On 17 Dec 2002 18:32:47 GMT,
[email protected] (Ronde Chump) wrote:
>If this is true, it's actually a good thing. We may all have our opinions about Rumsas (and his
>drug dealing wife), but the fact remains that he didn't test positive for anything (which is the
>incompetence of the testing organization, IMO).
>
>Maybe they'll take a closer look at the treatment of the athletes, and the possibility that some
>may actually NOT be cheating dopers. Just wait until Simoni's lawyers start looking for the
>financial damages due to getting thrown out of the Giro, then de-selected from The Tour.
>
>The good of it will be that the testing agencies will HAVE to be ABSOLUTELY sure that a guy is
>cheating, and if there's any doubt, that he goes free (Moninger). Instead of this b.s. system
>that's in place now......
>
>Ronde Chump
Chumpster:
I agree with you regarding the treatment of athletes. If this was a Moninger-type situation I'd be
pleased. But for Rusmas to even pretend he's innocent is laughable. Sure he didn't test positive for
doping - hmm, could that be due to the boot-ful of masking agents his wife was toting in her car?
Simoni on the other hand has a huge case. He should sue for millions; a successful lawsuit like his
could do a lot to advance the cause of accused athletes. But for Rums-ass to sue for *one* euro says
a lot about his case, and doesn't help cyclists at all.
Thanks, Ronde Chimp