French justice

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What I find amazing about the French reactions to the L'Equipe article
is that very recently, Cedric Vasseur was cleared of doping charges
after
it was found that his positive cocaine sample was not actually his, and
that the police report which he supposedly signed was falsified by the
police. Given this type of behaviour by police officials, how can you
trust journalists who have an even greater vested interest in finding
fault with Armstrong.

I just hope I'm never accused of anything while I'm here in France.

-ilan

We'll see if L'Equipe has forged the testing slips. I doubt it.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What I find amazing about the French reactions to the L'Equipe article
is that very recently, Cedric Vasseur was cleared of doping charges
after
it was found that his positive cocaine sample was not actually his, and
that the police report which he supposedly signed was falsified by the
police. Given this type of behaviour by police officials, how can you
trust journalists who have an even greater vested interest in finding
fault with Armstrong.

I just hope I'm never accused of anything while I'm here in France.

The French justic acquitted him, it were the cops who were trying to frame
him. And I'm afraid France isn't the only country where it can happen.
Besides, I think you're wrong in thinking that the journalists of l'Equipe
have a great vested interest in finding fault with Armstrong. The point is
that their revelations might hurt Armstrong, but if they do, they are
hurting the Tour even more. After all, as the minister of sport Marie-George
Buffet made clear in 1998, the future of the Tour depends of the way they
are handling the doping question. If there is strong evidence that
Armstrong, being for years the symbol of a new, clean & pure Tour, has
really used doping, it will be a tremendous blow for the Tour in general and
inprticular for the direction and the company which owns the Tour, the ASO -
which happens te be the owner of the Equipe as well. So what the journalists
were doing, was acting against their vested interests. So why did they
publish the article? Certainly not to harm the Tour, but probably because
they knew very well that juicy information as that will be leaked anyway, so
you can be better publish it yourself, before the competitors are doing it.
There may be other reasons as well, but in fact the motives of the direction
and the journalists are not very interesting. The only thing which counts in
this affair is the content of the message, not the messengers.

Benjo

benjo maso said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What I find amazing about the French reactions to the L'Equipe article
is that very recently, Cedric Vasseur was cleared of doping charges
after
it was found that his positive cocaine sample was not actually his, and
that the police report which he supposedly signed was falsified by the
police. Given this type of behaviour by police officials, how can you
trust journalists who have an even greater vested interest in finding
fault with Armstrong.

I just hope I'm never accused of anything while I'm here in France.

The French justic acquitted him, it were the cops who were trying to frame
him. And I'm afraid France isn't the only country where it can happen.
Besides, I think you're wrong in thinking that the journalists of l'Equipe
have a great vested interest in finding fault with Armstrong. The point is
that their revelations might hurt Armstrong, but if they do, they are
hurting the Tour even more. After all, as the minister of sport Marie-George
Buffet made clear in 1998, the future of the Tour depends of the way they
are handling the doping question. If there is strong evidence that
Armstrong, being for years the symbol of a new, clean & pure Tour, has
really used doping, it will be a tremendous blow for the Tour in general and
inprticular for the direction and the company which owns the Tour, the ASO -
which happens te be the owner of the Equipe as well. So what the journalists
were doing, was acting against their vested interests. So why did they
publish the article? Certainly not to harm the Tour, but probably because
they knew very well that juicy information as that will be leaked anyway, so
you can be better publish it yourself, before the competitors are doing it.
There may be other reasons as well, but in fact the motives of the direction
and the journalists are not very interesting. The only thing which counts in
this affair is the content of the message, not the messengers.

Benjo

I have no idea if Armstrong doped or not, but I'm putting this in the
OJ Simpson category.
The testing methodology is being seriously disputed by a totally
independent institution with good credibility. The chain of custody,
and sample handling have already bee proven to be slipshod. They do not
allow the accused to have samples tested independently, and in this
case they are saying no further testing is possible.
This stinks of the LAPD and their actions. Lance may very well be
guilty, but the system is so screwed that even if he is I hope he
walks, and if Brian was his lawyer he'd be outraged over how poor this
system is.
From what our Euro friends are saying it looks like there may very
well have been several violations of the law involced here someone
needs to be held accountable, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
All I know is that if this was a great French champion L'Equippe's
offices would be a burned out ruin by now.
Bill C

Quoted message said:

I just hope I'm never accused of anything while I'm here in France.

-ilan

Do you get French benefits? I just found out I don't get French
benefits.

Bill C said:

None of this changes the fact that the UCI/Wada is fascist in their
way of doing business and don't allow for standard legal and
scientific procedure.
If they want to be credible they need to allow independent scrutiny,
peer review of their tests, and confidentiality, not attacks based on
a seriously flawed system.

Re confidentiality:

if you go looking, the original source is a leak from the lab. The official
process required confidentiality until a positive test was confirmed, a
private individual went to L'Equipe. No point blaming WADA for that, we all
know that if you have 20 people with a secret worth a good 50k and a promise
not to name the source from a newspaper, then the secret will be leaked. For
all you know, the leak may be a guy who saw what he considers to be
absolutely definite proof in his lab results, and feels a need for justice
which he knows won't be delivered since no proper confirmation is likely to
be possible. Of course, it might also be a guy who saw a scrap of paper
which might maybe possibly indicate something dubious and he wants some easy
money.

Peter

B. Lafferty said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What I find amazing about the French reactions to the L'Equipe article
is that very recently, Cedric Vasseur was cleared of doping charges
after
it was found that his positive cocaine sample was not actually his, and
that the police report which he supposedly signed was falsified by the
police. Given this type of behaviour by police officials, how can you
trust journalists who have an even greater vested interest in finding
fault with Armstrong.

I just hope I'm never accused of anything while I'm here in France.

-ilan

We'll see if L'Equipe has forged the testing slips. I doubt it.

Is that the only question, in your mind? I realize that the only
question raised here and you're probably just responding to that. I
wonder if you have any other doubts.

benjo maso said:

The only thing which counts [...] is the content
of the message, not the messengers.

What world you been livin' on?

While your argument is not unreasonable, nonetheless it is not entirely
persuasive. Correct me if I am wrong, but LA is evolved in litigation
with Equipe and that the nature of the claims call into question the
journalistic merit of the paper. This fact needs to be included in a
fair, well rounded discussion of the question of the Equipe's
reporters possible motive. One of the regretful outgrowths of
litigation is for the underlings of the parties to take to cause of
their side rather aggressively. It is not unexpected for them to make
braggadocios claims among themselves and to post obscene doodles about.
Or, as you will perhaps recall, deface posters of the adverse party
with a syringe placed in his hams and hang it in the newsroom. We
have all watched Laff's pursuit here on rbr and though many are
repulsed, I would think few disagree that similar fanatics exist in
the press and at Equipe in particular. The story how Armstrong
stalking is far more interesting than to wide audience interested in
the unbridled excesses of a cowboy press core.

Concern for the effect the affair will have on Tour is well founded.
What puzzles me is the role the French police have played. This has
not been a subject of scrutiny, but it should be. Consider the events
occurred in 1999. In the period 2000-2001 French authorities charged
with the responsibility of protecting the integrity of the Tour
investigated LA and his team for 20 months. The focus was dopping
allegations. It seems to me that a competent investigation ought to
have turned up the urine samples provided by LA in 1999 and stored with
the regulators. After all LS and Postal fully cooperated with this
investigation. (As an aside one can also wonder why the French
authorities failed to turn-up the servant's diary that was the lead
discovery in "LA Confident".) Just how much of the problem the
Tour has today is due, not the athletes, but the failure of the French
authorities to diligently pursue their responsibilities in 2000-2001.

Ray M

B. Lafferty said:

This is why the French lab used three parameter in its testing and only
declared positive those samples that tested positive in each of the
three methodologies.

and

Quoted message said:

As I point out in another post, there is precident for splitting
the "B" sample to make another "A."

Irony of fate.

Hello,

all the proofs that Armstrong took EPO during Tour de France 1999 and
lied
are in the newspaper L'Equipe dated 23/08/2005

You can look my ebay auction if you like to know more about the
documents shown in that newspaper

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5234430435&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&rd=1

Have a nice day

Hi you refers about criminal procedure concerning Tour de France 2000
and said "Justice acquitted him". This procedure ended in 2002 but it
didn't "acquitted him" because he has never been charged. He couldn't
be charged because regarding French law, the cyclist that takes drugs
to enhance his performance is not a criminal but a victim.

So French justice only procecute the drug sellers and the team
directors.

This procedure ended in 2002 because Armstrong and other cyclist were
just witnesses and French justice can't force witness to talk if they
don't want to talk.

I agree with you that "The only thing which counts in
this affair is the content of the message, not the messengers. "
l'Equipe just give the proofs that Armstrong lied :
- copy of results of anonymous tests made by an independent laboratory
(later certified by the lab)
- copies of papers signed by Armstrong after the urin was took with the
number of the urin bottle (that link to the results of the lab)

You can see more about that proofs on my Ebay auction of this newspaper

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5234430435&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&rd=1

Hope it helps

"Tim Lines" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What I find amazing about the French reactions to the L'Equipe article
is that very recently, Cedric Vasseur was cleared of doping charges
after
it was found that his positive cocaine sample was not actually his, and
that the police report which he supposedly signed was falsified by the
police. Given this type of behaviour by police officials, how can you
trust journalists who have an even greater vested interest in finding
fault with Armstrong.

I just hope I'm never accused of anything while I'm here in France.

-ilan

We'll see if L'Equipe has forged the testing slips. I doubt it.

Is that the only question, in your mind? I realize that the only question
raised here and you're probably just responding to that. I wonder if you
have any other doubts.

I was responding to the question asked.

Do I have doubts? Let's say that a rebuttal may be possible but Armstrong
would have to offer it on two points--the validity of the test and chain of
custody. He has a rough road, probably on both. Armstrong can attack the
ethics of L'Equipe's investigative journalism, but this is the nature of
investigative journalism. It isn't the first time a seeming wrongdoer has
been caught out by a journalist and cried foul on the journalist's part. In
a perfect world all guilty parties would act as did Raskalnikov.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

While your argument is not unreasonable, nonetheless it is not entirely
persuasive. Correct me if I am wrong, but LA is evolved in litigation
with Equipe and that the nature of the claims call into question the
journalistic merit of the paper. This fact needs to be included in a
fair, well rounded discussion of the question of the Equipe's
reporters possible motive.

Armstrong is not involved in litigation with L'Equipe, but with L'Express
(for publishing extracts of LA Confidential).

Benjo

benjo maso a écrit :

Quoted message said:

and the journalists are not very interesting. The only thing which countsin
this affair is the content of the message, not the messengers.

OK then. The protocol of anonymity of samples and the requirement to
test
an A and B sample was done so that

A. Scientific correctness could be maintained.

B. To protect the rights of the athlete.

In this case, the protocol was not followed which means that the
test has no scientific validity and that the rights of the athlete
were violated. Everyone agrees with this, since it has been
acknowledged
that no legal or sporting sanction can be pursued. Therefore, the
L'Equipe article and its general acceptance in the French press
is simply a precedent for disregarding scientific principles as
well as disregarding athletes' rights. It is as simple as that!

-ilan

"LP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi you refers about criminal procedure concerning Tour de France 2000
and said "Justice acquitted him". This procedure ended in 2002 but it
didn't "acquitted him" because he has never been charged. He couldn't
be charged because regarding French law, the cyclist that takes drugs
to enhance his performance is not a criminal but a victim.

So French justice only procecute the drug sellers and the team
directors.

This procedure ended in 2002 because Armstrong and other cyclist were
just witnesses and French justice can't force witness to talk if they
don't want to talk.

I wasn't referring to the Tour of 2000, but to the affair Cédric Vasseur,
which seemed to be closed in 2004, but might be reopened.

Benjo Maso

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

benjo maso said:

The only thing which counts [...] is the content
of the message, not the messengers.

What world you been livin' on?

I'm sorry, I wrote it at one o'clock in the morning. I must have been
dreaming already ...

Benjo

Quoted message said:

benjo maso a écrit :

Quoted message said:

and the journalists are not very interesting. The only thing which counts in
this affair is the content of the message, not the messengers.

OK then. The protocol of anonymity of samples and the requirement to
test
an A and B sample was done so that

A. Scientific correctness could be maintained.

B. To protect the rights of the athlete.

In this case, the protocol was not followed which means that the
test has no scientific validity and that the rights of the athlete
were violated. Everyone agrees with this, since it has been
acknowledged
that no legal or sporting sanction can be pursued. Therefore, the
L'Equipe article and its general acceptance in the French press
is simply a precedent for disregarding scientific principles as
well as disregarding athletes' rights. It is as simple as that!

-ilan

In addition, according to his webpage, after the comp., using athlete's
remainder samples requires WADA to seek the athlete's permission and
according to his webpage, this was not done.

jj

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
Jet <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

In addition, according to his webpage, after the comp., using
athlete's remainder samples requires WADA to seek the athlete's
permission and according to his webpage, this was not done.

You miss the point. The testing was done to examine a procedure, not to
inculpate riders, nor to forward that information to any authority for
prosecution.

This is such a minor event here, where recently they found hundreds of
fetal, baby and child cadavers had been diverted to scientific study, not
disposed of according to law and regulation.

I can't remember it exactly, but Lafferty's line, about a dream tarnished
being like a baby dying, has relevance. But to bigger issues than juicing
up for big races.

Grow up - read the whole newspaper.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Do I have doubts? Let's say that a rebuttal may be possible but Armstrong
would have to offer it on two points--the validity of the test and chain of
custody. He has a rough road, probably on both. Armstrong can attack the
ethics of L'Equipe's investigative journalism, but this is the nature of
investigative journalism. It isn't the first time a seeming wrongdoer has
been caught out by a journalist and cried foul on the journalist's part. In
a perfect world all guilty parties would act as did Raskalnikov.

So what you are saying is an accusation from the press means you have to run
out and prove your innocense? Do you have such blind faith in the press?
Do you recall how the press proved that certain GM pickup trucks would
spontaneously burst into flames? Do recall how the press proved that Audi's
accelerated by themselves and killed people?
--------------
Alex