
>
> Finally, it is this collection of rights : rights to a presumption of
> innocence ; right to fair and free access to justice ; right to
> contradict the organs of state - these rights are being dismembered. By
> the press, the state, the ASO and UCI.
> BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY - by the members of the public *especially in this
> forum* who think they have the moral qualifications to intuit truth,
> form judgments, castigate others, all without having enough knowledge to
> tie their own shoelaces.
>
> This is turning into an event of mobocracy, with all kinds of actors of
> all spheres.
> My opinion - the dopers (whoever they are) have done less damage to
> cycling that have all the above. Yeah - I suppose lots of you plan to
> burn the witches.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Sandy
>
> Ce n'est pas que j'ai peur de la mort.
> Je veux seulement ne pas être là quand elle arrivera.


Thank You!!!
You put the words, and thoughts together beautifully, effectively, and
rationally. If I ever get back there and get in trouble I'm coming
looking for you to help me out.
Bill C
 
Robert Chung wrote:
> A well-placed leak can be quite effective at bolstering a weak case. That
> isn't to say that this case will turn out to be weak--but my sense is that
> at the moment the case is certainly incomplete. First we heard of 200 bags
> of blood, then 58 names, then 31 of those names got released. This doesn't
> mean that 27 other names won't get released in the next few days--it
> simply means that the case is incomplete. So the question isn't "why is
> the Guardia Civil leaking the case?" but rather "why are they leaking it
> now?"


Conspiracy theory: Disco really wants Hincapie to win the TdF, so they
"made sure" to remove his main competition.
 
jt a écrit :
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:19:14 +0200, Sandy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Finally, it is this collection of rights : rights to a presumption of
>> innocence ; right to fair and free access to justice ; right to
>> contradict the organs of state - these rights are being dismembered. By
>> the press, the state, the ASO and UCI.
>>

>
> All this is irrelevant when you have sponsors financing these teams.
> Even the appearance of wrongdoing or unethical behavior is bad
> publicity for them and to be seen as complacent makes them appear to
> be sponsoring the behavior.
>

Saying it kindly - you have your moral compass shoved up your ass.
 
"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> jt a écrit :
>> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:19:14 +0200, Sandy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Finally, it is this collection of rights : rights to a presumption of
>>> innocence ; right to fair and free access to justice ; right to
>>> contradict the organs of state - these rights are being dismembered. By
>>> the press, the state, the ASO and UCI.
>>>

>>
>> All this is irrelevant when you have sponsors financing these teams.
>> Even the appearance of wrongdoing or unethical behavior is bad
>> publicity for them and to be seen as complacent makes them appear to
>> be sponsoring the behavior.
>>

> Saying it kindly - you have your moral compass shoved up your ass.


Will that aid digestion?
 
in message <[email protected]>, jt
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:19:14 +0200, Sandy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>Finally, it is this collection of rights : rights to a presumption of
>>innocence ; right to fair and free access to justice ; right to
>>contradict the organs of state - these rights are being dismembered.
>>By the press, the state, the ASO and UCI.

>
> All this is irrelevant when you have sponsors financing these teams.


Exactly. At least for Ullrich and Sevilla, it seems to be the sponsor who
insisted they go. I'd be very surprised if CSC (the company) didn't have
a similar attitude. He who pays the piper...

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundum variat.
 
Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
yeahyeah <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> Or maybe the ASO is just afraid that the World Cup will wholly eclipse
> the Tour and they're just trying to get some attention. Bad attention
> is better than no attention.


You may not have noticed, but the prologue was moved from late in the day to
the afternoon to avoid conflict with the 3-4 consolation final. It's a
busy, busy, busy day on the couch.
 
Sandy wrote:

> But really, timing is just as often chance. /El Pais/ saw to that.


That's what they want you to believe.

BTW, what do you make of Valverde being the only rider to be pre-emptively
cleared? (I was going to capitalize "only" but decided that would be a bit
much.)
 
Dans le message de news:[email protected],
Robert Chung <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Sandy wrote:
>
>> But really, timing is just as often chance. /El Pais/ saw to that.

>
> That's what they want you to believe.
>
> BTW, what do you make of Valverde being the only rider to be
> pre-emptively cleared? (I was going to capitalize "only" but decided
> that would be a bit much.)


Now that's easy !

He'll be the first guy since Merckx to win the yellow, green, dotted, white
and all other jerseys. Provided he finishes. His average speed may queer
your chart. I am getting the hang for statistical outliers.
 
Sandy wrote:

>
> But really, timing is just as often chance. /El Pais/ saw to that.


C'mon, ASO hardlining T-Mobile and the others 1.5 days before the race
began was not chance. ASO did not want there to be any right of the
riders or teams to refute the accusations. ASO wished to force
outright suspensions by maximizing crisis. Get rid of those riders
before they took the start under investigation.
 
Hunter a écrit :
> Sandy wrote:
>
>
>> But really, timing is just as often chance. /El Pais/ saw to that.
>>

>
> C'mon, ASO hardlining T-Mobile and the others 1.5 days before the race
> began was not chance. ASO did not want there to be any right of the
> riders or teams to refute the accusations. ASO wished to force
> outright suspensions by maximizing crisis. Get rid of those riders
> before they took the start under investigation.
>
>

Unless there is something I don't know (nigh impossible), ASO and
l'Équipe have no ownership interests in /El Pais/. Crisis of the sort
in progress doesn't get French people more interested, I fear. Yes,
it's an international event, but 70% of the roadside is French, 90%
European, and they are the targets of commercialization.
 
Sandy wrote:
> Hunter a écrit :
> > Sandy wrote:
> >
> >
> >> But really, timing is just as often chance. /El Pais/ saw to that.
> >>

> >
> > C'mon, ASO hardlining T-Mobile and the others 1.5 days before the race
> > began was not chance. ASO did not want there to be any right of the
> > riders or teams to refute the accusations. ASO wished to force
> > outright suspensions by maximizing crisis. Get rid of those riders
> > before they took the start under investigation.
> >
> >

> Unless there is something I don't know (nigh impossible), ASO and
> l'Équipe have no ownership interests in /El Pais/. Crisis of the sort
> in progress doesn't get French people more interested, I fear. Yes,
> it's an international event, but 70% of the roadside is French, 90%
> European, and they are the targets of commercialization.


I'm curious, what do you think might happen if a doping scandal of this
sort were to happen to football/soccer during the world cup?
 
Sandy wrote:
> Saying it kindly - you have your moral compass shoved up your ass.


Thats most inconvenient; it doesn't leave much room for caffeine
suppositories (or a head).
 
yeahyeah a écrit :
> Sandy wrote:
>
>> Hunter a écrit :
>>
>>> Sandy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> But really, timing is just as often chance. /El Pais/ saw to that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> C'mon, ASO hardlining T-Mobile and the others 1.5 days before the race
>>> began was not chance. ASO did not want there to be any right of the
>>> riders or teams to refute the accusations. ASO wished to force
>>> outright suspensions by maximizing crisis. Get rid of those riders
>>> before they took the start under investigation.
>>>
>>>
>>>

>> Unless there is something I don't know (nigh impossible), ASO and
>> l'Équipe have no ownership interests in /El Pais/. Crisis of the sort
>> in progress doesn't get French people more interested, I fear. Yes,
>> it's an international event, but 70% of the roadside is French, 90%
>> European, and they are the targets of commercialization.
>>

>
> I'm curious, what do you think might happen if a doping scandal of this
> sort were to happen to football/soccer during the world cup?
>
>

The entire planet would explode.
Alternatively, nothing.
 
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:19:14 +0200, Sandy <[email protected]> wrote:

>This is turning into an event of mobocracy, with all kinds of actors of
>all spheres.
>My opinion - the dopers (whoever they are) have done less damage to
>cycling that have all the above. Yeah - I suppose lots of you plan to
>burn the witches.


Actually, it boils down to the fact that Jan has made good bucks/Euros
from the public following cycling: even if these cyclists are treated
exactly the same procedurally as everyone else, that same public
brings notoriety and the people writing the checks start becoming
unhappy.

The system in the U.S. is largely the same, with the prosecutor having
the real authority through the grand jury system and in any major
case, the only ones happy are the lawyers IF they can collect from
their clients. Reputations can't be reassembled, memories can't be
expurgated. Check out the Duke lacrosse team (and trust me, as a
University of Maryland fan, I hate Duke in a sports fan kind of way).

This Tour has an asterisk that won't go away and we need to move on.
End the Tours, kill off the Olympics and lets have nine-ten months of
one days and week long tours. Easier on my TV viewing as well. And OLN
can go back to fly fishing and maybe add bear baiting to their list.
Now there's a sport, unless they put either the bearl or the dogs on
steroids...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dans le message de news:[email protected],

:
> Because ASO wants to neuter UCI, establish the primacy of private
> enterprise championships, offer a haven to **** Pound, boost its public
> image, yet PR this edition of the Tour as KLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN ! In short -
> money.
>
> Because Guardia civil is a Spanish organ, likes power, likes to spend
> money, wants to stop terrorism (that was for amusement), and can avoid
> showing its incompetence for having missed last year's Vuelta, and provide
> a KLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN Vuelta 2006. Not to mention the support of private
> enterprise, moral superiority, and stabbing the Tour 2006 perhaps mortally
> (just 2006, not the entire future offspring). And because (?) the leak
> was inopportunely going to be public without their control.
>

"BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY - by the members of the public *especially in this
forum* who think they have the moral qualifications to intuit truth,
form judgments, castigate others, all without having enough knowledge to
tie their own shoelaces."

Glad to see that you've taken yourself at your own words. Seems like when
it comes to intuiting truth, forming judgments or castigating others, you do
it as well as the rest of this forum's participants.
 
Curtis L. Russell a écrit :
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:19:14 +0200, Sandy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> This is turning into an event of mobocracy, with all kinds of actors of
>> all spheres.
>> My opinion - the dopers (whoever they are) have done less damage to
>> cycling that have all the above. Yeah - I suppose lots of you plan to
>> burn the witches.
>>

>
> Actually, it boils down to the fact that Jan has made good bucks/Euros
> from the public following cycling: even if these cyclists are treated
> exactly the same procedurally as everyone else, that same public
> brings notoriety and the people writing the checks start becoming
> unhappy.


Worth noting, however, how many of the NAMES are not the big earners. 30
000€ for start, less taxes and social charges, is not really royal.
That's microeconomic - get macro, and you have a big pig to wrestle with.
 
matabala a écrit :
> "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Dans le message de news:[email protected],
>>

> :
>
>> Because ASO wants to neuter UCI, establish the primacy of private
>> enterprise championships, offer a haven to **** Pound, boost its public
>> image, yet PR this edition of the Tour as KLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN ! In short -
>> money.
>>
>> Because Guardia civil is a Spanish organ, likes power, likes to spend
>> money, wants to stop terrorism (that was for amusement), and can avoid
>> showing its incompetence for having missed last year's Vuelta, and provide
>> a KLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN Vuelta 2006. Not to mention the support of private
>> enterprise, moral superiority, and stabbing the Tour 2006 perhaps mortally
>> (just 2006, not the entire future offspring). And because (?) the leak
>> was inopportunely going to be public without their control.
>>
>>

> "BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY - by the members of the public *especially in this
> forum* who think they have the moral qualifications to intuit truth,
> form judgments, castigate others, all without having enough knowledge to
> tie their own shoelaces."
>
> Glad to see that you've taken yourself at your own words. Seems like when
> it comes to intuiting truth, forming judgments or castigating others, you do
> it as well as the rest of this forum's participants.
>
>
>

I replied to a request to guess. My next guess is you will learn to
read soon.