Amnesty

[dustoyevsky@mac.com]

http://tinyurl.com/yo78yd

One possible headline:

Baseball Not Staggered by Admission of Doping

[leader]
Sponsors to remain

Of course, the "sponsors" are taxpayers and ticket buyers.

Take a clue, dear Bike Racing Establishment.

Oh yeah, also Italian and French police. Drop it. Go fight some
crime. --D-y

[Bill C]

On Aug 16, 7:08 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/yo78yd
>
> One possible headline:
>
> Baseball Not Staggered by Admission of Doping
>
> [leader]
> Sponsors to remain
>
> Of course, the "sponsors" are taxpayers and ticket buyers.
>
> Take a clue, dear Bike Racing Establishment.
>
> Oh yeah, also Italian and French police. Drop it. Go fight some
> crime. --D-y

I had some of the same thoughts. One of the major conditions was his
cooperation with the investigation. It's my belielf that the cycling
bodies want to prevent this at all costs. It's fine for riders or
independent doctors, and coaches to be exposed, but they sure as hell
don't want senior leadership, team leaders, owners, etc... tied in to
systematic doping, and the questions asked about how much Verbruggen
and others in governing the sport knew about all this as it was
happening.
Bill C

[Michael Press]

In article
<1187305687.985214.127500@a39g2000hsc.googlegroups. com>
,
"dustoyevsky@mac.com" <dustoyevsky@mac.com> wrote:

> http://tinyurl.com/yo78yd
>
> One possible headline:
>
> Baseball Not Staggered by Admission of Doping
>
> [leader]
> Sponsors to remain
>
> Of course, the "sponsors" are taxpayers and ticket buyers.
>
> Take a clue, dear Bike Racing Establishment.
>
> Oh yeah, also Italian and French police. Drop it. Go fight some
> crime.

But, but, but, crime fights back.

--
Michael Press

[dustoyevsky@mac.com]

On Aug 16, 7:15 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> It's fine for riders or
> independent doctors, and coaches to be exposed, but they sure as hell
> don't want senior leadership, team leaders, owners, etc... tied in to
> systematic doping, and the questions asked about how much Verbruggen
> and others in governing the sport knew about all this as it was
> happening.

I have an idea to end this destructive ass-covering and obviate the
fruitless search for who-knew-what-and-when-did-they-know-it:

Amnesty Even For The Middle And Upper Echelons Of The Power Structure
Now!

Damn. AEFTUAMEOTPSN

Doesn't make a word. Hard to fit on a tee shirt, especially with
articles and stuff incl.

Not even catchy or anything. This is gonna be harder than I thought!
--D-y

[amit.ghosh@gmail.com]

On Aug 16, 8:15 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:

> I had some of the same thoughts. One of the major conditions was his
> cooperation with the investigation. It's my belielf that the cycling
> bodies want to prevent this at all costs. It's fine for riders or
> independent doctors, and coaches to be exposed, but they sure as hell
> don't want senior leadership, team leaders, owners, etc... tied in to
> systematic doping, and the questions asked about how much Verbruggen
> and others in governing the sport knew about all this as it was
> happening.

dumbass,

being a jock-sniffer and torch bearer for the worker your great desire
is to see the bosses punished, even though it's the millionaire
athletes that profit the doping, not verbruggen or any UCI official.

it is true that some riders face the choice of either doping or losing
their job, but it is still a conscious choice. riders make that choice
because they would rather be a top rider than be an accountant or
plumber or engineer - even if they make less money.

i agree that cycling troubles got out of hand because the cycling
bosses in the 90s had a laissez-faire attitude to doping. but what
would you have proposed ?

in 1996 there were no EPO tests, and no test for blood doping. a
somewhat useful EPO test didn't appear until about 2003 and autologous
blood doping still seems undetectable.

if verbruggen wanted to stem the doping in the 90s he would've had to
act on circumstantial evidence based on riders behaviour, who they
associate with and testimonials from insiders.

your reaction would be to call it a witchhunt or an inquisition and
accuse him of persecuting "innocent" riders and trying to destroy the
sport. but verbruggen didn't want to rock the boat.

verbruggen and the UCI don't profit from the doping, the riders do,
the teams indirectly that is why they pay guys like fuentes five digit
fees. stop trying to find a way to not hold the athletes responsible.

bud selig can grant giambi amnesty, because baseball has autonomy,
cycling isn't independent and it doesn't have a commissoner that can
act independently for the best interest of the sport.

[Howard Kveck]

In article <rubrum-5BD0BB.22194216082007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article
> <1187305687.985214.127500@a39g2000hsc.googlegroups. com>
> ,
> "dustoyevsky@mac.com" <dustoyevsky@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > http://tinyurl.com/yo78yd
> >
> > One possible headline:
> >
> > Baseball Not Staggered by Admission of Doping
> >
> > [leader]
> > Sponsors to remain
> >
> > Of course, the "sponsors" are taxpayers and ticket buyers.
> >
> > Take a clue, dear Bike Racing Establishment.
> >
> > Oh yeah, also Italian and French police. Drop it. Go fight some
> > crime.
>
> But, but, but, crime fights back.

Which is what would likely happen if they seriously went after, say, soccer. They
have the money to fight back and I doubt they'd hesitate to do so.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Bill C]

On Aug 17, 1:46 am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> In article <rubrum-5BD0BB.22194216082...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <1187305687.985214.127...@a39g2000hsc.googlegroups. com>
> > ,
> > "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://tinyurl.com/yo78yd
>
> > > One possible headline:
>
> > > Baseball Not Staggered by Admission of Doping
>
> > > [leader]
> > > Sponsors to remain
>
> > > Of course, the "sponsors" are taxpayers and ticket buyers.
>
> > > Take a clue, dear Bike Racing Establishment.
>
> > > Oh yeah, also Italian and French police. Drop it. Go fight some
> > > crime.
>
> > But, but, but, crime fights back.
>
> Which is what would likely happen if they seriously went after, say, soccer. They
> have the money to fight back and I doubt they'd hesitate to do so.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Never take a tenant with a monkey.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree with both you and Dy. The other thing is I don't think soccer
fans would give a ****, even less than our football fans care. Soccer
seems to run on the racism, and riot of the week plan and it has very
little overall effect. Then we have all the match fixing stuff, and
the beat just goes right along. Doping would be nothing in comparison.
As you point out though they'd respond brutally to attacks, by people
like Pound , like those made on cycling.
Bill C

[RonSonic]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 19:31:31 -0000, "amit.ghosh@gmail.com"
<amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Aug 16, 8:15 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> I had some of the same thoughts. One of the major conditions was his
>> cooperation with the investigation. It's my belielf that the cycling
>> bodies want to prevent this at all costs. It's fine for riders or
>> independent doctors, and coaches to be exposed, but they sure as hell
>> don't want senior leadership, team leaders, owners, etc... tied in to
>> systematic doping, and the questions asked about how much Verbruggen
>> and others in governing the sport knew about all this as it was
>> happening.
>
>dumbass,
>
>being a jock-sniffer and torch bearer for the worker your great desire
>is to see the bosses punished, even though it's the millionaire
>athletes that profit the doping, not verbruggen or any UCI official.
>
>it is true that some riders face the choice of either doping or losing
>their job, but it is still a conscious choice. riders make that choice
>because they would rather be a top rider than be an accountant or
>plumber or engineer - even if they make less money.
>
>i agree that cycling troubles got out of hand because the cycling
>bosses in the 90s had a laissez-faire attitude to doping. but what
>would you have proposed ?
>
>in 1996 there were no EPO tests, and no test for blood doping. a
>somewhat useful EPO test didn't appear until about 2003 and autologous
>blood doping still seems undetectable.
>
>if verbruggen wanted to stem the doping in the 90s he would've had to
>act on circumstantial evidence based on riders behaviour, who they
>associate with and testimonials from insiders.
>
>your reaction would be to call it a witchhunt or an inquisition and
>accuse him of persecuting "innocent" riders and trying to destroy the
>sport. but verbruggen didn't want to rock the boat.
>
>verbruggen and the UCI don't profit from the doping, the riders do,
>the teams indirectly that is why they pay guys like fuentes five digit
>fees. stop trying to find a way to not hold the athletes responsible.
>
>bud selig can grant giambi amnesty, because baseball has autonomy,
>cycling isn't independent and it doesn't have a commissoner that can
>act independently for the best interest of the sport.

Apparently it doesn't have anybody working in the best interest of the sport.

Tailwind pretty well established that it just isn't a sane pursuit.

Ron