Unless they find a new product to contain the blood in, the speeds up the mountains will drop. Not the overall average speed.Winterfold said:...
This should drop the average speed in the 2011 Tour quite a bit
...
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Unless they find a new product to contain the blood in, the speeds up the mountains will drop. Not the overall average speed.Winterfold said:...
This should drop the average speed in the 2011 Tour quite a bit
...
Winterfold said:nice work Maserati
Good old WADA interfering with us again because we make an effort to catch our dopers.
Why dont they FO out of it and start insisting that eg Champions League Football or tennis do ANY tests at all.
I do so absoluetly ****** hate this messing-about with "innocence until proven guilty"!many said:innocence until proven guilty is an admirable ideal
- With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime - the state has the entire burden of proof.
- With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them.
- The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial.
cprior said:I do so absoluetly ****** hate this messing-about with "innocence until proven guilty"!
"Presumption of innocence" was a spectacular achievement of the modern, civil, "bourgeois" society: No longer an "absolute" emperor, but a "state above citizens" in VERY narrow confines. It protects us from arbitrary acts by authorities! We should value it, AND ****** NOT dilute that fundamental right by applying it to civil law aspects of our liking!
Please allow me to cite Wikipedia:
No room for turture, no room for a "guilty" ruling without at least basic procedures, no "L'Etat c'est moi" -- *hooray* Believe me, you would not want it any different. As a citizen. With regards to your state. Here "PoI" ends!
There is simply no "state" in WADA, TAS or UCI. And that is a good thing.
You people drag that piece of advancement down, sheepishly. Keep it out of civil law, please! Thanks.
Escarabajo said:Unless they find a new product to contain the blood in, the speeds up the mountains will drop. Not the overall average speed.
The guy had a banned substance in his body, there is nothing unfair about this process. It would be unfair not to take action. And I think the Chicken really wants guilty people to ride, not walk.Vonn Brinkman said:...I get that this is also difficult, and that the WADA and UCI have to fight against doping, but I still find it unfair and useless. Like the Chicken said: I'd rather let a few guilty guys walk than punish one innocent man.
I think WADA is going public because they've seen these things dragged out before. With all the talk about corruption within the UCI I don't mind seeing an independent agency acting as a watchdog. I agree with you that cycling does more to catch dopers than other sports, I just wish I could believe that they do so fairly with the same rules applied to all.Winterfold said:...
Good old WADA interfering with us again because we make an effort to catch our dopers.
Why dont they FO out of it and start insisting that eg Champions League Football or tennis do ANY tests at all.
miloman said:You took the quote out of context: I would agree that the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is an admirable ideal. However, they (the riders) know the rules and agree to abide by them. It is no different than if you or I are required to submit for drug testing for employment. We agree to do so, and we know that we will possibly be fired if something shows up. You don’t have the luxury of arguing that it came from contaminated meat or some such nonsense. You are handed your pink slip because you signed a form indicating you knew your rights and the consequences if you failed -- just like the riders. It may not be fair, but those are the rules. What I find disturbing is how long it takes to have these sanctions implemented and all the back dating rubbish. 2 years is 2 years, not 15 or 18 months – 24 months is two years!
It's not about civil law, becuse it doesn't apply here. It has to do with the rules and regulations of the UCI and WADA. Im not sure what your argument is.
miloman said:You don’t have the luxury of arguing that it came from contaminated meat or some such nonsense.
This should drop the average speed in the 2011 Tour quite a bit
They won't, with so many GT wins, he's one of the sacred cows of cycling right nowElagabalus said:Burn Contador at the Steak!!!
I'm actually surprised this one hasn't already been used
Veal see about zat.Fourier said:They won't, with so many GT wins, he's one of the sacred cows of cycling right now
hrotha said:Veal see about zat.
Ok sorry everyone.
Frosty said:Can we mooooove on from these cow puns now please?
Moose McKnuckles said:
Winterfold said:Does anyone think there is any meat in the I'll retire threat - is he calling the MooCI's bluff?
Too bad (or good I cant decide?)WADA will take over from here.
He can do his ban and come back and still win a stack of Tours.
Methinks he does protest moo much.
Damn completely outdone on bovine puns by a load of Euros!!
sorry but we'll continue 'til the cows come homeFrosty said:Can we mooooove on from these cow puns now please?
Frosty said:Can we mooooove on from these cow puns now please?
miloman said:You took the quote out of context: I would agree that the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is an admirable ideal. However, they (the riders) know the rules and agree to abide by them.
It may not be fair, but those are the rules.
It's not about civil law, becuse it doesn't apply here. It has to do with the rules and regulations of the UCI and WADA. Im not sure what your argument is.
yourwelcome said:I think the problem some people (including myself) have with the notion of 'enforcing the rules, even if unfair' in an anti-doping context is that the entire premise of doping penalties is about punishing unfairness.
For the UCI to argue that 'fair or not, the rules are the rules' despite uncertainties about guilt will risk undermining public confidence in future beyond-doubt legitimate positive results - and help dopers to create an environment where the legitimacy of future positive tests can be called into doubt for the general public.
Vonn Brinkman said:Not really my friend. He's alive and well. Even in contact with Saxo Bank, apparently.