Get 'em all !!

Sandy said:

Blackstone's view : "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one
innocent suffer."

UCI/WADA view : "Better that ten innocent persons suffer than that one
guilty be allowed to escape."

I can't say I'm surprised, but the level of gossip here, without
entertainment value, has reached a new low.

Who says the level of evidence has to be the same? In one case
you're being tossed into jail by the state; in the other you're being
prohibited from participating in a private bike racing event because
you failed to abide by the rules.

Ernst Blofeld a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Sandy said:

Blackstone's view : "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one
innocent suffer."

UCI/WADA view : "Better that ten innocent persons suffer than that one
guilty be allowed to escape."

I can't say I'm surprised, but the level of gossip here, without
entertainment value, has reached a new low.

Who says the level of evidence has to be the same? In one case
you're being tossed into jail by the state; in the other you're being
prohibited from participating in a private bike racing event because
you failed to abide by the rules.

You really have a tough time reading.
It is a principle, and you can apply it as you like.
Not that your judgment leaps tall buildings in a single bound.
But it seems to have done just that. Performance enhanced?

So you don't blow by it : following rules is not the issue of the test.
If the body happens to react idiosyncratically (given that we are
considered to be individuals), the test only proves a static condition,
not the fact of doping.

That's the reason the two and four year bans are irreconcilable with
justice, whether it be private or public.

For those who want to guess at the French reaction, not the newspapers,
it is very, very quiet. Amongst cyclists and in general. Landis
captured the attention, interest and favor of almost all of us. You can
leave out Bouygues and FDJ, which have little to boast.

--

Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Sandy said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Blackstone's view : "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one
innocent suffer."

UCI/WADA view : "Better that ten innocent persons suffer than that one
guilty be allowed to escape."

I can't say I'm surprised, but the level of gossip here, without
entertainment value, has reached a new low.

Who says the level of evidence has to be the same? In one case
you're being tossed into jail by the state; in the other you're being
prohibited from participating in a private bike racing event because
you failed to abide by the rules.

You really have a tough time reading.
It is a principle, and you can apply it as you like.

OK, it's a bad idea to apply the principal to bike racing. Which
is exactly what I said.

Quoted message said:

So you don't blow by it : following rules is not the issue of the test.
If the body happens to react idiosyncratically (given that we are
considered to be individuals), the test only proves a static condition,
not the fact of doping.

So what? the abstract principle of Blackstone's you presented was
related the level of certainty that is required before action is taken.
Drug testing may have false positives. The level of certainty in the
results of the test can be chosen by the ruling organization. What is
appropriate for a legal venue can be different from what a bike racing
organization chooses to apply, and in fact should be, in my opinion. Do
we really want ten guilty dopers to continue to participate in a race
to prevent one non-doping rider from being excluded? Not me. If the
riders don't like it they can go get a job.

Quoted message said:

That's the reason the two and four year bans are irreconcilable with
justice, whether it be private or public.

It's a bike race, not justice. The organizers can exclude whomever the
please on whatever grounds the please, flimsy or not. In the end the
pro bike race's reason for existence is to please advertisers, not
provide riders a "right" to particpate in a race. If the riders don't
like it they can go play baseball.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Sandy said:

Blackstone's view : "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one
innocent suffer."

UCI/WADA view : "Better that ten innocent persons suffer than that one
guilty be allowed to escape."

I can't say I'm surprised, but the level of gossip here, without
entertainment value, has reached a new low.

I am surprised you read. Which groups should we read to
see your wit, charm, and inventiveness?

--
Michael Press

Sandy said:

Blackstone's view : "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one
innocent suffer."

UCI/WADA view : "Better that ten innocent persons suffer than that one
guilty be allowed to escape."

I can't say I'm surprised, but the level of gossip here, without
entertainment value, has reached a new low.

There's an awful lot of self-righteous morally superior nonsense being
thrown around, that's for sure. But I actually think RBR is more balanced
than the mainstream press in the US has been. As for me, I don't know what
to think. Which is fine, since my opinion doesn't affect things much.