Boonen rides the Tour

tonyzackery said:

I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but pro cycling's lack of integrity is appalling.

Okay, let's see - you're banned from our tour because of your first positive test for coke. Now after you've tested positive again (and we now know of a total of 3 positive tests for cokes) we welcome you back.

Le Tour - the greatest spectacle on two wheels for more reasons than one...

cyclingnews.comnews.phpOpen ↗

I agree, it's not performance enhancing but what sought of example is it setting for younger generation, I think he should be made an example of.

velonews.companel says boonen didn t take cocaineOpen ↗

Pay enough money and even "experts" will say whatever you want them to...

I know I'm dumb, but I'm not stupid. Especially considering the fortuitous timing (some kind of big bike race starts in a couple weeks I heard) of this finding and announcement.

Integrity. UCI. Mutually exclusive - to the end...

ASO have basically told Tom for go feck himself during the month of July.

No Tour for Tom.

cyclingnews.comaso rejects boonen for tourOpen ↗

Right you are.

The ASO has the nuts; the UCI has none. You can believe this drama is far from over...

This is a tough one..legally the guy hasn't done anything wrong but ethically taking drugs is taking drugs - whether they're performance enhancing or not...

Ultimatey I think banning Tom is the right thing to do - drugs are drugs are drugs - if you're gonna shovel [censored] into your veins - stay out of the sport.

Eldron said:

This is a tough one..legally the guy hasn't done anything wrong but ethically taking drugs is taking drugs - whether they're performance enhancing or not...

Ultimatey I think banning Tom is the right thing to do - drugs are drugs are drugs - if you're gonna shovel [censored] into your veins - stay out of the sport.

At least Armstrong never shovels [censored] into his veins - he only pumps himself full of top-of-the-line dope.

jimmypop said:

At least Armstrong never shovels [censored] into his veins - he only pumps himself full of top-of-the-line dope.

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

No real wonder why big-time entertainment types never seem to "learn their lesson" after getting popped for some reason...judges like this need to be removed...

velonews.comcourt won t resurrect old boonen caseOpen ↗

Teflon Tom lives to ride again...

Eldron said:

legally the guy hasn't done anything wrong

Coke is legal 😕

Meek One said:

Coke is legal 😕

He wasn't selling it, he wasn't caught with possession. So, no criminal offense. Maybe a case for health service (rehab).

Andrija said:

He wasn't selling it, he wasn't caught with possession. So, no criminal offense. Maybe a case for health service (rehab).

This is hilarious! Where are the "our heroes need to be role models for the kids" proponents when you need 'em??? Here you got one of the biggest celebrities in Belgium (if not the biggest) and he's coke-head with his use apparently being condoned, to some degree, by the judicial community. Amazing...

tonyzackery said:

This is hilarious! Where are the "our heroes need to be role models for the kids" proponents when you need 'em??? Here you got one of the biggest celebrities in Belgium (if not the biggest) and he's coke-head with his use apparently being condoned, to some degree, by the judicial community. Amazing...

The law is the law and it should be strictly respected. Moral, ethics and court of public is another thing and must be left to public which should be rigorous. Isn't the law area where Armstrong, Ulrich, OP guys and many others searched and found their way[font='Times New Roman'] [/font]out from trouble?

Quoted post said:

=tonyzackery] Integrity. UCI. Mutually exclusive

tonyzackery said:

The ASO has the nuts; the UCI has none.

no, the ASO just read the UCI rule book -
"The organiser may refuse permission to participate in – or exclude from – an
event, a team or one of its members whose presence might be prejudicial to the image or reputation of the organiser or of the event"
Hard for Boonen to argue against, esp. with the word 'might'

lucybears said:

no, the ASO just read the UCI rule book -
"The organiser may refuse permission to participate in – or exclude from – an
event, a team or one of its members whose presence might be prejudicial to the image or reputation of the organiser or of the event"
Hard for Boonen to argue against, esp. with the word 'might'

The fact that ASO is actually "going by the book" takes nuts; especially in the case of one pro cycling's big-name and most popular stars...

jimmypop said:

At least Armstrong never shovels [censored] into his veins - he only pumps himself full of top-of-the-line dope.

Armstrong. Fixation.

@meek one. When I said legally I meant according to UCI rules. Coke is only banned during the racing season - apparently out of season is a cokefest?!

Andrija said:

The law is the law and it should be strictly respected. Moral, ethics and court of public is another thing and must be left to public which should be rigorous. Isn't the law area where Armstrong, Ulrich, OP guys and many others searched and found their wayout from trouble?

"The law is the law" - what does this mean, if you don't mind me asking?

Since when has "the law" been untouched by public opinion, morality, politics, or ethical concerns? I'll answer for you - never. "The law" has ALWAYS been influenced by the above; at times - all of the above. Take at the look at the O.J. Simpson (basically any case involving a celebrity) case if you think I'm incorrect. I'm sure you'll find even more on-point examples in your own country.

One more piece of information for free - the word "should" should be removed from the dictionary as appropriate language. The word is just as insidious as the word "assume"...

jimmypop said:

At least Armstrong never shovels [censored] into his veins - he only pumps himself full of top-of-the-line dope.

Nice of you to bring up your love child/poster boy again...

... and I do believe that Boonen snorts the [censored] rather than injecting. So it's more of the case that he shovels the [censored] into his nose. Just sayin'

tonyzackery said:

"The law is the law" - what does this mean, if you don't mind me asking?

Since when has "the law" been untouched by public opinion, morality, politics, or ethical concerns? I'll answer for you - never. "The law" has ALWAYS been influenced by the above; at times - all of the above. Take at the look at the O.J. Simpson (basically any case involving a celebrity) case if you think I'm incorrect. I'm sure you'll find even more on-point examples in your own country.

One more piece of information for free - the word "should" should be removed from the dictionary as appropriate language. The word is just as insidious as the word "assume"...

"The law is the law" means that it's normative discipline (which regulates how the things should be and not how they are), based on some carefully measured rules, historic experience of that science and ethics, which include all aspects of subjected violation, where privacy and personal rights play significant role and it (the law) must be the same for everyone and applied without exception, no matter what status (economic, social...) of person is. It must be respected in both directions (positive-when there is violation and negative-when there isn't) because otherwise it can lead to anomia and anarchy. To avoid misinterpretation of the law every formal organization has it's own list of rules coordinated with the state law.That is what the phrase which puzzled you means and how it works.[font='Times New Roman'][font=Verdana]Now, this was lesson for free and it's last from me to you, 'cause the way you replied I find very rude and even insulting to certain point.[/font][/font]

Andrija said:

"The law is the law" means that it's normative discipline (which regulates how the things should be and not how they are), based on some carefully measured rules, historic experience of that science and ethics, which include all aspects of subjected violation, where privacy and personal rights play significant role and it (the law) must be the same for everyone and applied without exception, no matter what status (economic, social...) of person is. It must be respected in both directions (positive-when there is violation and negative-when there isn't) because otherwise it can lead to anomia and anarchy. To avoid misinterpretation of the law every formal organization has it's own list of rules coordinated with the state law.That is what the phrase which puzzled you means and how it works.[font=Times New Roman][font=Verdana]Now, this was lesson for free and it's last from me to you, 'cause the way you replied I find very rude and even insulting to certain point.[/font][/font]

Come into the "real world", my friend.

As long as human beings, with their accompanying frailties, are administering "justice" all the subjective negatives you can conjure will abound. Until such time as robots are made guardians of "the law", never will it be as orthodox as you apparently wish...

Oh yeah, I apologize if you hurt one of your feelings with my previous response. Unintentional, of course...