"I never tested positive."

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

Quoted message said:

Ag2r's Francisco Mancebo, one of those ejected: "I consider myself
innocent and I have never tested positive. I'm just going to see how this
all evolves now. I'm sick of this world, I am going to hang to my bike
up."
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2213

New excuses are needed Francisco.

His I "consider myself" innocent says at least as much as the "I never
tested positive."

--
Snippy

B. Lafferty said:

I'm sick of this world, I am going to hang to my bike up."

Oh dear, should we call a suicide watch?

B. Lafferty said:

Ag2r's Francisco Mancebo, one of those ejected: "I consider myself innocent
and I have never tested positive. I'm just going to see how this all evolves
now. I'm sick of this world, I am going to hang to my bike up."
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2213

New excuses are needed Francisco.

The whole "I never tested positive" concept is interesting, in that it
implies that it's not cheating if you don't get caught. While some of
us view cheating as cheating, some folks, in fact some cultures, only
see cheating as dishonorable if you're not very good at it. For some,
it's an integral part of how they approach life in general and sport in
particular. In fact, for some it's honorable to be able to cheat
undetected.

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

Quoted message said:

Ag2r's Francisco Mancebo, one of those ejected: "I consider myself
innocent and I have never tested positive. I'm just going to see how
this all evolves now. I'm sick of this world, I am going to hang to my
bike up."
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2213

New excuses are needed Francisco.

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" The presumption of
guilt and the corresponding need to prove innocence, however seemingly
justifiable given the circumstances, are still wrong. If he has not
tested positive and he has not been proven guilty of an offense, he is
entitled to be assumed innocent, in my opinion.

-S-

Scott said:

The whole "I never tested positive" concept is interesting, in that it
implies that it's not cheating if you don't get caught. While some of
us view cheating as cheating, some folks, in fact some cultures, only
see cheating as dishonorable if you're not very good at it. For some,
it's an integral part of how they approach life in general and sport in
particular. In fact, for some it's honorable to be able to cheat
undetected.

Well, we are talking about a sport where riders hang on to support
vehicles, take unauthorized feeds, throw elbows and more in sprints,
and sell results... naturally it's a sport dominated by Italians and
Belgians...

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Scott said:

The whole "I never tested positive" concept is interesting, in that it
implies that it's not cheating if you don't get caught. While some of
us view cheating as cheating, some folks, in fact some cultures, only
see cheating as dishonorable if you're not very good at it. For some,
it's an integral part of how they approach life in general and sport in
particular. In fact, for some it's honorable to be able to cheat
undetected.

Well, we are talking about a sport where riders hang on to support
vehicles, take unauthorized feeds, throw elbows and more in sprints,
and sell results... naturally it's a sport dominated by Italians and
Belgians...

Well, there is such a concept as gamesmanship, and also, the spirit of
the sport.

To give an example from hockey, fighting is penalized by a 5-minute
sit-down. You don't get ejected, you don't get sanctioned. Indeed, there
are circumstances in which the etiquette of the game would demand that
two players fight (ie if one player goons your star player, then the
toughest guy on the ice from your team is expected to skate up and drop
gloves. If the goon doesn't reciprocate, it's VERY bad manners, with
consequences akin to perpetually not working in a breakaway).

In cycling, getting a water-bottle ride is, within reason, not a serious
offense. It's a question, largely, of whether you are a contender for GC
placing. Similarly, you're all but expected to draft your way through
the support caravan.

On the other hand, flicking a rider is a pretty grave thing to do.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Scott a critics :

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

Ag2r's Francisco Mancebo, one of those ejected: "I consider myself innocent
and I have never tested positive. I'm just going to see how this all evolves
now. I'm sick of this world, I am going to hang to my bike up."
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2213

New excuses are needed Francisco.

The whole "I never tested positive" concept is interesting, in that it
implies that it's not cheating if you don't get caught. While some of
us view cheating as cheating, some folks, in fact some cultures, only
see cheating as dishonorable if you're not very good at it. For some,
it's an integral part of how they approach life in general and sport in
particular. In fact, for some it's honorable to be able to cheat
undetected.

How does this grab you : a person is guilty when the proper authority
proves a set of facts adequate to convince a tribunal that the accused
has committed a specified offense. And, conversely, the same person is
considered innocent if the proper authority fails in this proof. Apply
it to yourself, in your own life, for anything people may have wrongly
accused you of. Do you consider yourself innocent ? Or do you prefer
"angelic" ?

Steve Freides a écrit :

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Ag2r's Francisco Mancebo, one of those ejected: "I consider myself
innocent and I have never tested positive. I'm just going to see how
this all evolves now. I'm sick of this world, I am going to hang to my
bike up."
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2213

New excuses are needed Francisco.

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" The presumption of
guilt and the corresponding need to prove innocence, however seemingly
justifiable given the circumstances, are still wrong. If he has not
tested positive and he has not been proven guilty of an offense, he is
entitled to be assumed innocent, in my opinion.

-S-

One thing to face : that most times, popular opinion is that charges are
enough to determine guilt. The logic being, that a prosecutor wouldn't
waste time unless the proof were there. Really. That's how real life
works. In court and out.

Steve Freides said:

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" The presumption of
guilt and the corresponding need to prove innocence, however seemingly
justifiable given the circumstances, are still wrong. If he has not
tested positive and he has not been proven guilty of an offense, he is
entitled to be assumed innocent, in my opinion.

Forget that idea, presume everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) is as guilty
as [censored]. It saves a hell of a lot of time, money, effort and debate.

There was a time, maybe 10-15 years ago when I thought testing might
improve to such a level only the truly clean riders would succeed. How
wrong I was.

--

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

Quoted message said:

Scott a critics :

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

Ag2r's Francisco Mancebo, one of those ejected: "I consider myself
innocent
and I have never tested positive. I'm just going to see how this all
evolves
now. I'm sick of this world, I am going to hang to my bike up."
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2213

New excuses are needed Francisco.

The whole "I never tested positive" concept is interesting, in that it
implies that it's not cheating if you don't get caught. While some of
us view cheating as cheating, some folks, in fact some cultures, only
see cheating as dishonorable if you're not very good at it. For some,
it's an integral part of how they approach life in general and sport in
particular. In fact, for some it's honorable to be able to cheat
undetected.

How does this grab you : a person is guilty when the proper authority
proves a set of facts adequate to convince a tribunal that the accused has
committed a specified offense. And, conversely, the same person is
considered innocent if the proper authority fails in this proof. Apply it
to yourself, in your own life, for anything people may have wrongly
accused you of. Do you consider yourself innocent ? Or do you prefer
"angelic" ?

Can't I be both?

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Ag2r's Francisco Mancebo, one of those ejected: "I consider myself
innocent and I have never tested positive. I'm just going to see how this
all evolves now. I'm sick of this world, I am going to hang to my bike
up."
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2213

New excuses are needed Francisco.

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" The presumption of guilt
and the corresponding need to prove innocence, however seemingly
justifiable given the circumstances, are still wrong. If he has not
tested positive and he has not been proven guilty of an offense, he is
entitled to be assumed innocent, in my opinion.

You are taking a concept from the American legal system and trying to apply
it to sporting event owned by a French company. The American constitution
does not have any relevance to European bike racing or the Tour De France.
ASO has been extremely clear that they have the right to exclude anyone who
doesn't meet their standards for racing.

B. Lafferty wrote:
Sandy asked:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you consider yourself innocent ? Or do you prefer
"angelic" ?

The ever-opportunistic B. Lafferty quickly replied:

Quoted message said:

Can't I be both?

Some reading, done by halo-light if that applies:

From:
http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=afp-cyclingusagbr&prov=afp&type=lgns

<The allegations were printed in 2004 in a review of a book called LA
Confidential, The Secrets of Lance Armstrong.

<The Sunday Times insisted the article merely raised fresh questions
about the cyclist but High Court judge Mr Justice Gray supported
Armstrong and said the article "does bear the meaning for which Mr
Armstrong contends."

<The joint statement said: "The Sunday Times and Mr Armstrong are
pleased to announce that they have settled their legal disputes.

<"The Sunday Times has confirmed to Mr Armstrong that it never intended
to accuse him of being guilty of taking any performance enhancing drugs
and sincerely apologized for any such impression.">

Oooh boy, got smart quick and settled the very same day. Or maybe there
was a plan <g>. Whatever. So much for home field advantage?

Someday the details will be leaked <g> and we will find out how many
pieces of gold the Times had to return from the papers it presumably
sold on the back of this braying donkey. Was there a nice fat LAF
contribution, on the road for the billion for cancer research? Time
will tell, given an angle of course.

The book: again, it has no title in English since it was never
presented in that language. I know the reporters and story writers and
editors are just trying to help move understanding along, but this
misstatement does imply a certain popularity (among other possible
insinuations) that was never, for good reason (see above) achieved, at
least as represented by undiscounted sales.

I didn't see any details, but did Greg Lemond testify at this
proceeding, too? Did Lance walk in and, with a little smile on his
face, let everyone see him dispose of some chewing gum in a convenient
wastebasket? Well, all in good time! --D-y

Frank Drackman said:

You are taking a concept from the American legal system and trying to apply
it to sporting event owned by a French company. The American constitution
does not have any relevance to European bike racing or the Tour De France.
ASO has been extremely clear that they have the right to exclude anyone who
doesn't meet their standards for racing.

You were better off leaving the Constitution out of it - its spends a
lot of time on processes, but not on presumption of guilt. And he did
say it was 'his opinion', which means that what ASO says and does
isn't necessarily relevant either. Its my opinion that they should be
presumed innocent until proven guilty, but it is also my opinion that
innocense or guilt is not what this is all about. And I think I know
that it has little to do with what ASO will do. More and more, ASO
seems to be a fonetic spelling, but then, the Tour isn't my baby.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

"Curtis L. Russell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Frank Drackman said:

You are taking a concept from the American legal system and trying to
apply
it to sporting event owned by a French company. The American
constitution
does not have any relevance to European bike racing or the Tour De
France.
ASO has been extremely clear that they have the right to exclude
anyone who
doesn't meet their standards for racing.

You were better off leaving the Constitution out of it - its spends a
lot of time on processes, but not on presumption of guilt. And he did
say it was 'his opinion', which means that what ASO says and does
isn't necessarily relevant either. Its my opinion that they should be
presumed innocent until proven guilty, but it is also my opinion that
innocense or guilt is not what this is all about. And I think I know
that it has little to do with what ASO will do. More and more, ASO
seems to be a fonetic spelling, but then, the Tour isn't my baby.

There are places where appearances matter, e.g., politics - I know
politicians sometimes can't do their jobs effectively if they are under
suspicion of wrongdoing, even if nothing's been proven. But this is not
that, and these guys could race. I'm no fan of performance-enhancing
drugs, but I don't see the entire thing in the stark black-and-white,
right-or-wrong way most people seem to. It's a continuum - the cup of
coffee I have before a bike ride is a performance enhancing drug, the
legal inhaler I have for my marginal case of asthma likewise. My
feeling is that you create the rules you feel are appropriate, which has
been done, and you enforce them to the best of your ability, which the
sport is doing. And once that's done, you're allowed to participate
until you've been proven guilty - medals, podium spots, etc., can be
taken away retroactively if necessary.

The presumption of evidence reflects the idea that it is better to let a
guilty person go unpunished than it is to deny anyone their rights to
due process, a position I agree with wholeheartedly.

Again, just voicing my opinion here as a spectator. I would prefer that
Ulrich, Basso, and the rest be allowed to make the decision on their own
whether or not to participate, based on the knowledge of the evidence
against them.

-S-

Steve Freides said:

There are places where appearances matter, e.g., politics - I know
politicians sometimes can't do their jobs effectively if they are under
suspicion of wrongdoing, even if nothing's been proven. But this is not
that, and these guys could race.

If we view the racers as product endorsers (they do have corporate names
displayed all over their racing kit), their profession might qualify as
one in which appearances matter.

Remember when Martha Stewart was first charged, and many financial
observers assumed K-Mart would drop her like a stone? (I seem to recall
it didn't turn out that way, but the point remains - sponsors are wary
of suspicious endorsers). Like it or not, the sponsors pay for the
sport, so they are *going* to have major influence.

Mark

Sandy said:

Quoted message said:

Do you consider yourself innocent ? Or do you prefer "angelic" ?

B. Lafferty said:

Can't I be both?

LANCE's angel of doom ?

Sandy said:

Scott a critics :

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

Ag2r's Francisco Mancebo, one of those ejected: "I consider myself innocent
and I have never tested positive. I'm just going to see how this all evolves
now. I'm sick of this world, I am going to hang to my bike up."
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2213

New excuses are needed Francisco.

The whole "I never tested positive" concept is interesting, in that it
implies that it's not cheating if you don't get caught. While some of
us view cheating as cheating, some folks, in fact some cultures, only
see cheating as dishonorable if you're not very good at it. For some,
it's an integral part of how they approach life in general and sport in
particular. In fact, for some it's honorable to be able to cheat
undetected.

How does this grab you : a person is guilty when the proper authority
proves a set of facts adequate to convince a tribunal that the accused
has committed a specified offense. And, conversely, the same person is
considered innocent if the proper authority fails in this proof. Apply
it to yourself, in your own life, for anything people may have wrongly
accused you of. Do you consider yourself innocent ? Or do you prefer
"angelic" ?

Quoted message said:

From the tone of your closing sentences, I'm compelled to ask: did I

say something to offend you?

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

Quoted message said:

Sandy said:

Quoted message said:

Do you consider yourself innocent ? Or do you prefer "angelic" ?

B. Lafferty said:

Can't I be both?

LANCE's angel of doom ?

A bit overly dramatic, don't you think?

Steve Freides said:

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

Quoted message said:

Ag2r's Francisco Mancebo, one of those ejected: "I consider myself
innocent and I have never tested positive. I'm just going to see how
this all evolves now. I'm sick of this world, I am going to hang to my
bike up."
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2213

New excuses are needed Francisco.

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" The presumption of
guilt and the corresponding need to prove innocence, however seemingly
justifiable given the circumstances, are still wrong. If he has not
tested positive and he has not been proven guilty of an offense, he is
entitled to be assumed innocent, in my opinion.

-S

All of the riders implicated in "Puerto" are still deemed to be not
proven guilty by the ICU--until such time as they have gone through
their due process. However, riders do not have a right to race in the
Tour de France. The organizer issues invitations for the riders to
participate. It should be pointed out that the riders have already
signed a pledge to adhere to a Code of Conduct--one that gives the
organizers the right sanction those whom are suspected of violating
doping policies.

At this point, the riders are free to participate in other bike
races, if those race organizers will allow them to do so.

Likewise, teams have similar provisions in their contracts with the
riders, which allows them to terminate the rider based on certain
activities or behaviors which would tend to bring the sponsors into
disrepute.

Guilty until proven innocent is an essential concept--when dealing with
crimnal cases where the defendant faces santions by the State. It is
morally obtuse to assert that everybody is entitles to a presumption of
innocence all of the time, even when facing non-criminal penalties from
team owners or race organizers.