I suggest that instead of lashing out whenever anyone disagrees with you,
you realize that the topic is anti-doping. And it only makes sense that when you recommend a course of action you keep a couple of things in mind.
Purpose: Why are we doing something? Or should we? Who does it benefit? Cycling or ... getting LA - whom we already got? Maybe we should go after Merckx too? That helpful?
Method: How are we going to do it? Have we given it an honest cost benefit analysis? At what point so we hit a position of diminished returns on our efforts? Have we thought through likely countering actions? Attempting, you know, a little a little proactive planning?
Endstate: What is it we desire to achieve? Are we aiming for clean cycling? Stable, exciting racing? Or are we attempting to exact a pound, no pun intended, of flesh? Ergo, the question should be asked, if the Times goes to the expense of recovering its payment, we will have accomplished ... what? If they decide not too? What does that change?
No matter how you skin it, LA is going to remain a very wealthy man. Going after him for 800K is ... pretty much a waste of everyone's time IMO.
There are bigger fish to fry. And when the numbers make that effort worthwhile, as in SCA's case, the calculus changes.
Its worth crunching the numbers and conducting an honest assessment.
Or I suppose we can learn the incorrect lessons of the lance lovers, who spent 16 years whining that everyone who defended LA was a troll and a heathen who did not deserve to live as a human being ... waiting for someone else to do the hard work of actually proving something.
Well, suit yourself, but I have to wonder why you would come to a forum on anti-doping if you don't want to discuss doping?
Again, suing LA to recover funds from a dead case is just a waste of time. Like suing someone to recover a nickle. David Millar makes some interesting points reference the UCI and its increasingly untenable position.
Notice that he does it intelligently, and without calling people incorigable trolls who should not dare to comment in a way that is different than his opinion.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cycling-was-a-deeply-criminal-business-says-millar
Perhaps we might also learn from old mutton chops himself, who founded a team based on anti-doping, lead the AIGCP, publishes articles in the NYTIMES - which appear to have absolutely no cat calls and innuendo, but appear constructive, learned, and attempt to build consensus in a manner that .. may just produce results. Go figure.
So are David Millar and good old JV trolls? Or just those who notice that their comments and actions appear just SLIGHTLY more beneficial and constructive for cycling than say ... dredging up a dead case to pursue the equivalent of chump change or igniting a white trash WWF match between McQaid and Kimmage?
As fascinating as it may be for some to watch a couple of cape wearing latex encapsulated middle aged fat boys slam each other off the proverbial top rope ...
I would prefer that we do things that return the focus to racing.
If the former is what you really want, I suggest Luchador wrestling. After all Luchador wrestling does about as much good for bike racing as the current Kimmage v. McQaid imbroglio is managing to accomplish.
I suppose its keeping a couple of Swiss lawyers and their families from starving to death ... so there is the humanitarian aspect of it all I suppose.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram