Re: Italy collects Basso-related blood bags

[[email protected]]

On Apr 24, 9:12 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> This does not look good for Basso or Discovery. Basso needs to act
> fast and submit a DNA test if he feels he is innocent. I don't
> understand why Discovery did not demand a DNA test before they signed
> Basso.
>
> Discovery needs to clear up this matter quickly if hope to have any
> chances of finding a new sponsor.

Do you suppose that Basso's blood in those bags does not equate to
proving that he blood boosted? Or in your book does intent equal guilt
automatically?

You don't see the Belgian sponsors running from charges of doping on
the teams they sponsor do you?

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>,
[email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Apr 24, 9:12 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This does not look good for Basso or Discovery. Basso needs to act
>> fast and submit a DNA test if he feels he is innocent. I don't
>> understand why Discovery did not demand a DNA test before they signed
>> Basso.
>>
>> Discovery needs to clear up this matter quickly if hope to have any
>> chances of finding a new sponsor.
>
> Do you suppose that Basso's blood in those bags does not equate to
> proving that he blood boosted? Or in your book does intent equal guilt
> automatically?

If his blood is in those bags, then he's at least guilty of intending to
cheat, and in my book intending to cheat is pretty much equivalent to
cheating. I'm still hoping his blood isn't in those bags.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Iraq war: it's time for regime change...
... go now, Tony, while you can still go with dignity.
[update three years after this .sig was written: it's still relevant]

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:25:53 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>If his blood is in those bags, then he's at least guilty of intending to
>cheat, and in my book intending to cheat is pretty much equivalent to
>cheating. I'm still hoping his blood isn't in those bags.

Technically you are jumping a step without the inclusion of a 'IMO' in
the first line, but I won't quibble. Now if Fuentes had just produced
a quick report or kept one as a cover, where there was an implication
that he was testing and reporting back the relative level of
'preparedness' of a riders blood, I'm wondering if this whole thing
could go anywhere. It would have IMO made it necessary to have a nexus
much closer to the act of cheating. After all, it is completely OK to
test someone's blood for anything at all, and who better than the
person that has the experience of 'fine-tuning' that very item.

Not saying I would have believed it either, but it would have possibly
let a whole bunch of riders stay in the last Tour. Fuentes needs a
better co-conspirator, one that can maintain a good cover.

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

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Curtis L. Russell
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:25:53 +0100, Simon Brooke
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>If his blood is in those bags, then he's at least guilty of intending to
>>cheat, and in my book intending to cheat is pretty much equivalent to
>>cheating. I'm still hoping his blood isn't in those bags.
>
> Technically you are jumping a step without the inclusion of a 'IMO' in
> the first line, but I won't quibble. Now if Fuentes had just produced
> a quick report or kept one as a cover, where there was an implication
> that he was testing and reporting back the relative level of
> 'preparedness' of a riders blood, I'm wondering if this whole thing
> could go anywhere. It would have IMO made it necessary to have a nexus
> much closer to the act of cheating. After all, it is completely OK to
> test someone's blood for anything at all, and who better than the
> person that has the experience of 'fine-tuning' that very item.

You don't need to hold litres of blood for testing. There is no conceivable
testing process - particularly for elite athletes - that would render the
storing of blood in this quantity explicable. This blood is clearly being
stored for reinfusion. Now, of course, it might be that Fuentes was
setting up a charitable blood-bank to serve needy patients in third world
countries... but I don't think so.

Still, a word to the wise: the domain name 'bloodforthirdworldbabies.org'
is still available.

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

<p>Schroedinger's cat is <blink><strong>NOT</strong></blink> dead.</p>

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:48:02 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>You don't need to hold litres of blood for testing. There is no conceivable
>testing process - particularly for elite athletes - that would render the
>storing of blood in this quantity explicable. This blood is clearly being
>stored for reinfusion.

Actually, you don't need a test tube of blood to do the testing - I
have a pretty good idea of what's needed, since they do it down the
hall. I'm talking excuses, not reasons.

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

 

[need more sun]

On Apr 27, 4:05 pm, Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:48:02 +0100, Simon Brooke
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >You don't need to hold litres of blood for testing. There is no conceivable
> >testing process - particularly for elite athletes - that would render the
> >storing of blood in this quantity explicable. This blood is clearly being
> >stored for reinfusion.
>
> Actually, you don't need a test tube of blood to do the testing - I
> have a pretty good idea of what's needed, since they do it down the
> hall. I'm talking excuses, not reasons.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...


Disco - live by the sword, die by the sword. This is Karma after years
of bending the rules, methinks...

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You don't need to hold litres of blood for testing. There is no
> conceivable
> testing process - particularly for elite athletes - that would render the
> storing of blood in this quantity explicable. This blood is clearly being
> stored for reinfusion.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that they MEANT to cheat. The point is
that meaning and accomplishment are two different things and if the UCI and
WADA and all the rest of the jackasses can't tell that they have to business
being in more power than it takes to write their names on an unemployment
benefit form.

 

[[email protected]]

On Apr 29, 10:09 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > You don't need to hold litres of blood for testing. There is no
> > conceivable
> > testing process - particularly for elite athletes - that would render the
> > storing of blood in this quantity explicable. This blood is clearly being
> > stored for reinfusion.
>
> I don't think that anyone is arguing that they MEANT to cheat. The point is
> that meaning and accomplishment are two different things and if the UCI and
> WADA and all the rest of the jackasses can't tell that they have to business
> being in more power than it takes to write their names on an unemployment
> benefit form.


dumbass,

someone thought of that dodge before you did.

the RULES don't consider that to be an important distinction :

http://www.uci.ch/english/about/rules_2004/ch14.pdf

art. 6

Material offence:
The success or failure of the use of a prohibited substance or a
prohibited method is not a prerequisite. The fact alone of the
presence, the use or an attempt to use the substance or method is
sufficient for the offence to be deemed to have occurred.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Tom
Kunich ('cyclintom@yahoo. com') wrote:

> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> You don't need to hold litres of blood for testing. There is no
>> conceivable
>> testing process - particularly for elite athletes - that would render
>> the storing of blood in this quantity explicable. This blood is clearly
>> being stored for reinfusion.
>
> I don't think that anyone is arguing that they MEANT to cheat. The point
> is that meaning and accomplishment are two different things and if the
> UCI and WADA and all the rest of the jackasses can't tell that they have
> to business being in more power than it takes to write their names on an
> unemployment benefit form.

I would ban anyone who _provably_ intended to cheat. Wouldn't you?

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

Due to financial constraints, the light at the end of the tunnel
has been switched off.

 

[Donald Munro]

[email protected] wrote:
> Material offence:
> The success or failure of the use of a prohibited substance or a
> prohibited method is not a prerequisite. The fact alone of the
> presence, the use or an attempt to use the substance or method is
> sufficient for the offence to be deemed to have occurred.

Also known as the Viagra rule.

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:[email protected],
Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:34:30 +0100, Simon Brooke
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> in message <[email protected]>,
>> Tom Kunich ('cyclintom@yahoo. com') wrote:
>>
>>> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> You don't need to hold litres of blood for testing. There is no
>>>> conceivable
>>>> testing process - particularly for elite athletes - that would
>>>> render the storing of blood in this quantity explicable. This
>>>> blood is clearly being stored for reinfusion.
>>>
>>> I don't think that anyone is arguing that they MEANT to cheat. The
>>> point is that meaning and accomplishment are two different things
>>> and if the UCI and WADA and all the rest of the jackasses can't
>>> tell that they have to business being in more power than it takes
>>> to write their names on an unemployment benefit form.
>>
>> I would ban anyone who _provably_ intended to cheat. Wouldn't you?
>
> Interesting position. What exactly constitutes 'provably intended to
> cheat'? You no doubt focus on the 'provable' part and I have an issue
> with the 'intended' part. So a bike racer buys a drug that has no
> other purpose than to enhance performance, and is on the banned list
> (but legal to possess) and they put it in their refrigerator and never
> ingest it. In fact, they keep it as a reminder of that point in their
> life that they intended to cheat but didn't.

This is nearly verbatim the story of Mederic Clain (formerly Cofidis), and
he is on his 2-year vacation.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:34:30 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>in message <[email protected]>, Tom
>Kunich ('cyclintom@yahoo. com') wrote:
>
>> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> You don't need to hold litres of blood for testing. There is no
>>> conceivable
>>> testing process - particularly for elite athletes - that would render
>>> the storing of blood in this quantity explicable. This blood is clearly
>>> being stored for reinfusion.
>>
>> I don't think that anyone is arguing that they MEANT to cheat. The point
>> is that meaning and accomplishment are two different things and if the
>> UCI and WADA and all the rest of the jackasses can't tell that they have
>> to business being in more power than it takes to write their names on an
>> unemployment benefit form.
>
>I would ban anyone who _provably_ intended to cheat. Wouldn't you?

Interesting position. What exactly constitutes 'provably intended to
cheat'? You no doubt focus on the 'provable' part and I have an issue
with the 'intended' part. So a bike racer buys a drug that has no
other purpose than to enhance performance, and is on the banned list
(but legal to possess) and they put it in their refrigerator and never
ingest it. In fact, they keep it as a reminder of that point in their
life that they intended to cheat but didn't. You come along with the
thought mafia: what do you do, shoot him or ban him for life?

I know, I know, it is enough for you to proclaim that 'this would
never happen', at least as far as you are concerned, so go ahead,
string him up.

By the way, should that point have a half life or anything? You know,
if you can prove that the Badger intended to cheat, say, back when he
was riding with a club, should we strip him of all of his TdF's or
just some of them?

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

 

[[email protected]]

On Apr 30, 9:35 am, Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:34:30 +0100, Simon Brooke
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >in message <[email protected]>, Tom
> >Kunich ('cyclintom@yahoo. com') wrote:
>
> >> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> >>> You don't need to hold litres of blood for testing. There is no
> >>> conceivable
> >>> testing process - particularly for elite athletes - that would render
> >>> the storing of blood in this quantity explicable. This blood is clearly
> >>> being stored for reinfusion.
>
> >> I don't think that anyone is arguing that they MEANT to cheat. The point
> >> is that meaning and accomplishment are two different things and if the
> >> UCI and WADA and all the rest of the jackasses can't tell that they have
> >> to business being in more power than it takes to write their names on an
> >> unemployment benefit form.
>
> >I would ban anyone who _provably_ intended to cheat. Wouldn't you?
>
> Interesting position. What exactly constitutes 'provably intended to
> cheat'? You no doubt focus on the 'provable' part and I have an issue
> with the 'intended' part. So a bike racer buys a drug that has no
> other purpose than to enhance performance, and is on the banned list
> (but legal to possess) and they put it in their refrigerator and never
> ingest it. In fact, they keep it as a reminder of that point in their
> life that they intended to cheat but didn't. You come along with the
> thought mafia: what do you do, shoot him or ban him for life?
>
> I know, I know, it is enough for you to proclaim that 'this would
> never happen', at least as far as you are concerned, so go ahead,
> string him up.
>
> By the way, should that point have a half life or anything? You know,
> if you can prove that the Badger intended to cheat, say, back when he
> was riding with a club, should we strip him of all of his TdF's or
> just some of them?

dumbass,

read the link above. don't confuse the rules of bike racing with the
law.

the intention to cheat is punished the same as the offense.

also see art. 134. to answer your questions about the badger :

3. The rider or licence-holder shall not be penalised if it is
established that the use of doping substances or doping methods dates
back to more than five years before the declaration or admission.

4. The rider shall not suffer disqualification unless the facts relate
to a specific race.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Curtis L. Russell
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:34:30 +0100, Simon Brooke
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I would ban anyone who _provably_ intended to cheat. Wouldn't you?
>
> Interesting position. What exactly constitutes 'provably intended to
> cheat'? You no doubt focus on the 'provable' part and I have an issue
> with the 'intended' part. So a bike racer buys a drug that has no
> other purpose than to enhance performance, and is on the banned list
> (but legal to possess) and they put it in their refrigerator and never
> ingest it. In fact, they keep it as a reminder of that point in their
> life that they intended to cheat but didn't.

The Millar line...

> You come along with the
> thought mafia: what do you do, shoot him or ban him for life?

Two years, plus (possibly, although this seems harsh) two years in
non-pro-tour teams.

> I know, I know, it is enough for you to proclaim that 'this would
> never happen', at least as far as you are concerned, so go ahead,
> string him up.

Of course it's possible. It's why it's 'possession' of banned recreational
drugs which is a crime. If you've got 'em, you go down.

> By the way, should that point have a half life or anything? You know,
> if you can prove that the Badger intended to cheat, say, back when he
> was riding with a club, should we strip him of all of his TdF's or
> just some of them?

None of them. This retrospectively stripping people of titles has no
dignity. Events in the past cannot be judged by the standards of the
present.

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

;; IE 3 is dead, but Netscape 4 still shambles about the earth,
;; wreaking a horrific vengeance upon the living
;; anonymous