Interesing article on Landis

Simon Brooke said:

So, Floyd, direct appeal.

I haven't heard him use the word dumbass yet.

in message <[email hidden]>, Donald

Munro (') said:

Simon Brooke said:

So, Floyd, direct appeal.

I haven't heard him use the word dumbass yet.

When you're talking about Floyd, isn't it implicit?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and there was nothing left for us to do
but pick up the pieces.

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:00:05 -0400, "Steve" <h90943@hotmaildotcom>

Quoted message said:

Wriittten by an attorney and 1988 Olympic cyclist , Bob Mionske.
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10679.0.html

http://www.bicyclelaw.com/html/index.html

Two things :

1. "Additionally, the UCI announced that Landis' A Sample tested
positive for an exogenous source, again before the required B Sample
test. Although the UCI Rules permit public statements and
identifications statements deemed "appropriate under the
circumstances," the anonymous nature of the statements raises
questions about why the statements were deemed "appropriate under the
circumstances."

Not anonymous, the UCI representative was named.

2. I'm a bit troubled that everyone is taking for granted that the lab
knew it was Landis, I guess McQuaid's stupid comment about leaks
doesn't help with that, but there is absolutely nothing that shows
that the lab knew it was Landis out of the 4 or 5 samples they tested
that day.

Simon Brooke wrote:
:: So, Floyd, direct appeal. If you care for cycling as a sport - if you
:: care for your fellow cyclists at all - don't go down that road.
:: Either show us that you were clean, or take your punishment like a
:: man. Don't wriggle.

And how does Landis prove that he was clean? Is that a simple thing to do?
If not, then why put such a burden on him?

Steve said:

Wriittten by an attorney and 1988 Olympic cyclist , Bob Mionske.
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10679.0.html

http://www.bicyclelaw.com/html/index.html

1992 also.

Simon Brooke said:

So, Floyd, direct appeal. If you care for cycling as a sport - if you
care for your fellow cyclists at all - don't go down that road. Either
show us that you were clean, or take your punishment like a man. Don't
wriggle.

[censored]. It was up to the the powers that be to make sure the test
was done right. If they did not, they are the ones responsible and
culpable. You can't reassemble an egg that is broken to look for the
cracks that might have been there first - Landis can't be expected to
restore enough credibility to the process to then prove innocense or
guilt.

IF Landis demonstrates a failure in the testing system, that is
enough. IF, my boy, if... (to quote Steve McQueen from a movie I have
to watch again this weekend - I'm starting to forget part of the
dialogue.)

I can see it now - a person finds clear fault inthe way evidence is
assembled against him and you would want them to go to jail because
his release would besmirch the justice system.

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

Roger Zoul said:

Simon Brooke wrote:
:: So, Floyd, direct appeal. If you care for cycling as a sport - if you
:: care for your fellow cyclists at all - don't go down that road.
:: Either show us that you were clean, or take your punishment like a
:: man. Don't wriggle.

And how does Landis prove that he was clean? Is that a simple thing to do?
If not, then why put such a burden on him?

It is essentially impossible to prove that negative. He cannot prove he was
clean. Nobody can. What he can do and what he pays his lawyers to do, is to show
that he is not guilty _as_alleged_.

His job is to show that the allegations are inaccurate and/or improper and/or
not to be trusted.

That's all that is possible in his position. This is why the secrecy of UCI,
LNDD and WADA is so wrong. It denies the accused a fair chance at vindication.

Ron

In article <[email hidden]>,

benjo maso said:

As Perry Mason used to say: the so-called "technicalities" are 'simply the
safeguards that the law provides a defendant to prevent a defendant from
being unjustly convicted'.

You've read those books? Fun.

Anyone who bases his idea of Perry Mason on television
shows will receive a pleasant surprise reading some of
these novels. Gardner was admitted to the bar in 1911, and
wrote courtroom scenes based on real law and practice.

--
Michael Press

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

benjo maso said:

As Perry Mason used to say: the so-called "technicalities" are 'simply
the
safeguards that the law provides a defendant to prevent a defendant from
being unjustly convicted'.

You've read those books? Fun.

Anyone who bases his idea of Perry Mason on television
shows will receive a pleasant surprise reading some of
these novels. Gardner was admitted to the bar in 1911, and
wrote courtroom scenes based on real law and practice.

I've never seen the Perry Mason show, but I have read many of those books -
a long time ago - and I liked them a lot.

Benjo

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

benjo maso said:

As Perry Mason used to say: the so-called "technicalities" are 'simply the
safeguards that the law provides a defendant to prevent a defendant from
being unjustly convicted'.

You've read those books? Fun.

Anyone who bases his idea of Perry Mason on television
shows will receive a pleasant surprise reading some of
these novels. Gardner was admitted to the bar in 1911, and
wrote courtroom scenes based on real law and practice.

That would be completely unlike the TV series.

Ron

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 09:16:26 -0400, Curtis L. Russell <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said:

So, Floyd, direct appeal. If you care for cycling as a sport - if you
care for your fellow cyclists at all - don't go down that road. Either
show us that you were clean, or take your punishment like a man. Don't
wriggle.

[censored]. It was up to the the powers that be to make sure the test
was done right. If they did not, they are the ones responsible and
culpable. You can't reassemble an egg that is broken to look for the
cracks that might have been there first - Landis can't be expected to
restore enough credibility to the process to then prove innocense or
guilt.

IF Landis demonstrates a failure in the testing system, that is
enough. IF, my boy, if... (to quote Steve McQueen from a movie I have
to watch again this weekend - I'm starting to forget part of the
dialogue.)

I don't recognize the line. Which one is it?

Ron

Quoted message said:

Good information. I think there are a lot of people who think that these
are minor technicalities but the reason they are so important is to
ensure the samples have not been deliberately fixed. Why else would
someone in the lab want to know whose sample it is. There is no
reasonable explanation other than to presume tampering.
Having said that, I don't know if this is the situation with Floyd.

Right, I don't know who made up that story about the lab being aware
it was Floyd's sample "A"that was positive. If it's true though that
should be pretty easy to prove for Landis and his lawyers. Just call
the LNDD guys under oath and that's the end of it.

Again, I think McQuaid's stupid statement about the UCI coming out to
avoid a leak by the LNDD was only likely a hint that they might say
that a test came back positive IF asked as they are apparently not
forbidden to do.

In article <[email hidden]>,

RonSonic said:

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

benjo maso said:

As Perry Mason used to say: the so-called "technicalities" are 'simply the
safeguards that the law provides a defendant to prevent a defendant from
being unjustly convicted'.

You've read those books? Fun.

Anyone who bases his idea of Perry Mason on television
shows will receive a pleasant surprise reading some of
these novels. Gardner was admitted to the bar in 1911, and
wrote courtroom scenes based on real law and practice.

That would be completely unlike the TV series.

The early years where almost all based on the books. But
they eventually ran out....

They did have Gardner at hand as a script consultant, so
at least they kept to the format.. but it was kind of hard
to get all of the interesting bits into the 42-44 minutes
they had available. I still think the early years where
the best.

On the other hand, the "Perry Mason" movies made after
Gardner died bore little or no relationship to either
the TV shows (well except they had Raymond Burr etc..)
or the books. Simply awful.

Keith said:

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:00:05 -0400, "Steve" <h90943@hotmaildotcom>

Quoted message said:

Wriittten by an attorney and 1988 Olympic cyclist , Bob Mionske.
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10679.0.html

http://www.bicyclelaw.com/html/index.html

Two things :

1. "Additionally, the UCI announced that Landis' A Sample tested
positive for an exogenous source, again before the required B Sample
test. Although the UCI Rules permit public statements and
identifications statements deemed "appropriate under the
circumstances," the anonymous nature of the statements raises
questions about why the statements were deemed "appropriate under the
circumstances."

Not anonymous, the UCI representative was named.

2. I'm a bit troubled that everyone is taking for granted that the lab
knew it was Landis, I guess McQuaid's stupid comment about leaks
doesn't help with that, but there is absolutely nothing that shows
that the lab knew it was Landis out of the 4 or 5 samples they tested
that day.

When all of this exists in a system where none of the partners trust
each other (UCI, WADA, the lab), one could argue they should not be
testing anyone, eh?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Two things :

1. "Additionally, the UCI announced that Landis' A Sample tested
positive for an exogenous source, again before the required B Sample
test. Although the UCI Rules permit public statements and
identifications statements deemed "appropriate under the
circumstances," the anonymous nature of the statements raises
questions about why the statements were deemed "appropriate under the
circumstances."

Not anonymous, the UCI representative was named.

2. I'm a bit troubled that everyone is taking for granted that the lab
knew it was Landis, I guess McQuaid's stupid comment about leaks
doesn't help with that, but there is absolutely nothing that shows
that the lab knew it was Landis out of the 4 or 5 samples they tested
that day.

When all of this exists in a system where none of the partners trust
each other (UCI, WADA, the lab), one could argue they should not be
testing anyone, eh?

It certainly is scary to think that McQuaid could have induldged in
that kind of [censored]...still let's wait for Landis and his team to prove
that someone at the lab knew it was his sample and quit the innuendo.

Keith said:

Quoted message said:

Good information. I think there are a lot of people who think that these
are minor technicalities but the reason they are so important is to
ensure the samples have not been deliberately fixed. Why else would
someone in the lab want to know whose sample it is. There is no
reasonable explanation other than to presume tampering.
Having said that, I don't know if this is the situation with Floyd.

Right, I don't know who made up that story about the lab being aware
it was Floyd's sample "A"that was positive. If it's true though that
should be pretty easy to prove for Landis and his lawyers. Just call
the LNDD guys under oath and that's the end of it.

Again, I think McQuaid's stupid statement about the UCI coming out to
avoid a leak by the LNDD was only likely a hint that they might say
that a test came back positive IF asked as they are apparently not
forbidden to do.

I think this has to rank as the dumbest thing McQuaid's done since he
took the reins at UCI.

~bob

RonSonic said:

Roger Zoul said:

Simon Brooke wrote:
:: So, Floyd, direct appeal. If you care for cycling as a sport - if you
:: care for your fellow cyclists at all - don't go down that road.
:: Either show us that you were clean, or take your punishment like a
:: man. Don't wriggle.

And how does Landis prove that he was clean? Is that a simple thing to do?
If not, then why put such a burden on him?

It is essentially impossible to prove that negative. He cannot prove he was
clean. Nobody can. What he can do and what he pays his lawyers to do, is to show
that he is not guilty _as_alleged_.

His job is to show that the allegations are inaccurate and/or improper and/or
not to be trusted.

That's all that is possible in his position. This is why the secrecy of UCI,
LNDD and WADA is so wrong. It denies the accused a fair chance at vindication.

Ron

This is a broken process that's screaming to be fixed.

~bob

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:30:09 GMT, [email hidden] (Stuart

Lynne) said:

The early years where almost all based on the books. But
they eventually ran out....

<snip>

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, the "Perry Mason" movies made after
Gardner died bore little or no relationship to either
the TV shows (well except they had Raymond Burr etc..)
or the books. Simply awful.

That parallels the James Bond situation as well. Dr. No and From
Russia with Love followed Fleming's books very closely. By the time
they got to Diamonds Are Forever and The Spy Who Loved Me, the only
them common to the books and the movies were the titles.

Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx
Home: http://davidclary.com

Dave Clary said:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:30:09 GMT, [email hidden] (Stuart

Lynne) said:

The early years where almost all based on the books. But
they eventually ran out....

<snip>

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, the "Perry Mason" movies made after
Gardner died bore little or no relationship to either
the TV shows (well except they had Raymond Burr etc..)
or the books. Simply awful.

That parallels the James Bond situation as well. Dr. No and From
Russia with Love followed Fleming's books very closely. By the time
they got to Diamonds Are Forever and The Spy Who Loved Me, the only
them common to the books and the movies were the titles.

Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx
Home: http://davidclary.com

It'll be interesting to see how closely 'Casino Royale' follows
the book.

~bob