The Presumption of Innocence No Longer Exists [Archive]

Bike Mike

01-03-1970, 08:35 AM

ionus.leix@googlemail.com wrote:

>Esteemed Knuckleheads:
>
>Patrice Clerc: "...the presumption of innocence no longer exists.
>That's why we have to make sure we go all the way to achieve clarity.
>This must be done to reinstate the right of a presumption of
>innocence." (http://www.letour.fr/2007/TDF/LIVE/us/1700/
>depeches.html)
>
>Yikes.
>
>Three words: military tribunal Gitmo.
>
>Discuss.
>
Another Loony heard from.

The entire program of drug testing, especially out of season, could be
said to go against the presumption of innocence. And yet there is
nothing unfair about it. It is a prerequisite to competing; the rider
agrees to the testing and the rider(s) know the consequences of
failing a test.

More importantly, the presumption of innocence is a concept of (most)
developed country's system of justice. Since expulsion from the TdF
imperils neither life nor liberty, it really doesnt apply. The
organizers can run the event however they want. The polizei get
involved acting on information made public at a public event as a
seperate consequence.

In the case of MR, the TdF that they didnt even expel him! MR is out
of the race because his sponsor fired him. Rabobank sponsors the team
to get GOOD publicity; sponsoring a doper doesnt quite do that. They
DID give him the benefit of the doubt in standing behind him when the
early allegations surfaced. When it became obvious he was blatantly
lying to his employer, they withdrew their support..

Arguably this was a good move. Given the atmosphere and esteem of
the race in Europe, they stood to get more positive publicity
supporting a clean race rather than a liar (besides they already got
many days of publicity as he led the tour and KoM). When both evading
the tests and lying are considered, all indications are that he is
cheating. There are almost certainly clauses in his contract to
abide by the rules, comply with testing etc.

In the end, MR is quite clearly in the wrong via a vis his employer on
several counts and rightfully dismissed no matter what the tests
reveal (or dont reveal).

Davey Crockett

01-03-1970, 08:35 AM

ionus.leix@googlemail.com writes:

> Esteemed Knuckleheads:
>
> Patrice Clerc: "...the presumption of innocence no longer exists.
> That's why we have to make sure we go all the way to achieve clarity.
> This must be done to reinstate the right of a presumption of
> innocence." (http://www.letour.fr/2007/TDF/LIVE/us/1700/
> depeches.html)
>
> Yikes.
>
> Three words: military tribunal Gitmo.
>
> Discuss.
>

Hey, I just thought that we could add "Denunciation" as a reason for
Banning/Suspension/Termination_of_Contract/etc

It would make bike racing even more interesting

--
Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply
-
Official truths are sometimes powerful illusions,
more often downright lies

ilanpsi@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 08:35 AM

On Jul 26, 7:14 am, ionus.l...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Esteemed Knuckleheads:
>
> Patrice Clerc: "...the presumption of innocence no longer exists.
> That's why we have to make sure we go all the way to achieve clarity.
> This must be done to reinstate the right of a presumption of
> innocence." (http://www.letour.fr/2007/TDF/LIVE/us/1700/
> depeches.html)
>
> Yikes.
>
> Three words: military tribunal Gitmo.
>
> Discuss.
>
> I O N U S

Moreni taken away by the police at the end of the stage for a "garde a
vue", which is a barbaric
practice where they keep you in a holding cell without food, water, or
place to lie down. Not such a
nice environment for someone who has just done a 200km stage in the
Pyrenees. A couple of
years ago, they increased the period until you could talk to a lawyer
from 48 hours to 72 hours (so
until you could have a clear idea of your rights).

-ilan

Donald Munro

01-03-1970, 08:35 AM

Davey Crockett wrote:
> Hey, I just thought that we could add "Denunciation" as a reason for
> Banning/Suspension/Termination_of_Contract/etc
>
> It would make bike racing even more interesting

While you're about it add rumour and hearsay.

Donald Munro

01-03-1970, 08:36 AM

ilanpsi wrote:
> Moreni taken away by the police at the end of the stage for a "garde a
> vue", which is a barbaric
> practice where they keep you in a holding cell without food, water, or
> place to lie down.

Don't they have any real criminals to catch or was the publicity
irresistible.

cyclintom@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 08:37 AM

On Jul 26, 9:41 am, Bike Mike <none@> wrote:
>
> The entire program of drug testing, especially out of season, could be
> said to go against the presumption of innocence. And yet there is
> nothing unfair about it. It is a prerequisite to competing; the rider
> agrees to the testing and the rider(s) know the consequences of
> failing a test.

Tell me, if you were a bus driver what would you think if your
employer wanted to show up at your door in the middle of the night and
demand a blood test to make sure that you weren't going to be hung
over and consequently dangerous in the morning commute?

If you can't tell what a rider's been up to by looking at him AT THE
RACES, then you have no business following him around and watching him
pee.

Ron Ruff

01-03-1970, 08:37 AM

On Jul 26, 10:41 am, Bike Mike <none@> wrote:
> The entire program of drug testing, especially out of season, could be
> said to go against the presumption of innocence. And yet there is
> nothing unfair about it. It is a prerequisite to competing; the rider
> agrees to the testing and the rider(s) know the consequences of
> failing a test.

Very lame excuse. Hardly the same as banning a rider based on rumor...
and of course the riders agree to this, because they have no choice.
Reminds me of signing away my rights while working at a National Park
one summer. It was illegal for the employer to enforce the unfair
rules *unless* we signed a waiver... and once you've already moved
there, what sort of choice is that? In the case of the riders, there
is only one system in which to work, period.

> When both evading
> the tests and lying are considered, all indications are that he is
> cheating.

True... but is this the way you want justice to be served in *your*
life?

It seems that most of the officials and fans suffer under the delusion
that doping can be eliminated. If the dope works and there is a way to
avoid being tested positive, it will continue to be used. Lifetime
bans and public hangings won't stop it. What then do we do?

Dan Connelly

01-03-1970, 08:37 AM

Bike Mike wrote:

> The entire program of drug testing, especially out of season, could be
> said to go against the presumption of innocence. And yet there is
> nothing unfair about it.

If an official claims rider # 142 crossed the center line and is DQ'ed, that's it, rider # 142 is DQ'ed. There's no trial. No presumption of innocence.

Drug use rules are just a subset of a greater body of sporting rules. Fairness is preferred, but don't hold them to the standard of criminal justice.

Dan

Bike Mike

01-03-1970, 08:38 AM

Ron Ruff <rruffrruff@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jul 26, 10:41 am, Bike Mike <none@> wrote:
>> The entire program of drug testing, especially out of season, could be
>> said to go against the presumption of innocence. And yet there is
>> nothing unfair about it. It is a prerequisite to competing; the rider
>> agrees to the testing and the rider(s) know the consequences of
>> failing a test.
>
>Very lame excuse. Hardly the same as banning a rider based on rumor...
>and of course the riders agree to this, because they have no choice.

He wasnt banned (yet, anyway), his employer fired him, the consequence
of which was that he had to withdraw. The cause was not mere rumor.
It is a fact that he evaded multiple drug tests; it is a fact that he
lied about where he was.

No one held a gun to his head to sign on. No one forced him to lie
about which continent he was on or what he was doing.

>> When both evading
>> the tests and lying are considered, all indications are that he is
>> cheating.
>
>True... but is this the way you want justice to be served in *your*
>life?

It has nothing to do with serving justice, it is a personal and common
sense conclusion. I can view the evidence on OJ, Vino or MR and come
to my own conclusion that they are guilty, guilty, guilty without
regard to legal procedings.

Neither the TdF nor Rabo has claimed MR was using drugs. Nor was he
let go for using drugs. His liberty is not endangered nor is his life
(except from Rabo riders who likely want to strangle him). He was
apparently let go for lying and casting his employer in an unfavorable
light. Happens all the time.

>It seems that most of the officials and fans suffer under the delusion
>that doping can be eliminated. If the dope works and there is a way to

You seem to suffer from the delusion it should be tolerated.

>avoid being tested positive, it will continue to be used. Lifetime
>bans and public hangings won't stop it. What then do we do?

Provide attachments to the bikes so that riders can hang IV bags to
the bike and juice themselves as they ride.

Donald Munro

01-03-1970, 08:38 AM

Dan Connelly wrote:
> If an official claims rider # 142 crossed the center line and is DQ'ed,
> that's it, rider # 142 is DQ'ed. There's no trial. No presumption of
> innocence.
>
> Drug use rules are just a subset of a greater body of sporting rules.
> Fairness is preferred, but don't hold them to the standard of criminal
> justice.

You don't get banned for 2 years for crossing the center line.

SLAVE of THE STATE

01-03-1970, 08:38 AM

On Jul 26, 10:03 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
wrote:

> Drug use rules are just a subset of a greater body of sporting rules. Fairness is preferred, but don't hold them to the standard of criminal justice.

I agree with what you said, but that knife has two sides. I mean,
there likewise isn't the need for any presumption of innocence (until
proven guilty) as in the criminal case.

Bike racing is a matter of consent. Living under a guvmint legal
system isn't.

Revtom

01-03-1970, 08:38 AM

On Jul 26, 12:03 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
wrote:
> Bike Mike wrote:
> > The entire program of drug testing, especially out of season, could be
> > said to go against the presumption of innocence. And yet there is
> > nothing unfair about it.
>
> If an official claims rider # 142 crossed the center line and is DQ'ed, that's it, rider # 142 is DQ'ed. There's no trial. No presumption of innocence.
>
> Drug use rules are just a subset of a greater body of sporting rules. Fairness is preferred, but don't hold them to the standard of criminal justice.
>
> Dan

Criminal justice it is; Italy has prosecuted several athletes on
charges of sporting fraud. As the Versus crew was pontificating, I was
considering cyclists to be "on the job", just like other working
stiffs. Workplace rules are very similar to the UCI/WADA doping rules
- essentially, by accepting a job, the employee leaves the Bill of
Rights at the door. Add the Patriot Act(I know I'm stretching here)
and corporations, as proxies for the government, become virtual
private law enforcement agencies. Just as in the US, the current UCI
ruling regime is more concerned with maintaining order than in the
rule of law. The UCI, National sport governing bodies, et al. can all
say "look how tough on crime we are" while sport crumbles away around
them. Unfortunately, an adversarial system would not be an
improvement. Fairness indeed. Rasmussen was done in by a TV reporter
who claimed to have spotted the cyclist training in the Dolomites. All
Rabobank would have had to do was look at Rasmussen's passport stamps.
If he really went to Mexico, he would have had visa entry and exit
stamps. The EU allows citizens of member countries to work throughout
the EU, but they still get stamps on their passports(as far as I know.
I could be wrong) but they don't need to apply for visas to go back
and forth. Rasmussen did miss two mandatory out of competition tests -
enough to have Denmark yank him from the National Team, but not enough
for the UCI to take action. Does farting in church now lead to
excommunication?

Stay Cool,
Tom P.

Ewoud Dronkert

01-03-1970, 08:39 AM

Bike Mike schreef:
> Rabo riders who likely want to strangle him).

Apparently not. In a pre-stage interview, Boogerd *almost* said right
out that he disagreed with the decision of the team to withdraw
Rasmussen. He was weighing his words and clearly couldn't conceal his
sentiments. He did say that he was not angry with Rasmussen but instead
felt sorry for him, and that he didn't feel like riding at all. In a
post-stage interview Bram de Groot expressed about the same. He spoke
highly of the fabulous team spirit, team actions and the feeling of
having the yellow jersey in the team. It sounded like he, too, would
have preferred to keep the whole group intact.

--
E. Dronkert

Morten Reippuert Knudsen

01-03-1970, 08:39 AM

Ewoud Dronkert <firstname@lastname.net.invalid> wrote:
> Bike Mike schreef:
> > Rabo riders who likely want to strangle him).

> Apparently not. In a pre-stage interview, Boogerd *almost* said right
> out that he disagreed with the decision of the team to withdraw
> Rasmussen. He was weighing his words and clearly couldn't conceal his
> sentiments. He did say that he was not angry with Rasmussen but instead
> felt sorry for him, and that he didn't feel like riding at all. In a
> post-stage interview Bram de Groot expressed about the same. He spoke
> highly of the fabulous team spirit, team actions and the feeling of
> having the yellow jersey in the team. It sounded like he, too, would
> have preferred to keep the whole group intact.

I noticed that as well. Dekker the elder supported him too, and help
him get a way from the hotel, stayed with him for an hour on the other
hotel.
There is an interview with Rasmussen in tomorrws Berlingske Tidende
<http://berlingske.dk> where he says that he has contacted a layer
today.

Apperantly ASO did put a lot more pressuere on Rabobank than what
their are admitting. Secondly it seems that the sponsor pulled the
plug after the pressconference tuesday didn't turn the media arround.
The Cassani story seems to be the opetunity Theo de Roy was looking
for.

--
Morten Reippuert Knudsen :-) <http://blog.reippuert.dk>

Merlin Works CR-3/2.5 & Campagnolo Chorus 2007.

Donald Munro

01-03-1970, 08:39 AM

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> Apparently not. In a pre-stage interview, Boogerd *almost* said right
> out that he disagreed with the decision of the team to withdraw
> Rasmussen. He was weighing his words and clearly couldn't conceal his
> sentiments. He did say that he was not angry with Rasmussen but instead
> felt sorry for him, and that he didn't feel like riding at all. In a
> post-stage interview Bram de Groot expressed about the same. He spoke
> highly of the fabulous team spirit, team actions and the feeling of
> having the yellow jersey in the team. It sounded like he, too, would
> have preferred to keep the whole group intact.

The form Boogerd showed, its really a waste to retire.

Sandy

01-03-1970, 08:40 AM

Dans le message de
news:1185480155.619032.195440@d55g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com,
SLAVE of THE STATE <gwhite@ti.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Jul 26, 10:03 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
> wrote:
>
>> Drug use rules are just a subset of a greater body of sporting
>> rules. Fairness is preferred, but don't hold them to the standard
>> of criminal justice.
>
>
> I agree with what you said, but that knife has two sides. I mean,
> there likewise isn't the need for any presumption of innocence (until
> proven guilty) as in the criminal case.
>
> Bike racing is a matter of consent. Living under a guvmint legal
> system isn't.

When will the amateur Perry Masons give up, finally ?!

The initial presumption in most situations, criminal or not, is of guilt,
culpability, responsibility, whatever.

"Hey! I just saw, from five feet away, a guy I know - the defendant here -
stab this other guy to death." Witness is yours to examine, defense
counsel...

What polite civilizations have done is to give the dirty bastard a chance to
prove this initial and strong impression wrong. That kindness, a
superfluity in so many instances, is NOT natural logic, law or order. It
does, however, allow the accused to make a positive defense case, or gamble
that an inadequate level of proof will let the conscience of the accusers
and judges and society at large be calmed. Then you hang the dirty bastard,
as you could have done much earlier, but now you have pious declarations of
fair play to make it perfectly right and just.

So, given generations of inept inquisitors and the talents of brothers and
sisters at law, the accuser accuses much too early, invents good looking and
false proof, and the circus takes place on another plane of another reality.

Ask 100 potential jurors if they will apply this presumption of innocence,
and the cultural mandate will make most of them say "yes". Ask them,
differently, why they think the accused is going to trial, and most of them
will admit that they think "he _must_ have done something wrong."

Prudhomme is an offensive prig, who wants to say that accusation is good
enough - no need to sink or swim in a river of truth. And, of course, his
word is golden, just as he said this was the year of renewal, a clean tour,
etc., etc.

Tour de France with thumbscrews, yeah, that's coming up next.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

"Le Vin est la plus saine et la plus hygiénique des boissons."
- Louis Pasteur

anton2468@aol.com

01-03-1970, 08:40 AM

On Jul 26, 4:30 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 26, 9:41 am, Bike Mike <none@> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The entire program of drug testing, especially out of season, could be
> > said to go against the presumption of innocence. And yet there is
> > nothing unfair about it. It is a prerequisite to competing; the rider
> > agrees to the testing and the rider(s) know the consequences of
> > failing a test.
>
> Tell me, if you were a bus driver what would you think if your
> employer wanted to show up at your door in the middle of the night and
> demand a blood test to make sure that you weren't going to be hung
> over and consequently dangerous in the morning commute?
>
> If you can't tell what a rider's been up to by looking at him AT THE
> RACES, then you have no business following him around and watching him
> pee.

Rules are rules pal. If you want the quiet life, be a Bus Driver. if
you want to win the TDF clean, take the tests.

You just cannot face the truth can you

SLAVE of THE STATE

01-03-1970, 08:40 AM

On Jul 26, 1:30 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:

> Tell me, if you were a bus driver what would you think if your
> employer wanted to show up at your door in the middle of the night and
> demand a blood test to make sure that you weren't going to be hung
> over and consequently dangerous in the morning commute?

I don't really like the commie guvmint of California, but they got the
at-will part right.

They can sack you anytime for no reason. You can quit at any time for
no reason. (That is barring any other contract saying otherwise.)

If they want you to pee, you pee, or accept the consequences of not
peeing.

Bike Mike

01-03-1970, 08:40 AM

cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:

>On Jul 26, 9:41 am, Bike Mike <none@> wrote:
>>
>> The entire program of drug testing, especially out of season, could be
>> said to go against the presumption of innocence. And yet there is
>> nothing unfair about it. It is a prerequisite to competing; the rider
>> agrees to the testing and the rider(s) know the consequences of
>> failing a test.
>
>Tell me, if you were a bus driver what would you think if your
>employer wanted to show up at your door in the middle of the night and
>demand a blood test to make sure that you weren't going to be hung
>over and consequently dangerous in the morning commute?

Random drug tests are a part of life for several professions besides
cyclists. Most of them makes lots less in endorsements and personal
appearances and you dont retire at 38 or 39 either.

>If you can't tell what a rider's been up to by looking at him AT THE
>RACES, then you have no business following him around and watching him
>pee.

Yes, the you-can-tell-he's-dirty-by-the-look-of-him test is much
better and fairer.

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org

01-03-1970, 08:40 AM

On Jul 26, 1:30 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Tell me, if you were a bus driver what would you think if your
> employer wanted to show up at your door in the middle of the night and
> demand a blood test to make sure that you weren't going to be hung
> over and consequently dangerous in the morning commute?
>
> If you can't tell what a rider's been up to by looking at him AT THE
> RACES, then you have no business following him around and watching him
> pee.

Dumbass,

Funny you should choose that example, because bus drivers
actually do get piss-tested, probably much more than
you do.

Ben

Tom Kunich

01-03-1970, 08:40 AM

<anton2468@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1185482112.108284.223650@q75g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Rules are rules pal. If you want the quiet life, be a Bus Driver. if
> you want to win the TDF clean, take the tests.

Indeed and fascist are forever fascists.

> You just cannot face the truth can you

What truth is that?

SLAVE of THE STATE

01-03-1970, 08:40 AM

On Jul 26, 1:59 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
> Dans le message denews:1185480155.619032.195440@d55g2000hsg.google groups.com,
> SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> > On Jul 26, 10:03 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Drug use rules are just a subset of a greater body of sporting
> >> rules. Fairness is preferred, but don't hold them to the standard
> >> of criminal justice.
>
> > I agree with what you said, but that knife has two sides. I mean,
> > there likewise isn't the need for any presumption of innocence (until
> > proven guilty) as in the criminal case.
>
> > Bike racing is a matter of consent. Living under a guvmint legal
> > system isn't.
>
> When will the amateur Perry Masons give up, finally ?!
>
> The initial presumption in most situations, criminal or not, is of guilt,
> culpability, responsibility, whatever.

You missed the point. You didn't address Dan's idea that "standards
for criminal conviction in a just legal system" are higher. Instead,
you just nitpicked about the language "presumption of innocence,"
which regardless of its technical precision, is a shorthand for what
people will understand as a need for accusers to provide compelling
proof to convict.

Getting booted from bike racing does not result in a loss of freedom
as conviction of criminal behavior can. Paricipation is by consent,
including getting tested. This doesn't mean that contracts should not
be adhered to, or that the governing body in a consensual professional
sport should not adhere to the rules it claims it will play by. If
there are violations of contract, then it does certainly move towards
legal responsibilty if harm can be shown.

Michael Press

01-03-1970, 08:40 AM

In article <46a90b2f$0$31122$426a74cc@news.free.fr>,
"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote:

> Dans le message de
> news:1185480155.619032.195440@d55g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com,
> SLAVE of THE STATE <gwhite@ti.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> > On Jul 26, 10:03 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Drug use rules are just a subset of a greater body of sporting
> >> rules. Fairness is preferred, but don't hold them to the standard
> >> of criminal justice.
> >
> >
> > I agree with what you said, but that knife has two sides. I mean,
> > there likewise isn't the need for any presumption of innocence (until
> > proven guilty) as in the criminal case.
> >
> > Bike racing is a matter of consent. Living under a guvmint legal
> > system isn't.
>
> When will the amateur Perry Masons give up, finally ?!
>
> The initial presumption in most situations, criminal or not, is of guilt,
> culpability, responsibility, whatever.
>
> "Hey! I just saw, from five feet away, a guy I know - the defendant here -
> stab this other guy to death." Witness is yours to examine, defense
> counsel...
>
> What polite civilizations have done is to give the dirty bastard a chance to
> prove this initial and strong impression wrong. That kindness, a
> superfluity in so many instances, is NOT natural logic, law or order. It
> does, however, allow the accused to make a positive defense case, or gamble
> that an inadequate level of proof will let the conscience of the accusers
> and judges and society at large be calmed. Then you hang the dirty bastard,
> as you could have done much earlier, but now you have pious declarations of
> fair play to make it perfectly right and just.

I was a prospective juror in a capital murder case. I
wanted to send a note to the defense counsel. "Tell you
client to stop shooting filthy looks at the prospective
jurors." As a matter of fact I start from an honest
position or presumption of innocence. But I would
happily jail an obvious malefactor for shooting me
filthy looks.

> So, given generations of inept inquisitors and the talents of brothers and
> sisters at law, the accuser accuses much too early, invents good looking and
> false proof, and the circus takes place on another plane of another reality.
>
> Ask 100 potential jurors if they will apply this presumption of innocence,
> and the cultural mandate will make most of them say "yes". Ask them,
> differently, why they think the accused is going to trial, and most of them
> will admit that they think "he _must_ have done something wrong."
>
> Prudhomme is an offensive prig, who wants to say that accusation is good
> enough - no need to sink or swim in a river of truth. And, of course, his
> word is golden, just as he said this was the year of renewal, a clean tour,
> etc., etc.
>
> Tour de France with thumbscrews, yeah, that's coming up next.

--
Michael Press

Davey Crockett

01-03-1970, 08:40 AM

"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> writes:

> Prudhomme is an offensive prig, who wants to say that accusation is good
> enough - no need to sink or swim in a river of truth. And, of course, his
> word is golden, just as he said this was the year of renewal, a clean tour,
> etc., etc.
>
> Tour de France with thumbscrews, yeah, that's coming up next.

Hey right on. I never thought until you just mentioned it

But if we turn the clock back a few hundred years we have Trial by
Water, Trial by Fire and Trial by Combat.

The Trial by Combat is interesting. And could have been very easily
implemented by letting Rasmussen continue to the end of the Tour.

If he won he would be Innocent and McBoggy and Prudhomme and the
RobberBank Wankers accusing him could be burnt at the Stake

And with his lack of fat, there's a good chance that he would sink - a
presumption of innocence in Trial by Water

--
Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply
-
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate,
tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds
of men." --Samuel Adams

Davey Crockett

01-03-1970, 08:42 AM

Morten Reippuert Knudsen<spam@reippuert.dk> writes:

> I noticed that as well. Dekker the elder supported him too, and help
> him get a way from the hotel, stayed with him for an hour on the other
> hotel.
> There is an interview with Rasmussen in tomorrws Berlingske Tidende
> <http://berlingske.dk> where he says that he has contacted a layer
> today.
>
> Apperantly ASO did put a lot more pressuere on Rabobank than what
> their are admitting. Secondly it seems that the sponsor pulled the
> plug after the pressconference tuesday didn't turn the media arround.
> The Cassani story seems to be the opetunity Theo de Roy was looking
> for.

Right on

Davey smells a Rat here

There's much more to this than meets the eye

Rasmussen has been shamelessly treated

--
Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply

Sandy

01-03-1970, 08:42 AM

Dans le message de
news:1185497133.241608.297820@w3g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com,
SLAVE of THE STATE <gwhite@ti.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Jul 26, 1:59 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
>> Dans le message
>> denews:1185480155.619032.195440@d55g2000hsg.google groups.com, SLAVE
>> of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>
>>> On Jul 26, 10:03 am, Dan Connelly
>>> <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote:
>>
>>>> Drug use rules are just a subset of a greater body of sporting
>>>> rules. Fairness is preferred, but don't hold them to the standard
>>>> of criminal justice.
>>
>>> I agree with what you said, but that knife has two sides. I mean,
>>> there likewise isn't the need for any presumption of innocence
>>> (until proven guilty) as in the criminal case.
>>
>>> Bike racing is a matter of consent. Living under a guvmint legal
>>> system isn't.
>>
>> When will the amateur Perry Masons give up, finally ?!
>>
>> The initial presumption in most situations, criminal or not, is of
>> guilt, culpability, responsibility, whatever.
>
> You missed the point. You didn't address Dan's idea that "standards
> for criminal conviction in a just legal system" are higher. Instead,
> you just nitpicked about the language "presumption of innocence,"
> which regardless of its technical precision, is a shorthand for what
> people will understand as a need for accusers to provide compelling
> proof to convict.

There is no actively operating JUST legal system, and criminal conviction in
the existing ones varies so much you would have trouble identifying the
varieties. But you don't get my point - you don't get to mumbling about
justice until you have passed the primitive, mostly accurate way of
assigning culpability - that something wrong was done by someone
identifiable. Justice is a cool concept that ends as the umbilicus is rent.

> Getting booted from bike racing does not result in a loss of freedom
> as conviction of criminal behavior can. Paricipation is by consent,
> including getting tested. This doesn't mean that contracts should not
> be adhered to, or that the governing body in a consensual professional
> sport should not adhere to the rules it claims it will play by. If
> there are violations of contract, then it does certainly move towards
> legal responsibilty if harm can be shown.

Why should a contract be honored? Do you really think that all the
litigation in courts over big money is about honorable people mutually
seeking prosperity? I began in court, and my first lesson was that the
brainiest lawyers from the most prestigious firms put out contracts that get
litigated.

And if you think that exchanging ILLEGAL promises (about 30% of the UCI form
contract for rider and pro team) is a good idea to defend, you are one of
the insiders benefitting, whether that's as organizer, regulator, sponsor,
management, rider or employee.

PS: levels of proof are a gas - get some impressions from jurors how well
they understood or applied those rules.

SLAVE of THE STATE

01-03-1970, 08:43 AM

On Jul 26, 6:37 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
> Dans le message denews:1185497133.241608.297820@w3g2000hsg.googleg roups.com,
> SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> > On Jul 26, 1:59 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
> >> Dans le message
> >> denews:1185480155.619032.195440@d55g2000hsg.google groups.com, SLAVE
> >> of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> >>> On Jul 26, 10:03 am, Dan Connelly
> >>> <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote:
>
> >>>> Drug use rules are just a subset of a greater body of sporting
> >>>> rules. Fairness is preferred, but don't hold them to the standard
> >>>> of criminal justice.
>
> >>> I agree with what you said, but that knife has two sides. I mean,
> >>> there likewise isn't the need for any presumption of innocence
> >>> (until proven guilty) as in the criminal case.
>
> >>> Bike racing is a matter of consent. Living under a guvmint legal
> >>> system isn't.
>
> >> When will the amateur Perry Masons give up, finally ?!
>
> >> The initial presumption in most situations, criminal or not, is of
> >> guilt, culpability, responsibility, whatever.
>
> > You missed the point. You didn't address Dan's idea that "standards
> > for criminal conviction in a just legal system" are higher. Instead,
> > you just nitpicked about the language "presumption of innocence,"
> > which regardless of its technical precision, is a shorthand for what
> > people will understand as a need for accusers to provide compelling
> > proof to convict.
>
> There is no actively operating JUST legal system, and criminal conviction in
> the existing ones varies so much you would have trouble identifying the
> varieties.

No ****, but I don't have time for that. So there's where the
shorthand and broad brushstrokes come in.

> But you don't get my point - you don't get to mumbling about
> justice until you have passed the primitive, mostly accurate way of
> assigning culpability - that something wrong was done by someone
> identifiable. Justice is a cool concept that ends as the umbilicus is rent.

I don't disagree, but you're talking about something else. The point
(as I see it) of Bike Mike, Dan, and I, is that it is really dubious
that it is even a question about justice.

> > Getting booted from bike racing does not result in a loss of freedom
> > as conviction of criminal behavior can. Paricipation is by consent,
> > including getting tested. This doesn't mean that contracts should not
> > be adhered to, or that the governing body in a consensual professional
> > sport should not adhere to the rules it claims it will play by. If
> > there are violations of contract, then it does certainly move towards
> > legal responsibilty if harm can be shown.
>
> Why should a contract be honored?

Because the are costs less than the alternative, and future prospects
are improved. It is even better to let minor points slide because it
costs less. When people "honor" a contract -- which is true for most
transactions -- they do it because it is the easiest thing to do. You
thought otherwise?

One reason people honor contracts is because it builds reputation and
confidence. If Macy's repeatedly sold clothes that fell apart, and
did not largely stand by the products they sell to consumers, they'd
go out of business. They want futures. People adhere because they
want futures.

And people *do* adhere to social rules of conduct even when they have
a very unclear chance of futures. For example, people most often
abide by the implicit contract to tip a waitress in a restaurant even
when they know they'll never be back there again.

> Do you really think that all the litigation in courts
> over big money is about honorable people mutually
> seeking prosperity?

To the goofy question: of course not. You deal with asswipes, so
that's your sample and the source of your perspective.

> I began in court, and my first lesson was that the
> brainiest lawyers from the most prestigious firms put out contracts that get
> litigated.

Well that's your problem. You spend too much time in court, and have
no perspective on the everyday behavior of most people. Get out.

> And if you think that exchanging ILLEGAL promises (about 30% of the UCI form
> contract for rider and pro team) is a good idea to defend, you are one of
> the insiders benefitting, whether that's as organizer, regulator, sponsor,
> management, rider or employee.
>
> PS: levels of proof are a gas - get some impressions from jurors how well
> they understood or applied those rules.

LOL. I've served on juries before and probably have less confidence
in the guvmint supplied "justice" systems than you. That wasn't the
point.

Bike Mike

01-03-1970, 08:44 AM

Davey Crockett <d4Qaveycrockett@azurservers.com> wrote:

>
>Davey smells a Rat here
>
>There's much more to this than meets the eye

Yea, like enforcing the rule that you cant start in the TdF if you
missed a dope test in the 45 days prior to the start.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/tour07/news/?id=/news/2007/jul07/jul27news

>Rasmussen has been shamelessly treated

TdF and cycling fans have been ruthlessly victimized.

RonSonic

01-03-1970, 08:44 AM

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 04:52:17 +0200, Davey Crockett
<d4Qaveycrockett@azurservers.com> wrote:

>Morten Reippuert Knudsen<spam@reippuert.dk> writes:
>
>
>> I noticed that as well. Dekker the elder supported him too, and help
>> him get a way from the hotel, stayed with him for an hour on the other
>> hotel.
>> There is an interview with Rasmussen in tomorrws Berlingske Tidende
>> <http://berlingske.dk> where he says that he has contacted a layer
>> today.
>>
>> Apperantly ASO did put a lot more pressuere on Rabobank than what
>> their are admitting. Secondly it seems that the sponsor pulled the
>> plug after the pressconference tuesday didn't turn the media arround.
>> The Cassani story seems to be the opetunity Theo de Roy was looking
>> for.
>
>Right on
>
>Davey smells a Rat here
>
>There's much more to this than meets the eye
>
>Rasmussen has been shamelessly treated

"Shamefully."

We'll see. I cannot know from this desk what evidence Rabo had before them when
they decided to pull the plug on him. But if it is only what has been presented
in the press, then the ****ing mob won. And from now on the only winners the
tour will have are the mob and the people they love.

Ron

Ewoud Dronkert

01-03-1970, 08:45 AM

Revtom wrote:
> stamps. The EU allows citizens of member countries to work throughout
> the EU, but they still get stamps on their passports(as far as I know.

No stamps.

--
E. Dronkert

Simon Brooke

01-03-1970, 08:45 AM

in message <1185508938.568111.155950@k79g2000hse.googlegroups. com>, Revtom
('smipypr@yahoo.com') wrote:

> If he really went to Mexico, he would have had visa entry and exit
> stamps. The EU allows citizens of member countries to work throughout
> the EU, but they still get stamps on their passports(as far as I know.

No, never. I've travelled reasonably widely, at least a dozen countries,
and I've only two stamps on my passport. One on close examination one's
Malaysia and the other's USA. Oh, hang on, there's one more - United Arab
Emirates. At EU borders I've rarely even had to show my passport.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Error 1109: There is no message for this error

Ewoud Dronkert

01-03-1970, 08:45 AM

Bike Mike wrote:
> Yea, like enforcing the rule that you cant start in the TdF if you
> missed a dope test in the 45 days prior to the start.

He didn't miss a dope test, he was not there for an unannounced
out-of-competition test. I think that's different.

--
E. Dronkert

Morten Reippuert Knudsen

01-03-1970, 08:45 AM

Bike Mike <none@> wrote:
> Davey Crockett <d4Qaveycrockett@azurservers.com> wrote:
> >Davey smells a Rat here
> >
> >There's much more to this than meets the eye
>
> Yea, like enforcing the rule that you cant start in the TdF if you
> missed a dope test in the 45 days prior to the start.
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/tour07/news/?id=/news/2007/jul07/jul27news

Nope, the rule states that a rider can be prevented to start if the
rider is not available for testening for 45 consectitive days prior to
the start of a grand tour.

UCI has already said that the rule could not be used to deny Reabobank
to let Rasmussen start since he _was_ available within the last 45
days and he _did_ get testet within those 45 days.

--
Morten Reippuert Knudsen :-) <http://blog.reippuert.dk>

Merlin Works CR-3/2.5 & Campagnolo Chorus 2007.

ilanpsi@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 08:45 AM

On Jul 27, 3:35 am, Ewoud Dronkert <firstn...@lastname.net.invalid>
wrote:
> Revtom wrote:
> > stamps. The EU allows citizens of member countries to work throughout
> > the EU, but they still get stamps on their passports(as far as I know.
>
> No stamps.
>
> --
> E. Dronkert

A couple of times when I flew in to CDG airport in Paris from the USA
or Canada, there
weren't even officials checking documents. It was either too early for
them,
or else they were on strike.

-ilan

Tony Rall

01-03-1970, 08:45 AM

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> He didn't miss a dope test, he was not there for an unannounced
> out-of-competition test. I think that's different.

My reading of this MR fault is that:

a) He didn't miss or fail a test.

b) He didn't miss an out-of-competition test - at least none that we
know about.

c) He simply failed to correctly disclose his location.

--
Tony Rall

VBadJuJu

01-03-1970, 08:45 AM

Ewoud Dronkert <firstname@lastname.net.invalid> wrote:

>Bike Mike wrote:
>> Yea, like enforcing the rule that you cant start in the TdF if you
>> missed a dope test in the 45 days prior to the start.
>
>He didn't miss a dope test, he was not there for an unannounced
>out-of-competition test. I think that's different.

I dont see the distinction. If you are not there, you cant take the
test. He missed/wasnt there for 2 tests by the Danish Cycling Union
which caused them to drop him from the national team and Olympics.

He had already missed/wasnt there for 2 other tests by the UCI in the
previous 18 months. When this came to light, Rabo revealed they knew
about it and had fined him 10k euro.

One question is, how did the UCI (?) come to question whether he was
in Mexico? Do they sometimes just call and check to see if you are
where you say you are, or were they looking for him to test him? If
it is the latter, which was late June, then he missed a test just
before the start of the Tour.

Simon Brooke

01-03-1970, 08:46 AM

in message <PqWdnVvCyIQdOzTbnZ2dnUVZ_qiinZ2d@pghconnect.com>, Tony Rall
('trall@almaden.ibm.com') wrote:

> Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
>> He didn't miss a dope test, he was not there for an unannounced
>> out-of-competition test. I think that's different.
>
> My reading of this MR fault is that:
>
> a) He didn't miss or fail a test.
>
> b) He didn't miss an out-of-competition test - at least none that we
> know about.
>
> c) He simply failed to correctly disclose his location.

And even that's doubtful. He twice didn't file his whereabout papers by the
due date, but in each case he did file them a few days after - and /if/ he
was in Mexico, he was where he said he'd be.

In which case he has been most comprehensively shat upon.

He's not an obviously likable man, but that in itself is not a crime.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us
;; many useful objects such as wickerwork picnic baskets.
;; Imagination without skill gives us modern art.
;; Tom Stoppard, Artist Descending A Staircase

RonSonic

01-03-1970, 08:46 AM

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 01:02:07 -0700, Tony Rall <trall@almaden.ibm.com> wrote:

>Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
>> He didn't miss a dope test, he was not there for an unannounced
>> out-of-competition test. I think that's different.
>
>My reading of this MR fault is that:
>
>a) He didn't miss or fail a test.
>
>b) He didn't miss an out-of-competition test - at least none that we
>know about.
>
>c) He simply failed to correctly disclose his location.

If he actually lied about his location, I'd consider that far, far more serious.
Ron

Bike Mike

01-03-1970, 08:46 AM

Morten Reippuert Knudsen<spam@reippuert.dk> wrote:

>Bike Mike <none@> wrote:
>> Davey Crockett <d4Qaveycrockett@azurservers.com> wrote:
>> >Davey smells a Rat here
>> >
>> >There's much more to this than meets the eye
>>
>> Yea, like enforcing the rule that you cant start in the TdF if you
>> missed a dope test in the 45 days prior to the start.
>>
>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/tour07/news/?id=/news/2007/jul07/jul27news
>
>Nope, the rule states that a rider can be prevented to start if the
>rider is not available for testening for 45 consectitive days prior to
>the start of a grand tour.
>
>UCI has already said that the rule could not be used to deny Reabobank
>to let Rasmussen start since he _was_ available within the last 45
>days and he _did_ get testet within those 45 days.

Tell it to Prudhomme

"...he shouldn't have been at the start anyway. There is a rule in the
UCI's antidoping book that a rider can't start in the Tour de France
if he missed a doping test in the 45 days before the start, it would
have been good if the rule had been applied" - Prudhomme

RonSonic

01-03-1970, 08:46 AM

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:49:02 +0100, Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:

>in message <PqWdnVvCyIQdOzTbnZ2dnUVZ_qiinZ2d@pghconnect.com>, Tony Rall
>('trall@almaden.ibm.com') wrote:
>
>> Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
>>> He didn't miss a dope test, he was not there for an unannounced
>>> out-of-competition test. I think that's different.
>>
>> My reading of this MR fault is that:
>>
>> a) He didn't miss or fail a test.
>>
>> b) He didn't miss an out-of-competition test - at least none that we
>> know about.
>>
>> c) He simply failed to correctly disclose his location.
>
>And even that's doubtful. He twice didn't file his whereabout papers by the
>due date, but in each case he did file them a few days after - and /if/ he
>was in Mexico, he was where he said he'd be.
>
>In which case he has been most comprehensively shat upon.
>
>He's not an obviously likable man, but that in itself is not a crime.

It is if the mob is in charge. In fact, when the mob is moving that is the only
crime that matters.

Ron

Bob Schwartz

01-03-1970, 08:46 AM

Simon Brooke wrote:
> He's not an obviously likable man, but that in itself is not a crime.

Tell you what. Tell a lie that embarrasses your boss. Let us know
what happens.

Bob Schwartz

Simon Brooke

01-03-1970, 08:47 AM

in message <Fxmqi.11507$eY.11400@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, Bob Schwartz
('bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> He's not an obviously likable man, but that in itself is not a crime.
>
> Tell you what. Tell a lie that embarrasses your boss. Let us know
> what happens.

You're assuming he told a lie. I'm not. I'm not assuming he told the truth,
either; I'm withholding judgement.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Our modern industrial economy takes a mountain covered with trees,
;; lakes, running streams and transforms it into a mountain of junk,
;; garbage, slime pits, and debris. -- Edward Abbey

Revtom

01-03-1970, 08:47 AM

On Jul 27, 8:36 am, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> Simon Brooke wrote:
> > He's not an obviously likable man, but that in itself is not a crime.
>
> Tell you what. Tell a lie that embarrasses your boss. Let us know
> what happens.
>
> Bob Schwartz

Hey, say anything that embarrasses your boss. Or anything your boss
doesn't like. Or anything that people who have the boss's ear might
not like. Your income can be reduced by two thirds, in a new job
you're "lucky" enough to find.

Stay Cool,
Tom P.

Sandy

01-03-1970, 08:48 AM

Dans le message de news:v5uja35dk6hl1snkdbog14v8tsiej47kv0@4ax.com,
Bike Mike <none@> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Morten Reippuert Knudsen<spam@reippuert.dk> wrote:
>
>> Bike Mike <none@> wrote:
>>> Davey Crockett <d4Qaveycrockett@azurservers.com> wrote:
>>>> Davey smells a Rat here
>>>>
>>>> There's much more to this than meets the eye
>>>
>>> Yea, like enforcing the rule that you cant start in the TdF if you
>>> missed a dope test in the 45 days prior to the start.
>>>
>>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/tour07/news/?id=/news/2007/jul07/jul27news
>>
>> Nope, the rule states that a rider can be prevented to start if the
>> rider is not available for testening for 45 consectitive days prior
>> to the start of a grand tour.
>>
>> UCI has already said that the rule could not be used to deny
>> Reabobank to let Rasmussen start since he _was_ available within the
>> last 45 days and he _did_ get testet within those 45 days.
>
> Tell it to Prudhomme
>
> "...he shouldn't have been at the start anyway. There is a rule in the
> UCI's antidoping book that a rider can't start in the Tour de France
> if he missed a doping test in the 45 days before the start, it would
> have been good if the rule had been applied" - Prudhomme

The Padraick fellow said today, on F2, that the above rule is too harsh, and
that UCI regularly will not apply it. So legislators make rules and
administrators refuse to follow them and they are the same people. Got it,
Paddy.

Morten Reippuert Knudsen

01-03-1970, 08:48 AM

VBadJuJu <none@> wrote:
> Ewoud Dronkert <firstname@lastname.net.invalid> wrote:

> >Bike Mike wrote:
> >> Yea, like enforcing the rule that you cant start in the TdF if you
> >> missed a dope test in the 45 days prior to the start.
> >
> >He didn't miss a dope test, he was not there for an unannounced
> >out-of-competition test. I think that's different.

> I dont see the distinction. If you are not there, you cant take the
> test. He missed/wasnt there for 2 tests by the Danish Cycling Union
> which caused them to drop him from the national team and Olympics.

Not true, DCU had other reasons for dropping him form the national
team, their reason was that DCU has an ethical codec whitch DCU thougt
Michael Rasmussen did not honour. Their ethical codec is not tied to
missed test etc, its purly based on an individual estimate of "the
rider behaving as good example for others".

Secondly DCU doesn't have anything to do with selecting riders for the
Olympics. The Danish Olympic commite have a history of of selecting
riders declarred persona-non-grata by DCU.

> He had already missed/wasnt there for 2 other tests by the UCI in the
> previous 18 months. When this came to light, Rabo revealed they knew
> about it and had fined him 10k euro.

Tjek your facts, he didn't miss any UCI tests, he missed two ADD tests
and he _was_ pressent for a third shortly after the last missed test
and prior to ADD issuing their second written warning.

1. written warning from UCI
Recived 24/03/2006 for not sending 2. quarter wherabouts in due
time. Due time was 15/03/2006. Rasmussen took part in criterium
international when the warening was issued. Rasmussen send the
whereabouts to UCI on 03/04/06, two days to late in order for the
warning to be dismissed. The warning will expire on 24/09/2007.

2. written warning from ADD
Recived 08/05/2007 for not beeing pressent for out-of--competition
test on 06/04/2007 by ADD.

3. written warning from ADD
Recived 28/06/2007 for not beeing pressent for out-of-competition
test on 21/06/2007 by ADD.

4. recorded warning from UCI
Recived 29/06/2007 for failing to update whereabouts for the period
04/06/2007 to 12/06/2007 in due time.
The UCI didn't recive the update until 11/06/2007, however the
letter has a poststamp saying it was prossed on 07/06/2007.
Rasmussen raced Giro d'Italia from 18/05/2007 to 03/06/2007.

Rasmussen _was_ pressent for an out-of-competition test on 26/06/2007,
5 days later than ADD's attempted pretour out-of-competition test.

The article 220 (45 day rule) witch ASO keeps throwing after UCI does
/not/ apply to Rasmussen because ADD _did_ manage to test Rasmussen on
26/07/2007.

Neither UCI or ADD attempted testing Rasmussen between 01/04/2006 and
03/04/2006

Neither UCI or ADD attempted testing Rasmussen between 04/06/2007 and
12/06/2007.

> One question is, how did the UCI (?) come to question whether he was
> in Mexico? Do they sometimes just call and check to see if you are
> where you say you are, or were they looking for him to test him? If
> it is the latter, which was late June, then he missed a test just
> before the start of the Tour.

No they don't, they didn't know Rasmussen was in mexico between
04/06/2007 and 12/06/2007 untill they recived his changed scedule on
11/06/2007.

Neither UCI or ADD attempted testing Rasmussen until he returned as
planned to Europe later in june.

However he may or may not have been in Italy on 13/06/2007 when his
wherabout states that he is in Mexico.

This issue is actually the /only/ thing that could theoreticly
compromise Rasmussen, and it didn't come to question until the day
Rabobank pulled him from the race.

Every critcicem up untill that day was just hot air. ASO, the press
and the french and german teams had been shouting doper after him for
10 days with no reason whatsoever.

Today UCI publicly stated that the Casani testamoy regarding Rasmussen
beeing in Italy (when he should have been in Mexico) on 13/06/2007 is
not enough to accuse Rasmusen for false whereabouy notification. A
false whereabout notification would implicate a sanction against
Rasmussen (3-12 month quantene))

The facts are:

Rasmussen has two warnings for missed tests durring 2007.
Rasmussen _was_ testetd within the 45 days prior to TDF.

--
Morten Reippuert Knudsen :-) <http://blog.reippuert.dk>

Merlin Works CR-3/2.5 & Campagnolo Chorus 2007.

Simon Brooke

01-03-1970, 08:48 AM

in message <eo1ka3pu5o9bmlfm7hdb3ca4oqe73kqj78@4ax.com>, VBadJuJu ('none@')
wrote:

> One question is, how did the UCI (?) come to question whether he was
> in Mexico?

An Italian journalist claimed to have spoken to him in Italy.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

The Conservative Party now has the support of a smaller proportion of
the electorate in Scotland than Sinn Fein have in Northern Ireland.

Bike Mike

01-03-1970, 08:50 AM

Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:

>in message <eo1ka3pu5o9bmlfm7hdb3ca4oqe73kqj78@4ax.com>, VBadJuJu ('none@')
>wrote:
>
>> One question is, how did the UCI (?) come to question whether he was
>> in Mexico?
>
>An Italian journalist claimed to have spoken to him in Italy.

You have the chrono wrong.

Cassani didnt rat out MR. It was only a few days ago he mentioned to
his audience how hard MR works having seen him in Italy. This sparked
interest in some Danish journalists who heard it.

The Mexico-Italy question was raised about a week before that when the
Danish fed dropped him. At that time it was already out that he had
also missed UCI tests.

So, it is a good question how his location came to be questioned. The
Tour might be casting that as a missed test within 45 days of the
start.

Simon Brooke

01-03-1970, 08:50 AM

in message <lbaka31ihtsfbngit453tn5bv5c8pvfj7f@4ax.com>, Bike Mike
('none@') wrote:

> Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>in message <eo1ka3pu5o9bmlfm7hdb3ca4oqe73kqj78@4ax.com>, VBadJuJu
>>('none@') wrote:
>>
>>> One question is, how did the UCI (?) come to question whether he was
>>> in Mexico?
>>
>>An Italian journalist claimed to have spoken to him in Italy.
>
> You have the chrono wrong.
>
> Cassani didnt rat out MR.

I didn't say he did. Cassani's role in this seems entirely innocent and
well intentioned. However, the question remains whether he was mistaken,
and I'm waiting to see whether Rasmussen can come back with convincing
evidence that he was in Mexico.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Want to know what SCO stands for?
;; http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030605

Bob Schwartz

01-03-1970, 08:51 AM

Simon Brooke wrote:
> I didn't say he did. Cassani's role in this seems entirely innocent and
> well intentioned. However, the question remains whether he was mistaken,
> and I'm waiting to see whether Rasmussen can come back with convincing
> evidence that he was in Mexico.

Dumbass,

If Rasmussen had convincing evidence he was in Mexico he'd still
be riding. I could provide convincing evidence that I was in
France 6 years ago without lifting my ass from my seat right
now, just through online credit card statements.

Bob Schwartz

Bob Schwartz

Bill C

01-03-1970, 08:52 AM

On Jul 27, 4:25 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> Simon Brooke wrote:
> > I didn't say he did. Cassani's role in this seems entirely innocent and
> > well intentioned. However, the question remains whether he was mistaken,
> > and I'm waiting to see whether Rasmussen can come back with convincing
> > evidence that he was in Mexico.
>
> Dumbass,
>
> If Rasmussen had convincing evidence he was in Mexico he'd still
> be riding. I could provide convincing evidence that I was in
> France 6 years ago without lifting my ass from my seat right
> now, just through online credit card statements.
>
> Bob Schwartz
>
> Bob Schwartz

Yeah Bob
I think this is going to turn out to be just like Jan at T-Mobile. No
idea if anything else sticks to him, but it's looking like a good bet
that he lied to his team and therefore they, rightfully, dumped him.
Bill C

Davey Crockett

01-03-1970, 08:53 AM

Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> writes:

> On Jul 27, 4:25 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> > I didn't say he did. Cassani's role in this seems entirely innocent and
>> > well intentioned. However, the question remains whether he was mistaken,
>> > and I'm waiting to see whether Rasmussen can come back with convincing
>> > evidence that he was in Mexico.
>>
>> Dumbass,
>>
>> If Rasmussen had convincing evidence he was in Mexico he'd still
>> be riding. I could provide convincing evidence that I was in
>> France 6 years ago without lifting my ass from my seat right
>> now, just through online credit card statements.
>>
>> Bob Schwartz
>>
>> Bob Schwartz
>
> Yeah Bob
> I think this is going to turn out to be just like Jan at T-Mobile. No
> idea if anything else sticks to him, but it's looking like a good bet
> that he lied to his team and therefore they, rightfully, dumped him.
> Bill C
>

I hope he can clear himself

But it surely looks bleak right now

But the Tour is going down for the count right now with Soler just
having delivered what might be the Knock Out Punch

--
Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply

Bill C

01-03-1970, 08:53 AM

On Jul 27, 6:48 pm, Davey Crockett <d4Qaveycrock...@azurservers.com>
wrote:
lied to his team and therefore they, rightfully, dumped him.
> > Bill C
>
> I hope he can clear himself
>
> But it surely looks bleak right now
>
> But the Tour is going down for the count right now with Soler just
> having delivered what might be the Knock Out Punch
>
> --
> Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

ASO cozying up to WADA definitely doesn't seem like it's going to lead
to good things for either the riders or the sport.
Right now it's pretty hard to have any symapthy for the riders and
teams. I just can't buy into all the conspiracy crap and there is
still no respect for the agreements with the riders, but it's just
amazing that anyone would be stupid enough to try and get away with
doping this year in particular.
I can't go for the argument that just because the riders are breaking
the rules that the governing body and Wada should too.
At this point it all needs to finish self destructing.
Bill C

Davey Crockett

01-03-1970, 08:54 AM

Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> writes:

> On Jul 27, 6:48 pm, Davey Crockett <d4Qaveycrock...@azurservers.com>
> wrote:
> lied to his team and therefore they, rightfully, dumped him.
>> > Bill C
>>
>> I hope he can clear himself
>>
>> But it surely looks bleak right now
>>
>> But the Tour is going down for the count right now with Soler just
>> having delivered what might be the Knock Out Punch
>>
>> --
>> Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> ASO cozying up to WADA definitely doesn't seem like it's going to lead
> to good things for either the riders or the sport.
> Right now it's pretty hard to have any symapthy for the riders and
> teams. I just can't buy into all the conspiracy crap and there is
> still no respect for the agreements with the riders, but it's just
> amazing that anyone would be stupid enough to try and get away with
> doping this year in particular.
> I can't go for the argument that just because the riders are breaking
> the rules that the governing body and Wada should too.
> At this point it all needs to finish self destructing.
> Bill C
>

Interestingly, Het Volk also report that tha Aalst Criterium
organizers are negotiating with Soler ;)

--
Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply

Morten Reippuert Knudsen

01-03-1970, 08:54 AM

Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:

> ASO cozying up to WADA definitely doesn't seem like it's going to lead
> to good things for either the riders or the sport.

You got to be kidding!

Two indepent cycling federations won't be good for anyone. ASO's
federation will be a purely comercial federation, aka a cirkus where
only ASO makes the decicions.

Your local cycling club and national federation wont have any
representation in a ASO federation.

--
Morten Reippuert Knudsen :-) <http://blog.reippuert.dk>

Merlin Works CR-3/2.5 & Campagnolo Chorus 2007.

Tom Kunich

01-03-1970, 08:54 AM

"Davey Crockett" <d4Qaveycrockett@azurservers.com> wrote in message
news:87myxhv3pu.fsf@azurservers.com...
> Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> On Jul 27, 6:48 pm, Davey Crockett <d4Qaveycrock...@azurservers.com>
>> wrote:
>> lied to his team and therefore they, rightfully, dumped him.
>>> > Bill C
>>>
>>> I hope he can clear himself
>>>
>>> But it surely looks bleak right now
>>>
>>> But the Tour is going down for the count right now with Soler just
>>> having delivered what might be the Knock Out Punch
>>>
>>> --
>>> Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> ASO cozying up to WADA definitely doesn't seem like it's going to lead
>> to good things for either the riders or the sport.
>> Right now it's pretty hard to have any symapthy for the riders and
>> teams. I just can't buy into all the conspiracy crap and there is
>> still no respect for the agreements with the riders, but it's just
>> amazing that anyone would be stupid enough to try and get away with
>> doping this year in particular.
>> I can't go for the argument that just because the riders are breaking
>> the rules that the governing body and Wada should too.
>> At this point it all needs to finish self destructing.
>> Bill C
>>
>
> Interestingly, Het Volk also report that tha Aalst Criterium
> organizers are negotiating with Soler ;)

I'm still wondering why there's nothing on Soler on the cyclingnews.com
site. I'm hoping this is all a rumor.

Andrew Price

01-03-1970, 08:54 AM

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:48:28 -0000, ilanpsi@gmail.com wrote:

>A couple of times when I flew in to CDG airport in Paris from the USA
>or Canada, there weren't even officials checking documents. It was
>either too early for them, or else they were on strike.

I find that extremely hard to believe. In over twenty years of
regularly arriving at CDG on flights originating in countries outside
the EU (including close on ten years of Hong Kong - Roissy twice a
month) I have never EVER not had my passport checked.

Morten Reippuert Knudsen

01-03-1970, 08:55 AM

Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> I'm still wondering why there's nothing on Soler on the cyclingnews.com
> site. I'm hoping this is all a rumor.

ASO is trying to contain it by exposing it once everyone focuses on the
TT witch will decide the winner of the TDF (incidently there will be a
pressconference at 11:00 CET+1)

It was another wildcard team, witch mean that they can't blame UCI.

Remember ASO really liked the Rasmuusen case because it withdrew the
attention from Astana and it was an efficient tool in their war
against the UCI.

Soler beeing positive on the same day as ASO declares that they will
leave UCI is every bad timing fpr ASO.

--
Morten Reippuert Knudsen :-) <http://blog.reippuert.dk>

Merlin Works CR-3/2.5 & Campagnolo Chorus 2007.

Davey Crockett

01-03-1970, 08:55 AM

Morten Reippuert Knudsen<spam@reippuert.dk> writes:

> Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> ASO cozying up to WADA definitely doesn't seem like it's going to lead
>> to good things for either the riders or the sport.
>
> You got to be kidding!
>
> Two indepent cycling federations won't be good for anyone. ASO's
> federation will be a purely comercial federation, aka a cirkus where
> only ASO makes the decicions.
>
> Your local cycling club and national federation wont have any
> representation in a ASO federation.
>

De Jure the Grass Roots bikies can send input up the Food Chain

De Facto the attitude of the next level up is "Firk 'Em, Who the Firk
they think they are trying to run things"

--
Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply

Bill C

01-03-1970, 08:55 AM

On Jul 27, 8:45 pm, Morten Reippuert Knudsen<s...@reippuert.dk> wrote:
> Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > ASO cozying up to WADA definitely doesn't seem like it's going to lead
> > to good things for either the riders or the sport.
>
> You got to be kidding!
>
> Two indepent cycling federations won't be good for anyone. ASO's
> federation will be a purely comercial federation, aka a cirkus where
> only ASO makes the decicions.
>
> Your local cycling club and national federation wont have any
> representation in a ASO federation.
>
> --
> Morten Reippuert Knudsen :-) <http://blog.reippuert.dk>
>
> Merlin Works CR-3/2.5 & Campagnolo Chorus 2007.

Your not from the US or you'd know that we, the riders and members,
don't have any representation with our federation anyway. There's a
small handfull of Pros and the Good 'ol Boy network, many of whom were
involved in the earlier doping/blood doping scandals that still run
things. This was absolute from the time they removed our
representatives, until the revolt when lots of areas left the
federation. They kissed ass and brought in some good people until the
revolt cooled off, then they fired the good people and we're back to
business as usual.
Why should I cry if that ends?
Bill C

Donald Munro

01-03-1970, 08:55 AM

Morten Reippuert Knudsen wrote:
> Not true, DCU had other reasons for dropping him form the national
> team, their reason was that DCU has an ethical codec whitch DCU thougt
> Michael Rasmussen did not honour.

You keep seeing blue if you try installing an ethical codec on a windoze
computer.

Tom Kunich

01-03-1970, 08:56 AM

"Morten Reippuert Knudsen" <spam@reippuert.dk> wrote in message
news:5siqn4-5u9.ln1@wm.reippuert.dk...
> Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> I'm still wondering why there's nothing on Soler on the cyclingnews.com
>> site. I'm hoping this is all a rumor.
>
> ASO is trying to contain it by exposing it once everyone focuses on the
> TT witch will decide the winner of the TDF (incidently there will be a
> pressconference at 11:00 CET+1)
>
> It was another wildcard team, witch mean that they can't blame UCI.
>
> Remember ASO really liked the Rasmuusen case because it withdrew the
> attention from Astana and it was an efficient tool in their war
> against the UCI.
>
> Soler beeing positive on the same day as ASO declares that they will
> leave UCI is every bad timing fpr ASO.

Perhaps you're right. cyclingnews just had an article saying that UCI would
announce yet another 'non-negative' on Saturday.

I'm finding it rather difficult to believe that bicycle racers could
possibly be so stupid.

Davey Crockett

01-03-1970, 08:57 AM

Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> writes:

> You keep seeing blue if you try installing an ethical codec on a windoze
> computer.
>

--
Avoid the Gates of Hell. Use Linux

Davey Crockett

01-03-1970, 09:01 AM

Andrew Price <ajprice@free.fr> writes:

> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:48:28 -0000, ilanpsi@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>A couple of times when I flew in to CDG airport in Paris from the USA
>>or Canada, there weren't even officials checking documents. It was
>>either too early for them, or else they were on strike.
>
> I find that extremely hard to believe. In over twenty years of
> regularly arriving at CDG on flights originating in countries outside
> the EU (including close on ten years of Hong Kong - Roissy twice a
> month) I have never EVER not had my passport checked.

I related earlier, Andrew, how I had exactly the same experience a few
weeks ago in Nice

A complete walkthrough

--
Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply
-
"Then out spoke brave Horatius, the Captain of the Gate. To every man
upon this earth Death cometh soon or late. And how can man die better
than facing fearful odds, for the ashes of his fathers, and the
temples of his Gods"