"Gunsberg" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
>> First of al, the (mis)behavior of one single Frenchman is hardly a proof
>> of "abundant dislike" for Merckx.
> No, it is not "proof". But, often it is an indicator of prevailing
> attitudes.
>For instance, it would be fallacious to conclude that Martin L. King's
>assassination by a perpetrator who was a white Southerner (in the USA)
>is "proof" of abundant dislike for MLK amongst white Southerners in
>1968. However, it was indeed the case that MLK was hated by most white
>Southerners in 1968
Sure, it might be an indicator, but that was not the way you presented the
incident in question. .
>>In the second place, it is far from certain
>>that the offender hit Merckx on purpose. According to him.
*************
> According to the defendent?? How credible is he? As even a 4 year
>old kid knows, an accused person has every incentive to lie, if he/she
>believes that a lie will enable the averting or lessening of
> punishment.
A defendant is not credible when his statement in inconsistent with all the
other evidence, but strangely enough, even a defendant night tell the truth.
> >he was pushed by
>>the crowd behind him and was swinging his arms to keep his balance,
> >just at
> >the moment when Merckx was passing. His version was confirmed by other
> > spectators
*****************
> His friends, trying to cover for him? Fellow Merckx haters, who
> secretly wish they had had the guts to punch him?
First of all, his explanation is far from improbable. And I don't know if
you have ever been near the finish on the top of a mountain (I have), but
you're pushed every time when riders are coming into sight. And the
winesses? They were not his friends (I'm afraid you know very little of the
case). Besides, there was no evidence he was a "Merckx-hater", nor that he
was surrounded by them. And by the way, in the summer of 1975 I was in
France and I have seen the Tour as well (not at the Puy the Dome, but near
the Izoard). Seeing the Tour is a lot of fun, it's like one long party,
everybody is having a good time, making fun, teasing representants of other
nations, etc. Of course, there might be some fanatics here and there, but
they are an exception (I have never met them in France). And I remember 1975
quite well, Of course all the French hoped that Thévénet would win the Tour.
But "hating" Merckx? As absurd as "hating'' Armstrong right now. That's not
the way Frenchmen are generally seeing their Tour, which is much closer to
the way English are seeing the fact that they haven't won "their" Wimbledon
in more than 60 years than the fanatism you might assume.
> In the US, in the South, the alibis of white defendants, accused of
> lynching Blacks, were inevitably (but manifestly, falsely) corroborated
> by an ample number of their neighbors, as a matter of course. "Justice"
> with a wink and a nod.
Strong argument. I can't imagine why the accuser or the plaintiff in the
case didn't put it forward.
>> and in any case there was no question that "he jumped out and
> > punched the lone Merckx in the stomach" (obviously the writer hasn't
> > seen
> > the images on TV, because in that case he would have seen that Merckx
> > wasn't
> > lone at all).
***************
> How is that relevant? What is the significance of whether Merckx was
> alone when he was punched, or whether Merckx alone, of the several
> cyclists passing by Nello, was the one that was punched?
It is in so far relevant, that you are basing your argument on the account
of one person (Torelli), but that this account turns out te be completely
wrong and irreliable.
> There is no argument that Nello punched Merckx. It seems quite
> suspicious that Nello would just happen to punch race leader Merckx,
> even though he was only one of several riders. What an unfortunate
> coincidence.
By the way, there were neither "several cyclists", but the facts he was hit
was in so far not an "unfortunate cocincidence", that Merckx was riding very
close to the public, which, by the way, is always a bit risky.
>> Merckx took the matter to court, where the suspect, a certain
>> Nello Breton (who by a crazy coincidence was defended by a lawyer
>> called
>> Thévénet), was sentenced to pay a fine of one french franc.
***************
> Too bad Mr. Breton never was compelled to defend himself in a
> Belgian court. I suspect tht the sentence might have been a bit
> different.
Do you really think that courts in France let them guide by chauvinistic
considerations? Apparently, Belgian journalists didn't think so, because
they didn't only write that the case was quite fair, but they also admitted
that the case was far from clear and called the sentence of the court - a
fine of one franc - "a Salomon's judgement".
> The simplest explanation is usually the best. My explanation for
> Breton's actions is simpler than your's....
The point is of course that I don't pretend to offer an firm explanation of
Berton's actions and certainly not an explanation based on completely wrong
evidence, but that I am stating that the case is far from clear, which given
the evidence avaliable seems to me to be fair.
Benjo
