**** scheduled to hit the fan Thursday

[Bro Deal]

Not for cycling. For MLB. The Mitchell report is expected to name at least fifty baseball players. The newspaper reports on doping in general will inevitably mention cycling as the gold standard when it comes to dope corruption, so even though the Mitchell report has nothing to do with cycling, the sport will still get tarnished.

I think every time something like this happens, it moves the ball a little forward when it comes to breaking down omerta. The more exposed the doping issue becomes, the easier it becomes for sports figures to admit what they have done.

I think all it may take with cycling is one more big OP or T-Mobile like scandal to get us to the point where widespread admissions of what has been going on, along with an amnesty may become viable.

 

[earth_dweller]

oh yeah it's major: SI.com

When I see people like Michael Ball joining the sport of cycling, I find it hard to believe that anything will ever change.

 

[Bro Deal]

In addition to the Mitchell Report, Victor Conte met with **** Pound earlier in the week and named various athletes that doped for the 2000 Olympics. It's only a matter of time before the information leaks.

 

[Gregers]

In addition to the Mitchell Report, Victor

Conte​

met with **** Pound earlier in the week and named various athletes that doped for the 2000 Olympics. It's only a matter of time before the information leaks.

Turncoat Victor has made it clear that he did not name any athletes during his private conversation with Big ****. 'That was never my intention', wailed Honest Vic, 'I was just pointing out the many loopholes that exist'. Well, thanks for that clarification Mr. Conte (and look forward to much secret targeting of some big names in the next 12 months))

 

[Crankyfeet]

Turncoat Victor has made it clear that he did not name any athletes during his private conversation with Big ****. 'That was never my intention', wailed Honest Vic, 'I was just pointing out the many loopholes that exist'. Well, thanks for that clarification Mr. Conte (and look forward to much secret targeting of some big names in the next 12 months))

Gregers, you're not depicting Conte as a traitor to good honest doping athletes are you?

 

[italiano]

Turncoat Victor has made it clear that he did not name any athletes during his private conversation with Big ****. 'That was never my intention', wailed Honest Vic, 'I was just pointing out the many loopholes that exist'. Well, thanks for that clarification Mr. Conte (and look forward to much secret targeting of some big names in the next 12 months))

Vic met with **** to produce a leak?

 

[Gregers]

Gregers, you're not depicting Conte as a traitor to good honest doping athletes are you?

I just love Vic's faux indignation at the very notion that he would betray confidences-what with him being a gentleman of unimpeachable integrity and all that.

 

[slovakguy]

effing wow! clemens?! rotten @)&#!#$!

 

[Frigo's Luggage]

****. It looks like Valverde and DiLuca are on the Mitchell list. I didn't even know they played baseball.

 

[Crankyfeet]

This is huge and it helps cycling to protect itself from becoming the whipping boy for sports PED use. Clemens is an icon and symbol for the all-american baseball hero. Of course he denies the accusations. It will be very interesting to see where this leads.

 

[Frigo's Luggage]

Clemons makes you wonder about the proliferation of old guys hanging around professional sports. I know the Niekros pitched forever. However, there seem to be more guys who are able to play into their 40s than in the past. Just look at Bonds.

The big name on the list for Philadelphians is Lenny Dykstra. He had a career season here in 1993 and was a really scrappy player. Somehow the relevation that he was on the juice does not tarnish his reputation. Just fits in with his image.

 

[Crankyfeet]

I have a problem with the randomness of these findings. Not that there is anything false in the report. Just that it is only a small sample of the total problem most likely.

Mitchell didn't have subpoena power and a lot of his information came from only a couple of sources willing to talk (in the case of the NY Mets guy, he was trying to get his sentence reduced). There are probably a hundred guys (providers of PED's) doing the same things as these few. For all we know, every MLB player could be on some form of PED influence. Clemens and Pettite, amongst others named in the report, were probably just unlucky that their guy was willing to talk.

 

[slovakguy]

as for me, i don't really think mitchell had to expose every user. by catching clemens et. al. with their pants down and syringes out, the moral outrage will help clean out (or marginalise) the sport. just wondering how our number one fan sport might fare if there were a public outing of their users both past and present.

 

[Crankyfeet]

I'm watching a live report on CNN. The president is making a speech to the nation about it. He's treating it like a national calamity. Mitchell is being interviewed and he's saying that he gave all the players named in the report the chance to respond to the allegations before completing it, and almost all of them refused. Clemens is denying it of course. His legacy is now farked. They might even strike all his records and awards. They won't get at his $40,000,000 plus he has stashed away though.

Coincidentally, I used to live about half a mile away from the guy in Piney Point, Houston. Huge house with a guest house that was bigger than most of the surrounding homes. There was always black Hummers with dark tinted windows parked in the culd-de-sac outside his gate. Don't know who they were. Maybe some of Bush senior's secret service entourage.

 

[Casa]

as for me, i don't really think mitchell had to expose every user. by catching clemens et. al. with their pants down and syringes out, the moral outrage will help clean out (or marginalise) the sport. just wondering how our number one fan sport might fare if there were a public outing of their users both past and present.

The problem is that he really didn't catch anyone, he merely wrote a report that was supposed to tell MLB what their problems were and to make recommendations to solve them and in it he passed on unconfirmed reports of doping. They all might be true but it really proved nothing and truly caught nobody. It's like just before the 2006 Tour, names get mentioned but nothing is proven at that time.

 

[thunder]

The problem is that he really didn't catch anyone, he merely wrote a report that was supposed to tell MLB what their problems were and to make recommendations to solve them and in it he passed on unconfirmed reports of doping. They all might be true but it really proved nothing and truly caught nobody. It's like just before the 2006 Tour, names get mentioned but nothing is proven at that time.

the fact is, with the substances like growth hormone, you will never have sufficient proof, save a video of an injection in the butt.

Folks gotta realise, 1. athletes will only dope, if they can get away with it. IE, it is a rational decision.

2. Proof as most apologists appeal to, will never meet thresholds, when one talks about autologous blood tranfusions, micro dosing, dynepo, growth hormone, insulin, and testosterone if you source the right carbon testosterone.


There was a NYTimes article, that put it succinctly.

The problem is, I appreciate, "know it when I see it" does not hold up to fundamentals of natural justice.

However, if one begins to reframe the understanding, between rational choices, versus proof, it provides an insight.

Doping is not doping when it assumes the odds are stacked against you.

Doping is not doping when you get caught. That is called disqulification.

Doping would not exist if there was a high degree of risk involved.

 

[Crankyfeet]

the fact is, with the substances like growth hormone, you will never have sufficient proof, save a video of an injection in the butt.

Folks gotta realise, 1. athletes will only dope, if they can get away with it. IE, it is a rational decision.

2. Proof as most apologists appeal to, will never meet thresholds, when one talks about autologous blood tranfusions, micro dosing, dynepo, growth hormone, insulin, and testosterone if you source the right carbon testosterone.


There was a NYTimes article, that put it succinctly.

The problem is, I appreciate, "know it when I see it" does not hold up to fundamentals of natural justice.

However, if one begins to reframe the understanding, between rational choices, versus proof, it provides an insight.

Doping is not doping when it assumes the odds are stacked against you.

Doping is not doping when you get caught. That is called disqulification.

Doping would not exist if there was a high degree of risk involved.

Very good argument thunder IMO. Whilst it doesn't implicate everybody in the sport with smoking gun evidence, the fact of the matter is, it is not a murder trial. More like a civil trial. Where hearsay evidence, circumstantial evidence, and reasoning can lead one to conclusions.

For example, in the Clemens story, what motivation does the man who jabbed steroids into Roger's butt have for revealing his story, and potentially ruining Clemens' career? I suppose the two might of had a spat. But he leaves himself open to huge litigation if it is a lie. If it is true, he knows that Clemens' would be loathe to take it to court and have witnesses under oath.

The more reasonable conclusion is that the informer had the same motivations as Mitchell and other baseball lovers, ie his conscious felt that what he had done was wrong, and that he owes it to the sport and to other clean players to reveal the methods, lies and cover-ups.

 

[thunder]

Very good argument thunder IMO. Whilst it doesn't implicate everybody in the sport with smoking gun evidence, the fact of the matter is, it is not a murder trial. More like a civil trial. Where hearsay evidence, circumstantial evidence, and reasoning can lead one to conclusions.

For example, in the Clemens story, what motivation does the man who jabbed steroids into Roger's butt have for revealing his story, and potentially ruining Clemens' career? I suppose the two might of had a spat. But he leaves himself open to huge litigation if it is a lie. If it is true, he knows that Clemens' would be loathe to take it to court and have witnesses under oath.

The more reasonable conclusion is that the informer had the same motivations as Mitchell and other baseball lovers, ie his conscious felt that what he had done was wrong, and that he owes it to the sport and to other clean players to reveal the methods, lies and cover-ups.

a pity they did not widen the investigation, get NFL'ers, then subpoena cyclists

Armie and Tyler. Lets see them wriggle.

 

[C'dale Girl]

Very good argument thunder IMO. Whilst it doesn't implicate everybody in the sport with smoking gun evidence, the fact of the matter is, it is not a murder trial. More like a civil trial. Where hearsay evidence, circumstantial evidence, and reasoning can lead one to conclusions.

For example, in the Clemens story, what motivation does the man who jabbed steroids into Roger's butt have for revealing his story, and potentially ruining Clemens' career? I suppose the two might of had a spat. But he leaves himself open to huge litigation if it is a lie. If it is true, he knows that Clemens' would be loathe to take it to court and have witnesses under oath.

The more reasonable conclusion is that the informer had the same motivations as Mitchell and other baseball lovers, ie his conscious felt that what he had done was wrong, and that he owes it to the sport and to other clean players to reveal the methods, lies and cover-ups.

You were doing so good Crankyman . . . right up to the point that you suggested that hearsay is allowed in a civil trial and circumstantial evidence is not allowed in a criminal trial, or murder trial to be more specific.

Anybody ever contemplate the fact that if it was any one of us no name people buying steroids online without a script we'd be facing jail time? What about using the federal mail system for distribution? What would that get us?

 

[Crankyfeet]

You were doing so good Crankyman . . . right up to the point that you suggested that hearsay is allowed in a civil trial and circumstantial evidence is not allowed in a criminal trial, or murder trial to be more specific.

Anybody ever contemplate the fact that if it was any one of us no name people buying steroids online without a script we'd be facing jail time? What about using the federal mail system for distribution? What would that get us?

Damn it. All I needed was a lawyer to point out the BS in my point. I overstepped with my legal analogy into the wilderness for Cranky.

I guess what I was trying to say is that smoking gun evidence is not necessary for one to come to a reasonable judgment, after comparing the probabilities of each party lying.