"B. Lafferty" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
>
> "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news[email protected]...
> >>
> >> "Tim Mullin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> > news:[email protected]:
> >> >
> >> >> The big question, IMO, is whether or not CyclingNews will continue
to
> >> >> use Ferrari as a columnist.
> >> >
> >> > Why shouldn't Ferrari continue his commentary on CyclingNews? Does
his
> >> > conviction in any way detract from his knowledge of the sport? I
don't
> >> > think
> >> > so. A good editor would think long and hard before publishing
anything
> >> > Ferrari had to say even remotely connected to the topic of doping,
but
> >> > beyond
> >> > that, what's the problem?
> >> >
> >> > I have a much greater problem with the ethics of letting Ferrari
> >> > comment
> >> > on
> >> > matters involving riders and teams he has a professional relationship
> >> > with.
> >> > Still, this is sport journalism we're talking about, and the lines
here
> >> > are
> >> > never drawn as sharply as they might be in other fields--and all
things
> >> > considered, Cyclingnews is no worse (and I would argue better) than
> >> > most
> >> > commercial cycling media in ethical matters.
> >>
> >> OK. Here are some possibilities:
> >>
> >> Reporter for Court TV OJ Simpson
> >> Crime Columnist NY Post John Gotti, Jr.
> >> Wall Street Journal Market Reporter Martha Stewart
> >> Reporter On Domestic Violence/Spouse Abuse Joel Steinberg
> >> Court TV Ethics Commentator Sol Watchler
> >>
> >> Feel free to add to the list. Every convicted criminal has marketable
> >> expertise under your system of ethics.
> >
> > Hmm, ok.
> >
> > Brian, do you consider Dr. Ferarri closer to OJ Simpson than he is to
say,
> > your neighbor down the street that got picked up for a DUI? Should every
> > person convicted of any and all crimes be removed from any position that
> > has
> > public contact? What exactly is your concern?
>
> Let me ask you this. HGH administered to healthy people has been show to
> have and immediate effect on the left ventricle of the heart greatly
> increasing the risk of heart attack and death.
Perfect example. Show me those studies. Are you talking about so called
"mega dosing" or are you talking about replacing the quantity that has been
assumed to have declined with age?
If the good doctor
> recommended the use of hgh, as he apparently did according to the
testimony
> at the trail, then the good doctor has quite possibly helped to cause the
> death cyclists or at the very least put them at risk. Not the kind of
> person who I would want advising people as a paid columnist on training
> issues.
Again, I thank you for this perfect example. You see, there is no single
unified view in most cases about drugs and many other procedures. Cosmetic
surgery in most cases puts a patient at risk in exchange for merely "feeling
better" about their self image. At least with HGH there are likely to be
health benefits that outweigh the risk in (I hope) most cases. In any case,
the MD ethically should assist the patient in deciding whether the benefits
outweigh the risks and if it is clearly not the case then the MD should not
offer it. Your example of HGH just does not present enough information for
me to pass judgement. However, you seem to want to conclude that any MD that
prescribes or recommends HGH is de facto acting against the patient's
interest. You can't factually say that. Truly, the same can be said about
most if not all of the doping cases we have heard about. I will say that I
do beleive many MDs (Ferarri included) most likely did cross the line of
acting in the best interest of the patient. I just don't know what the
appropriate government role is. In some cases where the patient was truly
put at risk then perhaps the goverment should prosecute him. If it is merely
a case that the risks were not exaplained properly then that is a lessor
form malpractice (assuming there were valid reasons for using HGH). Who do
you suppose is best qualified to decide whether a patient could benefit from
EPO or HGH? You? Do you suppose your judgement is superior to a medical
doctor? Naturally self-interest is going to influence the outcome but I am
just pointing out to you that maybe you don't really know enough about what
has been happening to pass judgement yet.
> This is completely different from cyclists who have tested positive whom
> many have argued are victims of a system that includes the likes of
Ferrari.
I think those cases should be argued in a civil court. If evidence from
those cases starts to show evidence of malpractice then the prosecution can
use that evidence in future cases against him. The highly visible nature of
these cases almost guarantees that public perception will corrupt the whole
process of the pursuit of justice. Prosecutors tens to worry as much about
public perception as they do about facts in evidence.
So far I have no information whatsoever that Dr. Ferrai' conviction this
week deserves more than a suspended sentence. If some of these rumors are
true, well none of them that I have heard were shown to be true just because
he was found guilty earlier this week.