DiLuca On Armstrong

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

Quoted message said:

"I also wonder if Armstrong will take the start after the revelations in

the

Quoted message said:

book in France, in which it's said that he has used banned substances and
which the French courts allowed to be published

I wondered about Leblanc stating that being accused of wrongdoing was enough
to preclude starting the tour. I think DiLuca has taken the point to the
absurd, because obviously, Leblanc meant accused by the justice system and
not the press. It opens the door, however, to every prosecutor to
disqualify any rider by bringing charges no
matter how strong the evidence on which they are based.

They should be able to race until proven guilty.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"I also wonder if Armstrong will take the start after the revelations in

the

Quoted message said:

book in France, in which it's said that he has used banned substances

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

which the French courts allowed to be published

I wondered about Leblanc stating that being accused of wrongdoing was

enough

Quoted message said:

to preclude starting the tour. I think DiLuca has taken the point to the
absurd, because obviously, Leblanc meant accused by the justice system and
not the press. It opens the door, however, to every prosecutor to
disqualify any rider by bringing charges no
matter how strong the evidence on which they are based.

They should be able to race until proven guilty.

He didn't say accused y the justice system, he said any rider involved in a
formal investigation
Lance is not under investigation, DiLuca is

Dave

Dave H said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"I also wonder if Armstrong will take the start after the revelations in

the

Quoted message said:

book in France, in which it's said that he has used banned substances

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

which the French courts allowed to be published

I wondered about Leblanc stating that being accused of wrongdoing was

enough

Quoted message said:

to preclude starting the tour. I think DiLuca has taken the point to the
absurd, because obviously, Leblanc meant accused by the justice system and
not the press. It opens the door, however, to every prosecutor to
disqualify any rider by bringing charges no
matter how strong the evidence on which they are based.

They should be able to race until proven guilty.

He didn't say accused y the justice system, he said any rider involved in a
formal investigation
Lance is not under investigation, DiLuca is

Dave

But wasn't Lance under formal investigation until last year? If so then
by that same yardstick Lance would have been excluded. How does LeBlanc
feel about that?

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

Quoted message said:

He didn't say accused y the justice system, he said any rider involved in

a

Quoted message said:

formal investigation
Lance is not under investigation, DiLuca is

Dave

What? Are they investigating people they suspect of being innocent now? Of
course those being investigated are accused.

I never said anything about Lance. My point was that it was unfair to
prohibit a rider from racing because some authority suspects they may have
broken the law but has not yet proven it to be a fact.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

He didn't say accused y the justice system, he said any rider involved

in

Quoted message said:

a

Quoted message said:

formal investigation
Lance is not under investigation, DiLuca is

Dave

What? Are they investigating people they suspect of being innocent now?

Of

Quoted message said:

course those being investigated are accused.

I never said anything about Lance. My point was that it was unfair to
prohibit a rider from racing because some authority suspects they may have
broken the law but has not yet proven it to be a fact.

It may not be a fully accurate analogy, but I think you could say that
being under investigation in the French judicial system is akin to being the
"target" of a US grand jury investigation.

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

Quoted message said:

It may not be a fully accurate analogy, but I think you could say that
being under investigation in the French judicial system is akin to being

the

Quoted message said:

"target" of a US grand jury investigation.

I think you could say that being under investigation in the French judicial
system is akin to being the subject of an expose in the National Enquirer.

RichC

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

Quoted message said:

Dave H said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

>"I also wonder if Armstrong will take the start after the revelations

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the

>book in France, in which it's said that he has used banned substances

and

Quoted message said:

>which the French courts allowed to be published
>

I wondered about Leblanc stating that being accused of wrongdoing was

enough

Quoted message said:

to preclude starting the tour. I think DiLuca has taken the point to

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

absurd, because obviously, Leblanc meant accused by the justice system

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not the press. It opens the door, however, to every prosecutor to
disqualify any rider by bringing charges no
matter how strong the evidence on which they are based.

They should be able to race until proven guilty.

He didn't say accused y the justice system, he said any rider involved

in a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

formal investigation
Lance is not under investigation, DiLuca is

Dave

But wasn't Lance under formal investigation until last year? If so then
by that same yardstick Lance would have been excluded. How does LeBlanc
feel about that?

No that investigation was closed before the TDF started last year, and this
development by the Societe' D' Tour just came to be in the last month
Dave

Dave H said:

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

Quoted message said:

Dave H said:

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

>"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>news:[email hidden]...
>
>
>>"I also wonder if Armstrong will take the start after the revelations

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>the
>
>
>>book in France, in which it's said that he has used banned substances

and

>>which the French courts allowed to be published
>>
>
>I wondered about Leblanc stating that being accused of wrongdoing was

enough

>to preclude starting the tour. I think DiLuca has taken the point to

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>absurd, because obviously, Leblanc meant accused by the justice system

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>not the press. It opens the door, however, to every prosecutor to
>disqualify any rider by bringing charges no
>matter how strong the evidence on which they are based.
>
>They should be able to race until proven guilty.

He didn't say accused y the justice system, he said any rider involved

in a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

formal investigation
Lance is not under investigation, DiLuca is

Dave

But wasn't Lance under formal investigation until last year? If so then
by that same yardstick Lance would have been excluded. How does LeBlanc
feel about that?

No that investigation was closed before the TDF started last year, and this
development by the Societe' D' Tour just came to be in the last month
Dave

Right, but the investigation had being going on a couple years. A few
well placed people who dislike any racer could certainly trump up some
bogus charges and voila the racer is out.

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

Quoted message said:

It may not be a fully accurate analogy, but I think you could say that
being under investigation in the French judicial system is akin to being

the

Quoted message said:

"target" of a US grand jury investigation.

Isn't it still calling the winner before the line?

TM said:

I never said anything about Lance. My point was that it was unfair to
prohibit a rider from racing because some authority suspects they may have
broken the law but has not yet proven it to be a fact.

In athletics, the fall-out from Kelli White's testimony has set up this
exact situation, where a positive test is "only one form of evidence".

The difference with cycling is that instead of there being a very tight
ring of influence (Victor Conte + BALCO + associated
coaches/trainers/athletes), doping is more distributed - riders get
their own rather than there being one overall "fixer". My conjecture is
as a result, cycling will never be truly clean as a sport.

To draw a further parallel, when Nebiolo headed up the IAAF, the
attitude towards doping was much the same as it is within the UCI under
Verbruggen. We've seen a wholesale change in approach by WADA in the
last 2 years and the IOC obviously making a stand in Olympic year. Can
the Tour afford to have a PR disaster of many positive tests and
suspensions this year and suffer by comparison?

But, as others have commented, what should be done about doping - go
back to the 1950s attitude and ignore it? Make the health risks known
and let it happen? Would performances overall really suffer if we
tolerated a testosterone-based preparation programme and the use of
selected "recovery products" for the tours?

"Stewart Fleming" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

To draw a further parallel, when Nebiolo headed up the IAAF, the
attitude towards doping was much the same as it is within the UCI under
Verbruggen.

Tell it to Butch Reynolds.

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

Quoted message said:

But, as others have commented, what should be done about doping - go
back to the 1950s attitude and ignore it? Make the health risks known
and let it happen? Would performances overall really suffer if we
tolerated a testosterone-based preparation programme and the use of
selected "recovery products" for the tours?

I think the real problem is that no rider can prove that they are clean.
Until a protocol exists whereby someone can be assumed to be clean the sport
is doomed on perception alone.

I would rather keep the police out of it all together. If they have to be
involved, I would hope that they would have to do their job properly and
completely before they effect some athlete's life and the outcome of a
sporting event.

As for opening the flood gates, we have that sport already and it is called
horse racing! I mean that on two levels. One a joke. Two, on a serious
note, I don't want to find out who has the best trainer (or doctor), but who
is the best racer. Legalizing doping would reduce the role of rider to that
no greater than a horse born with the right blood lines. The true stars
would be in the lab.

Carl Sundquist said:

"Stewart Fleming" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

To draw a further parallel, when Nebiolo headed up the IAAF, the
attitude towards doping was much the same as it is within the UCI under
Verbruggen.

Tell it to Butch Reynolds.

By "much the same attitude", I was referring to suspension after
positive test only, which would cover the Reynolds case. Now, the
situation is one where "other forms of evidence", such as testimony from
witnesses, even association with guilty parties can be used to determine
suspensions.

OK, so entry to this year's Tour is closed to those under investigation
for doping offences. But how many of those investigations have been
initiated by the UCI?