Road Cycling · Public discussion

JUST SAY NO !!!

Started by Sandy · · Last activity · 5 posts · 198 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Road Cycling
Published
22 June 2007
Last activity
22 June 2007
Original author
Sandy
Posts
5
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
198
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–5 of 5
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. As did the ACCPI, today.

    http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/20070622_130327Dev.html

    The kettle is getting hot.

    --
    "Le Vin est la plus saine et la plus hygiénique des boissons."
    - Louis Pasteur

  2. Sandy said:

    As did the ACCPI, today.

    http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/20070622_130327Dev.html

    «il est arrivé que ce soit les équipes qui imposent aux coureurs le
    soi-disant dopage d'équipe. Seulement, selon l'UCI, c'est toujours et
    seulement le coureur qui doit payer..»

  3. Quoted message said:
    Sandy said:

    As did the ACCPI, today.

    Quoted message said:

    http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/20070622_130327Dev.html

    «il est arrivé que ce soit les équipes qui imposent aux coureurs le
    soi-disant dopage d'équipe. Seulement, selon l'UCI, c'est toujours et
    seulement le coureur qui doit payer..»

    The whole idea is so stupid. I suspect the idjit lawyer who suggested
    it lifted the idea from a facetious (or fascist) posting on a
    newsgroup.

    R

  4. RicodJour said:
    Quoted message said:

    On Jun 22, 1:39 pm, "Sandy" <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    As did the ACCPI, today.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/20070622_130327Dev.html

    Quoted message said:

    «il est arrivé que ce soit les équipes qui imposent aux coureurs le
    soi-disant dopage d'équipe. Seulement, selon l'UCI, c'est toujours et
    seulement le coureur qui doit payer..»

    The whole idea is so stupid. I suspect the idjit lawyer who suggested
    it lifted the idea from a facetious (or fascist) posting on a
    newsgroup.

    R

    I hope it was not a lawyer who suggested the idea in the first place.
    As far as contracts go, this paper will not hold up in any court, and
    a lawyer should know this.
    But it will certainly generate a Landis-sized legal battle the first
    time a rider who signed it gets caught.
    And yes, one of them will get caught sooner or later.
    Generating a lot of work for lawyers involved.
    Meaning that maybe it _was_ a lawyer who suggested it after all...

    But that basically sums my opinion about it:
    It's a lame PR initiative before the upcoming tour.
    And it will force more riders into legal battles.
    Instead of the situation we had before:
    "I took the stuff, I got caught, I accept my 6 months suspesion over
    the winter pause, see you next year, etc"
    we will see even more of Landis, Tyler & Co who deny everything,
    because the financial threshold to come clean has increased.

  5. Sandy said:

    As did the ACCPI, today.

    http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/20070622_130327Dev.html

    The kettle is getting hot.

    --
    "Le Vin est la plus saine et la plus hygiénique des boissons."
    - Louis Pasteur

    Tee, Hee

    I thought yesterday that that might happen

    But the thread got all firked up with some Spartacus character

    --
    Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.