Davy Millar: On the comeback Trail

<[email hidden]> wrote...

Quoted message said:

Way to go Davy!!

http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/V4/L0/S18/sport_Lng0_Spo18_Sto618135.shtml

And way to go Lance: Millar added that several riders had offered him
support in recent weeks including American Lance Armstrong, who on Sunday
won the Tour de France for a record sixth time.

"Jim Flom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:c2tNc.121754$eO.69463@edtnps89...

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote...

Quoted message said:

Way to go Davy!!

http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/V4/L0/S18/sport_Lng0_Spo18_Sto618135.shtml

Quoted message said:

And way to go Lance: Millar added that several riders had offered him
support in recent weeks including American Lance Armstrong, who on Sunday
won the Tour de France for a record sixth time.

LA & Millar are freinds off the bike. After living in Europe all these
years LA also still says Shiner Bock is his favorite beer.

No accounting for taste.

Z

Quoted message said:

Way to go Davy!!

http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/V4/L0/S18/sport_Lng0_Spo18_Sto618135.shtml

If his true motive is to help riders from falling into the trap and show
the UCI how to prevent doping in the peloton as the article says, he can
do it even under a lifetime ban from racing.

--
My bike blog:
http://diabloscott.blogspot.com/

Diablo Scott said:

If his true motive is to help riders from falling into the trap and show
the UCI how to prevent doping in the peloton as the article says, he can
do it even under a lifetime ban from racing.

I never understood this interest in lifetime bans. The problem in
cycling isn't that people laugh at 2-year bans. The problm is that
there are probably dozens of riders not getting caught or thinking
they can't get caught. That's the problem. Banning Millar from the
sport forever might make it seem like the drugs problem is being taken
seriously, but it'd just be empty symbolism.

JT

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Diablo Scott said:

If his true motive is to help riders from falling into the trap and show
the UCI how to prevent doping in the peloton as the article says, he can
do it even under a lifetime ban from racing.

I never understood this interest in lifetime bans.

Lifetime bans are not to punish the offenders, but to reward those that play
by the rules by eliminating from competition those who have demonstrated
that they cheat.

If you stole from your coworkers would you expect your employer to fire you?

David Millar stole the World TT Championships from somebody else. He knew
he cheated when he did it. Why does he deserve a second chance?

I understand that this is not the way cycling has operated in the past. I
think a fair argument could be made on Millar's behalf based on that alone
(no fair warning). Going forward, however, what benefit does the sport of
cycling receive by keeping known cheaters within its ranks? If lifetime
bans are 'empty symbolism', is letting known cheaters race a better 'symbol'
of the sport?

Quoted message said:

Way to go Davy!!

http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/V4/L0/S18/sport_Lng0_Spo18_Sto618135.shtml

Further interesting article here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1269682,00.html

--

Riff-Raff

ROT this: [email hidden]

TM said:

Lifetime bans are not to punish the offenders, but to reward those that play
by the rules by eliminating from competition those who have demonstrated
that they cheat.

In his case it's also rewarding the many other riders who dope but are
not caught. Is that good?

Quoted message said:

If you stole from your coworkers would you expect your employer to fire you?

Sure. I wouldn't expect to be banned from my industry forever.

Quoted message said:

David Millar stole the World TT Championships from somebody else. He knew
he cheated when he did it. Why does he deserve a second chance?

Why doesn't he?

JT

I say ban him for life. he is a cheater. Too bad the rule are so
liberal.

ken

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

Quoted message said:

Way to go Davy!!

http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/V4/L0/S18/sport_Lng0_Spo18_Sto618135.shtml

Quoted message said:

Punishment is intended to discourage others from violating rules. Life
time bans will help to reduce drug use. Dumping Cheater Miller will set a
fine example of rule enforcement. Dump Miller and all others who are
caught. No Gifts here. Those remaining clean will know the consequences.
Screw the cheaters, they screwed those they beat.

Ken

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

TM said:

Lifetime bans are not to punish the offenders, but to reward those that

play

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

by the rules by eliminating from competition those who have demonstrated
that they cheat.

In his case it's also rewarding the many other riders who dope but are
not caught. Is that good?

Quoted message said:

If you stole from your coworkers would you expect your employer to fire

you?

Quoted message said:

Sure. I wouldn't expect to be banned from my industry forever.

Quoted message said:

David Millar stole the World TT Championships from somebody else. He

knew

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

he cheated when he did it. Why does he deserve a second chance?

Why doesn't he?

JT

On 07/27/2004 04:26 PM, in article
[email hidden], "John Forrest Tomlinson"

Quoted message said:

TM said:

Lifetime bans are not to punish the offenders, but to reward those that play
by the rules by eliminating from competition those who have demonstrated
that they cheat.

In his case it's also rewarding the many other riders who dope but are
not caught. Is that good?

Quoted message said:

If you stole from your coworkers would you expect your employer to fire you?

Sure. I wouldn't expect to be banned from my industry forever.

Good thing you don't work in financial services then ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

David Millar stole the World TT Championships from somebody else. He knew
he cheated when he did it. Why does he deserve a second chance?

Why doesn't he?

JT

--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea aye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash

IMKen said:

I say ban him for life. he is a cheater. Too bad the rule are so
liberal.

Can we hold you to those sentiments if, as, and when the net closes on Armstrong?

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

TM said:

Lifetime bans are not to punish the offenders, but to reward those that

play

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

by the rules by eliminating from competition those who have demonstrated
that they cheat.

In his case it's also rewarding the many other riders who dope but are
not caught. Is that good?

That is like saying it is unfair to put a murderer in jail because you have
not solved every murder.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you stole from your coworkers would you expect your employer to fire

you?

Quoted message said:

Sure. I wouldn't expect to be banned from my industry forever.

Well, no one has a right to race their bike for a living.
Doctors, lawyers, dentists can all lose their license to practice their
profession. Even lowly franchise owners will lose them if convicted of
certain crimes. There are other examples. People get banned from their
industry - forever - everyday for various reasons. Not being allowed to
race professionally for using drugs would be similar.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

David Millar stole the World TT Championships from somebody else. He

knew

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

he cheated when he did it. Why does he deserve a second chance?

Why doesn't he?

One is enough.

I'll say again, though, that after watching Virenque for 3 weeks it would be
unjust to Millar to ban him for life. But, going forward, I believe it is
the only way to end the problem facing cycling (and other sports). Unless
you're advocating it simply becoming a part of the sport.

TM said:

That is like saying it is unfair to put a murderer in jail because you have
not solved every murder.

No, it's like saying it's stupid to execute murderers when it has no
effect on the rate of murders.

JT

Quoted message said:

Well, no one has a right to race their bike for a living.
Doctors, lawyers, dentists can all lose their license to practice their
profession. Even lowly franchise owners will lose them if convicted of
certain crimes. There are other examples. People get banned from their
industry - forever - everyday for various reasons. Not being allowed to
race professionally for using drugs would be similar.

Doctors, lawyers and dentists and securities professionals are dealing
with other people's lives and money. To elevate pro cyclists to the
same level of impact on the public is laughable. Oh wait, "Pantain
was doping, so his fans are really hurt. Boo hoo."

Quoted message said:

But, going forward, I believe it is
the only way to end the problem facing cycling (and other sports). Unless
you're advocating it simply becoming a part of the sport.

I suggest catching more people, not dealing more harshly with a couple
each year. I think I said that in this thread, but if you want to
just read selectively you can continue to do so and continue looking a
little dense.

JT

Since the mid 1980s a few riders have been dying from drug use.
Dying! And a lifetime ban is supposed to be more of a deterrant than
that? Considering how few riders get caught each year, that makes no
sense.

The problem is that there is no system to catch the riders using drugs
and the team personnel helping them. Systems are needed to deal with
that. But hey, if the call for lifetime bans makes some people in RBR
feel high and moral, I guess that's what's important, right?
JT

In article <[email hidden]>,

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Diablo Scott said:

If his true motive is to help riders from falling into the trap and show
the UCI how to prevent doping in the peloton as the article says, he can
do it even under a lifetime ban from racing.

I never understood this interest in lifetime bans. The problem in
cycling isn't that people laugh at 2-year bans. The problm is that
there are probably dozens of riders not getting caught or thinking
they can't get caught. That's the problem. Banning Millar from the
sport forever might make it seem like the drugs problem is being taken
seriously, but it'd just be empty symbolism.

JT

Exactly - I seriously doubt there's anyone thinking, "I'll get a ban if
I get caught." They're more likely thinking, "If I'm sort of careful, I
won't get caught." I imagine plenty of guys out there know others who are
using and seeing them not get caught reinforces this attitude.

--
tanx,
Howard

So far, so good, so what?

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article <[email hidden]>, John Forrest

Tomlinson said:

TM said:

That is like saying it is unfair to put a murderer in jail because you have
not solved every murder.

No, it's like saying it's stupid to execute murderers when it has no
effect on the rate of murders.

JT

The analogy of punishing murderers could be better chosen. However JFT,
the basis of your response is too narrow. That is, that the rationale
behind the severity of the punishment should be it's ability to deter.
Obviously, it's a major determinant, but it should not be to the
exclusion of all other considerations.

What of the punishment the criminal suffers being commensurate with
damage caused by the crime? This validates the losses sustained by
victims and in large part is a statement of how highly we value that
which has been taken or destroyed by the criminal.

So, for me as a fan, the question is; How highly should I value the
integrity of pro cycling? (or any other sport for that matter?) Should
I consider it - like pro wrestling - as a mock theatrical exhibition,
where the results are skewed by doctors and pharmaceuticals rather than
script writers, or a legitimate athletic one? The punishment meted to
dopers plays no small part in deciding this.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, no one has a right to race their bike for a living.
Doctors, lawyers, dentists can all lose their license to practice their
profession. Even lowly franchise owners will lose them if convicted of
certain crimes. There are other examples. People get banned from their
industry - forever - everyday for various reasons. Not being allowed to
race professionally for using drugs would be similar.

Doctors, lawyers and dentists and securities professionals are dealing
with other people's lives and money. To elevate pro cyclists to the
same level of impact on the public is laughable. Oh wait, "Pantain
was doping, so his fans are really hurt. Boo hoo."

Disregarding your facetiousness: I should think true fans would be
hurt. Then angry. Then cynical. Then - to the extent the cycle repeats
itself - no longer fans.

<snip>

luke

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Quoted message said:

If you stole from your coworkers would you expect your employer to fire you?

Sure. I wouldn't expect to be banned from my industry forever.

What about if you, as a medical professional, engaged in conduct that
was deemed professional malpractice?

What about if you, as a company director, deliberately traded while
insolvent?

Fired, or banned from the industry forever?

Luke said:

The analogy of punishing murderers could be better chosen. However JFT,
the basis of your response is too narrow. That is, that the rationale
behind the severity of the punishment should be it's ability to deter.
Obviously, it's a major determinant, but it should not be to the
exclusion of all other considerations.

What of the punishment the criminal suffers being commensurate with
damage caused by the crime? This validates the losses sustained by
victims and in large part is a statement of how highly we value that
which has been taken or destroyed by the criminal.

So, for me as a fan, the question is; How highly should I value the
integrity of pro cycling? (or any other sport for that matter?) Should
I consider it - like pro wrestling - as a mock theatrical exhibition,
where the results are skewed by doctors and pharmaceuticals rather than
script writers, or a legitimate athletic one? The punishment meted to
dopers plays no small part in deciding this.

So this suggests you advocate lifelime bans for other forms of
cheating in cycling? Is that the case?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, no one has a right to race their bike for a living.
Doctors, lawyers, dentists can all lose their license to practice their
profession. Even lowly franchise owners will lose them if convicted of
certain crimes. There are other examples. People get banned from their
industry - forever - everyday for various reasons. Not being allowed to
race professionally for using drugs would be similar.

Doctors, lawyers and dentists and securities professionals are dealing
with other people's lives and money. To elevate pro cyclists to the
same level of impact on the public is laughable. Oh wait, "Pantain
was doping, so his fans are really hurt. Boo hoo."

Disregarding your facetiousness: I should think true fans would be
hurt. Then angry. Then cynical. Then - to the extent the cycle repeats
itself - no longer fans.

So it's confirmed -- you think that if someone cheats in cycling they
should be out forever because it's not right for the fans.

JT

Stewart Fleming said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Quoted message said:

If you stole from your coworkers would you expect your employer to fire you?

Sure. I wouldn't expect to be banned from my industry forever.

What about if you, as a medical professional, engaged in conduct that
was deemed professional malpractice?

What about if you, as a company director, deliberately traded while
insolvent?

It's really really funny to equate cheating in a sport with risking a
patients life or playing with the public's money. You take this way
too seriously. I guess if a clerk at the post office steals a stamp
they should be banned from public service, and if the guy who owns the
bodega down the street overcharges me for milk he should never be
allowed to work in retail?

JT