Is this just and reasonable?

in 520437 20060803 164451 'Bill C said:

So it looks like you can now be banned/excluded for having known /
been associated with, in the past, that has been accused of maybe being
involved in doping.

It's not a matter of being banned or excluded, more one of not being invited.
Surely any event organiser can invite who he likes? No-one has a god-given
right to participate (if they did I'd be driving in the next F1 race).

Bob Martin said:

in 520437 20060803 164451 'Bill C said:

So it looks like you can now be banned/excluded for having known /
been associated with, in the past, that has been accused of maybe being
involved in doping.

It's not a matter of being banned or excluded, more one of not being invited.
Surely any event organiser can invite who he likes? No-one has a god-given
right to participate (if they did I'd be driving in the next F1 race).

So elite events can not invite elite athlete's because they don't
like who they have associated with? That opens the door for every bigot
out there to have a field day. If it's an accredited event, then any
athlete not sanctioned by the GB should be able to do it period.
Discipline needs to come through the system, not individual
predjudices.
Apartheid rules!
Bill C

in 520462 20060803 182628 'Bill C said:

Bob Martin said:

in 520437 20060803 164451 'Bill C said:

So it looks like you can now be banned/excluded for having known /
been associated with, in the past, that has been accused of maybe being
involved in doping.

It's not a matter of being banned or excluded, more one of not being invited.
Surely any event organiser can invite who he likes? No-one has a god-given
right to participate (if they did I'd be driving in the next F1 race).

So elite events can not invite elite athlete's because they don't
like who they have associated with? That opens the door for every bigot
out there to have a field day. If it's an accredited event, then any
athlete not sanctioned by the GB should be able to do it period.
Discipline needs to come through the system, not individual
predjudices.
Apartheid rules!
Bill C

You seem to have forgotten why Ullrich and Basso didn't ride the TdF.
I thought TdF entry had always been by invitation (or not).
Also, international events are not normally organised by bigots.
Why does Marion Jones's absence upset you so?

Bob Martin said:

You seem to have forgotten why Ullrich and Basso didn't ride the TdF.
I thought TdF entry had always been by invitation (or not).
Also, international events are not normally organised by bigots.
Why does Marion Jones's absence upset you so?

I don't give a rat's ass about Marion Jones. It's aboput the principle
of innocent until proven guitly.
I have no beef with Jan's firing because he failed to meet a clearly
specified clause in his contract. It's a technicality, but a huge one.
How about Astana? How about all the stories "clearing" riders now in
the "Operation"?
Looking suspicious, or knowing the "wrong" people is not justification
to penalize someone.
That's a really ugly slippery slope and I object to getting on the
sled.
Bill C

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bob Martin said:

in 520437 20060803 164451 'Bill C said:

So it looks like you can now be banned/excluded for having known /
been associated with, in the past, that has been accused of maybe being
involved in doping.

It's not a matter of being banned or excluded, more one of not being
invited.
Surely any event organiser can invite who he likes? No-one has a
god-given
right to participate (if they did I'd be driving in the next F1 race).

So elite events can not invite elite athlete's because they don't
like who they have associated with? That opens the door for every bigot
out there to have a field day. If it's an accredited event, then any
athlete not sanctioned by the GB should be able to do it period.
Discipline needs to come through the system, not individual
predjudices.
Apartheid rules!
Bill C

Dear friend,

I understand and agree with them.
We call it in France " mesure de sauvegarde " (safeguard attitude) and I am
sure something similar exist in every country.
For example, in the comercial right you can't recuse to sell to someone.
OK ?
However if you have strong reasons for to suspect your buyer to be a
hustler, you can recuse the transaction.
It is why I understant that they recused the invitation to people under
strong suspition of to be cheaters.
It can destroy their reputation.

If in America the public love Marian because his nice smile, for the
Europeans : she is a cheater.

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:51:56 GMT, Bob Martin <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Also, international events are not normally organised by bigots.
Why does Marion Jones's absence upset you so?

Stick the word 'ostensible' or 'ostensibly', I might agree. My
personal experience is that sports has pretty much as many bigots as
non-sport activities and some sports are hot beds of bigotry.

These events are using the IAAF jackpot as part of the promotion and
the Berlin event is excluding AFAIK an IAAF athlete in good standing.
He should announce that he is forgoing the Golden League participation
as well, as he disagrees with their position on the athletes
participating. Instead, he is using both side as publicity - his
denial of participation to Marion Jones and the Golden League jackpot
as a promo. He is IMO a self-serving hypocrite. Whether he is a
bigoted hypercrite only he and perhaps some of his friends would know.

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

Bill C said:

Bob Martin said:

You seem to have forgotten why Ullrich and Basso didn't ride the TdF.
I thought TdF entry had always been by invitation (or not).
Also, international events are not normally organised by bigots.
Why does Marion Jones's absence upset you so?

I don't give a rat's ass about Marion Jones. It's aboput the principle
of innocent until proven guitly.
Bill C

No, Bill, it's not about innocent until proven guilty, either. It's
about professional (key word: professional) being BIG business.

Say you're a promoter of pro track & field events in Europe. You've
worked for years to build your reputation and your events so that you
can compete for and get the big sponsorship dollars AND the big TV
packages. Maybe your event is so big you don't have to pay the
exhorbitant appearance fees that other promoters pay to the athletes in
order to build the prestige of their events. Sure, you pay, but not
through the nose.

You've got an organization of over 100 full time employees who work to
make this happen. You've got thousands more who work the event itself.
You make a nice living as do most of those who work for you.

So, you want to risk losing all that because someone thinks it's unfair
to exclude someone who may bring disrepute on the event. Just like the
Tour organizers do, I'd look at any premier athlete and determine from
a dollars and cents basis whether they were going to likely ADD to, or
DETRACT from, the quality of the event.

I don't fault the promoter one bit for excluding her. He has every
right to protect his investment, and she has none to demand entry to an
invitational event.

Scott said:

No, Bill, it's not about innocent until proven guilty, either. It's
about professional (key word: professional) being BIG business.

Say you're a promoter of pro track & field events in Europe. You've
worked for years to build your reputation and your events so that you
can compete for and get the big sponsorship dollars AND the big TV
packages. Maybe your event is so big you don't have to pay the
exhorbitant appearance fees that other promoters pay to the athletes in
order to build the prestige of their events. Sure, you pay, but not
through the nose.

You've got an organization of over 100 full time employees who work to
make this happen. You've got thousands more who work the event itself.
You make a nice living as do most of those who work for you.

So, you want to risk losing all that because someone thinks it's unfair
to exclude someone who may bring disrepute on the event. Just like the
Tour organizers do, I'd look at any premier athlete and determine from
a dollars and cents basis whether they were going to likely ADD to, or
DETRACT from, the quality of the event.

I don't fault the promoter one bit for excluding her. He has every
right to protect his investment, and she has none to demand entry to an
invitational event.

Ahh, the monopoly that Sandy, and I, so dislike is the answer.

OK, let's throw around some names here of people who've caused ugly
scenes at events. Terrell Owens, Zidane, John Rocker, John McEnroe,
etc... they have all caused major negative scenes at events in the
past so they should be excluded for fear they might cause a problem?
We'd have a real shortage of athletes at the events with that policy,
and Landis would surely have been there had that been the policy and we
know there's no controversy around him.
Bill C

Curtis L. Russell said:

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:51:56 GMT, Bob Martin <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Also, international events are not normally organised by bigots.
Why does Marion Jones's absence upset you so?

Stick the word 'ostensible' or 'ostensibly', I might agree. My
personal experience is that sports has pretty much as many bigots as
non-sport activities and some sports are hot beds of bigotry.

These events are using the IAAF jackpot as part of the promotion and
the Berlin event is excluding AFAIK an IAAF athlete in good standing.
He should announce that he is forgoing the Golden League participation
as well, as he disagrees with their position on the athletes
participating. Instead, he is using both side as publicity - his
denial of participation to Marion Jones and the Golden League jackpot
as a promo. He is IMO a self-serving hypocrite. Whether he is a
bigoted hypercrite only he and perhaps some of his friends would know.

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

Thanks Curtis
The fact that a snactioned meet is denying a sanctioned athlete the
right to compete would seem to me to violate the implied contract
between the athlete and the sanctioning body. That IMO is a two way
contract. The athlete agrees to follow the rules that have been
established or they will be disciplined for the privilege of
participating in that sanctioning body's events. She has not been
suepended by the sanctioning body so IMO there is no right to ban her
from a sanctioned meet.
As you say the GB needs to step up and force them to let her race, or
prosecute her for something.
I really dislike most of the US player unions for their stupidity and
greed, but the events in cycling, and others like this, point out the
need for them to exist and protect the athletes.
Bill C

in 520485 20060803 201535 'Bill C said:

OK, let's throw around some names here of people who've caused ugly
scenes at events. Terrell Owens, Zidane, John Rocker, John McEnroe,
etc... they have all caused major negative scenes at events in the
past so they should be excluded for fear they might cause a problem?

You are completely missing the point that people went to see John McEnroe
BECAUSE he created a scene. The crowd loved it.
The organiser's first responsibility is to his investors, and he carries that out
by attracting and pleasing the spectators. If they don't want to see Marion Jones
then he doesn't invite her.
Why on earth do you think that athletics are run by a different set of rules to
other commercial enterprises?

Bill C said:

OK, let's throw around some names here of people who've caused ugly
scenes at events. Terrell Owens, Zidane, John Rocker, John McEnroe,
etc... they have all caused major negative scenes at events in the
past so they should be excluded for fear they might cause a problem?
We'd have a real shortage of athletes at the events with that policy,
and Landis would surely have been there had that been the policy and we
know there's no controversy around him.

What does the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" have to do
with Marian Jones?

Bill C said:

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/trackandfield/news/story?id=2538181

BERLIN -- Marion Jones will not be invited to the final Golden League
meet in Berlin in September because of her past links with coach Trevor
Graham.

{snip}

Quoted message said:

So it looks like you can now be banned/excluded for having known /
been associated with, in the past, that has been accused of maybe being
involved in doping. I wonder if they'd take the reasoning "I left
because I suspected their methods?" Probably not since this is about
bodycount.
If cycling adopts this it's going to be awfully quiet around here,
since that would eliminate 99% of the riders above low amateur.
"Let the bodies hit the floor!"

I empathize with your moral disquiet, but, like the old saying goes,
"Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas."

It's guilt by association, no doubt, but that can work both ways. I
try to hang out with really ugly, stupid people so I appear more
attractive and intelligent. Unfortunately that means I'm really
scraping the bottom of the barrel...

Maybe Landis should renounce his Mennonite roots, convert to
Catholicism and start hanging out with the Pope. Then he'd be beyond
question, right?

R

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Scott said:

No, Bill, it's not about innocent until proven guilty, either. It's
about professional (key word: professional) being BIG business.

Say you're a promoter of pro track & field events in Europe. You've
worked for years to build your reputation and your events so that you
can compete for and get the big sponsorship dollars AND the big TV
packages. Maybe your event is so big you don't have to pay the
exhorbitant appearance fees that other promoters pay to the athletes in
order to build the prestige of their events. Sure, you pay, but not
through the nose.

You've got an organization of over 100 full time employees who work to
make this happen. You've got thousands more who work the event itself.
You make a nice living as do most of those who work for you.

So, you want to risk losing all that because someone thinks it's unfair
to exclude someone who may bring disrepute on the event. Just like the
Tour organizers do, I'd look at any premier athlete and determine from
a dollars and cents basis whether they were going to likely ADD to, or
DETRACT from, the quality of the event.

I don't fault the promoter one bit for excluding her. He has every
right to protect his investment, and she has none to demand entry to an
invitational event.

Ahh, the monopoly that Sandy, and I, so dislike is the answer.

OK, let's throw around some names here of people who've caused ugly
scenes at events. Terrell Owens, Zidane, John Rocker, John McEnroe,
etc...

They did it, they lost, and I don't remember them calling an army of Lawyers
for to claim they were right.

they have all caused major negative scenes at events in the

Quoted message said:

past so they should be excluded for fear they might cause a problem?
We'd have a real shortage of athletes at the events with that policy,
and Landis would surely have been there had that been the policy and we
know there's no controversy around him.
Bill C

Bob Martin said:

in 520485 20060803 201535 'Bill C said:

OK, let's throw around some names here of people who've caused ugly
scenes at events. Terrell Owens, Zidane, John Rocker, John McEnroe,
etc... they have all caused major negative scenes at events in the
past so they should be excluded for fear they might cause a problem?

You are completely missing the point that people went to see John McEnroe
BECAUSE he created a scene. The crowd loved it.
The organiser's first responsibility is to his investors, and he carries that out
by attracting and pleasing the spectators. If they don't want to see Marion Jones
then he doesn't invite her.
Why on earth do you think that athletics are run by a different set of rules to
other commercial enterprises?

Then if what they are selling is spectacle then open doping is the way
to go. The performances would be incredible and we could bet on who
would die during the race, and you KNOW people would bet on that in a
heartbeat. [censored] package it as a gladiator/rollerball anything goes
sport with the riders wired to the gills and we'd have huge
entertainment.
How about betting on those genetic and mechanical enhancements, [censored]
they could do a pre-season show highlighting the latest technology from
all their chemical, pharmaceutical, and aerospace sponsors.
I'd bet DARPA would jump right in with a government research grant
program for the "Future Soldier" program.
Good stuff.
Bill C

Bob Martin said:

in 520485 20060803 201535 'Bill C said:

OK, let's throw around some names here of people who've caused ugly
scenes at events. Terrell Owens, Zidane, John Rocker, John McEnroe,
etc... they have all caused major negative scenes at events in the
past so they should be excluded for fear they might cause a problem?

You are completely missing the point that people went to see John McEnroe
BECAUSE he created a scene. The crowd loved it.
The organiser's first responsibility is to his investors, and he carries that out
by attracting and pleasing the spectators. If they don't want to see Marion Jones
then he doesn't invite her.
Why on earth do you think that athletics are run by a different set of rules to
other commercial enterprises?

Then if what they are selling is spectacle then open doping is the way
to go. The performances would be incredible and we could bet on who
would die during the race, and you KNOW people would bet on that in a
heartbeat. [censored] package it as a gladiator/rollerball anything goes
sport with the riders wired to the gills and we'd have huge
entertainment.
How about betting on those genetic and mechanical enhancements, [censored]
they could do a pre-season show highlighting the latest technology from
all their chemical, pharmaceutical, and aerospace sponsors.
I'd bet DARPA would jump right in with a government research grant
program for the "Future Soldier" program.
Good stuff.
Bill C

Stu Fleming said:

Bill C said:

OK, let's throw around some names here of people who've caused ugly
scenes at events. Terrell Owens, Zidane, John Rocker, John McEnroe,
etc... they have all caused major negative scenes at events in the
past so they should be excluded for fear they might cause a problem?
We'd have a real shortage of athletes at the events with that policy,
and Landis would surely have been there had that been the policy and we
know there's no controversy around him.

What does the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" have to do
with Marian Jones?

She has never failed a test or been sanctioned, yet she is being
excluded. That's guilty until innocent, or guilt by association. If the
world worked that way I'd be in a major jail for a long time since I've
had lots of friends, and some family who've done some serious, stupid,
and very criminal [censored].
This is one reason that Brian and I butt heads regularly. We're
equally hard headed, but just on slightly different topics and they
aren't mutually exclusive so we still get along well.
I guess you'd say I'm a nutcase on due process, innocent until proven
otherwise, an open and just system, and holding the system to the
highest possible standards to avoid it violating peoples rights and
lives.
Bill C

RicodJour said:

Bill C said:

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/trackandfield/news/story?id=2538181

BERLIN -- Marion Jones will not be invited to the final Golden League
meet in Berlin in September because of her past links with coach Trevor
Graham.

{snip}

Quoted message said:

So it looks like you can now be banned/excluded for having known /
been associated with, in the past, that has been accused of maybe being
involved in doping. I wonder if they'd take the reasoning "I left
because I suspected their methods?" Probably not since this is about
bodycount.
If cycling adopts this it's going to be awfully quiet around here,
since that would eliminate 99% of the riders above low amateur.
"Let the bodies hit the floor!"

I empathize with your moral disquiet, but, like the old saying goes,
"Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas."

It's guilt by association, no doubt, but that can work both ways. I
try to hang out with really ugly, stupid people so I appear more
attractive and intelligent. Unfortunately that means I'm really
scraping the bottom of the barrel...

Maybe Landis should renounce his Mennonite roots, convert to
Catholicism and start hanging out with the Pope. Then he'd be beyond
question, right?

R

or a child molester?
Bill C

Bill C said:

Bob Martin said:

in 520485 20060803 201535 'Bill C said:

OK, let's throw around some names here of people who've caused ugly
scenes at events. Terrell Owens, Zidane, John Rocker, John McEnroe,
etc... they have all caused major negative scenes at events in the
past so they should be excluded for fear they might cause a problem?

You are completely missing the point that people went to see John McEnroe
BECAUSE he created a scene. The crowd loved it.
The organiser's first responsibility is to his investors, and he carries that out
by attracting and pleasing the spectators. If they don't want to see Marion Jones
then he doesn't invite her.
Why on earth do you think that athletics are run by a different set of rules to
other commercial enterprises?

Then if what they are selling is spectacle then open doping is the way
to go. The performances would be incredible

Your finally coming around to my way of thinking

Quoted message said:

and we could bet on who
would die during the race, and you KNOW people would bet on that in a
heartbeat. [censored] package it as a gladiator/rollerball anything goes
sport with the riders wired to the gills and we'd have huge
entertainment.
How about betting on those genetic and mechanical enhancements, [censored]
they could do a pre-season show highlighting the latest technology from
all their chemical, pharmaceutical, and aerospace sponsors.
I'd bet DARPA would jump right in with a government research grant
program for the "Future Soldier" program.
Good stuff.
Bill C

Now that's just silly. I'm sure we can come up with a system of doctor
managed doping that wouldn't create a need for over/under coverage on
TdF deaths.

Oh...that's right...we already have!

Matt