Lance The Hacker

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why do you make feel confident making the assumption that someone who
cannot be trusted to follow lab/UCI rules, and in fact has *not* followed
those rules, hasn't interfered in the "legal proess?" This is what I find
so surprising. The people working in the lab shouldn't act like they're
part of the punishment process. Because they're not. They're part of the
evidence-finding process. And that's ALL. Rules are set up that govern
how that evidence is dealt with. Rules that are not being followed. The
implication is that people working in the lab have an agenda that is not
part of the lab's charter, and that, to many, makes their work suspect.

You're right of course that people working in the lab shouldn't act like
they're part of the punishment process (or is it proess?). But they are
also human, making moral judgments, and perhaps breaking rules when
they're thinking justice isn't done. Quite laudable in some cases, quite
condemnable in others.

I think you let people off too easily. It's one thing to practice civil (or
even willful) disobedience, and understand there are likely negative
consequences to your actions. It's another thing entirely when you're
apparently allowed to break the RULES with no fear of action. Could be this
is something harder to understand in the US, where it would be very easy to
fire someone over such an infraction, vs France?

In any event, I find it hard to make a case for such a thing being "quite
laudable" unless there's a likelihood that a legit positive isn't going to
go anywhere for political reasons. Far as I know, that's not been the
situation. Nobody's shown evidence that people at the lab are being paid to
ignore positive results.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also not sure what you're saying about the evidence being inadmissible.
Are you saying that, due to the errors, somebody knew the results
wouldn't stand up, and so leaked them to gain public support for a
finding of guilt?

It was inadmissible because of the chain of custody, etc., etc., etc., -
discussed a least a thousand times in this newsgroup.

Agreed, no need to rehash that.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> In general, we (western society, the part of the world that you & I
> represent) try to separate the police from those who enforce judgement.
> Heck, we'll even be so timid as to put a jury and judge in-between the
> two. There are very good reasons for doing so.

Sure, it would be completely objectionable if the man (or men) who
leaked the information would have interfered in the legal priocess. But
of course that was not te case.

Why do you make feel confident making the assumption that someone who
cannot be trusted to follow lab/UCI rules, and in fact has *not* followed
those rules, hasn't interfered in the "legal proess?" This is what I find
so surprising. The people working in the lab shouldn't act like they're
part of the punishment process. Because they're not. They're part of the
evidence-finding process. And that's ALL. Rules are set up that govern
how that evidence is dealt with. Rules that are not being followed. The
implication is that people working in the lab have an agenda that is not
part of the lab's charter, and that, to many, makes their work suspect.

You're right of course that people working in the lab shouldn't act like
they're part of the punishment process (or is it proess?). But they are
also human, making moral judgments, and perhaps breaking rules when
they're thinking justice isn't done. Quite laudable in some cases, quite
condemnable in others.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

After all, the culprit(s) might have thought the evidence was been
completely convincing, he (or they) must have known that it was
completely inadmissible. And by the way, I'm not defending the
culprit(s), I'm only arguing that it would be too easy to call the leak
simply `unethical'.

I'm lost on that last paragraph. Not sure if you're supporting the case
for it being unethical or the opposite.

I only said that it's not a simple matter of ethical vs.unethical, but
both parties might convinced that they are morally right. I'm not judging
whcih of them is right or wrong.

Quoted message said:

Also not sure what you're saying about the evidence being inadmissible.
Are you saying that, due to the errors, somebody knew the results
wouldn't stand up, and so leaked them to gain public support for a
finding of guilt?

It was inadmissible because of the chain of custody, etc., etc., etc., -
discussed a least a thousand times in this newsgroup.

Benjo

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In general, we (western society, the part of the world that you & I
represent) try to separate the police from those who enforce judgement.
Heck, we'll even be so timid as to put a jury and judge in-between the
two. There are very good reasons for doing so.

Sure, it would be completely objectionable if the man (or men) who leaked
the information would have interfered in the legal priocess. But of course
that was not te case.

Why do you make feel confident making the assumption that someone who cannot
be trusted to follow lab/UCI rules, and in fact has *not* followed those
rules, hasn't interfered in the "legal proess?" This is what I find so
surprising. The people working in the lab shouldn't act like they're part of
the punishment process. Because they're not. They're part of the
evidence-finding process. And that's ALL. Rules are set up that govern how
that evidence is dealt with. Rules that are not being followed. The
implication is that people working in the lab have an agenda that is not
part of the lab's charter, and that, to many, makes their work suspect.

I blame CSI. ;-D

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

After all, the culprit(s) might have thought the evidence was been
completely convincing, he (or they) must have known that it was completely
inadmissible. And by the way, I'm not defending the culprit(s), I'm only
arguing that it would be too easy to call the leak simply `unethical'.

I'm lost on that last paragraph. Not sure if you're supporting the case for
it being unethical or the opposite. Also not sure what you're saying about
the evidence being inadmissible. Are you saying that, due to the errors,
somebody knew the results wouldn't stand up, and so leaked them to gain
public support for a finding of guilt?

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

> Breaking a rule doesn't have to be unethical. It's quite possible that
> the man who leaked the results was morally outraged that a man of whom
> he was convinced that he was cheating and lying, was making millions and
> presented himself as a paragon of honesty and sincerety. He might have
> thought it would be ethically in the public interest that the truth was
> revealed. If that's the case, you might still be convinced that the
> obligation to keep the samples secret was morally of prior importance,
> but that doesn't mean that his point of view was unethical.

Is the lab's role to discover evidence, or to prosecute the guilty? I
would have serious issues with a lab whose employees feel that it's their
primary job to bring people down, rather than provide evidence of guilt
or innocence.

In general, we (western society, the part of the world that you & I
represent) try to separate the police from those who enforce judgement.
Heck, we'll even be so timid as to put a jury and judge in-between the
two. There are very good reasons for doing so.

Sure, it would be completely objectionable if the man (or men) who leaked
the information would have interfered in the legal priocess. But of course
that was not te case. After all, the culprit(s) might have thought the
evidence was been completely convincing, he (or they) must have known that
it was completely inadmissible. And by the way, I'm not defending the
culprit(s), I'm only arguing that it would be too easy to call the leak
simply `unethical'.

Benjo

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why do you make feel confident making the assumption that someone who
cannot be trusted to follow lab/UCI rules, and in fact has *not*
followed those rules, hasn't interfered in the "legal proess?" This is
what I find so surprising. The people working in the lab shouldn't act
like they're part of the punishment process. Because they're not.
They're part of the evidence-finding process. And that's ALL. Rules are
set up that govern how that evidence is dealt with. Rules that are not
being followed. The implication is that people working in the lab have
an agenda that is not part of the lab's charter, and that, to many,
makes their work suspect.

You're right of course that people working in the lab shouldn't act like
they're part of the punishment process (or is it proess?). But they are
also human, making moral judgments, and perhaps breaking rules when
they're thinking justice isn't done. Quite laudable in some cases, quite
condemnable in others.

I think you let people off too easily. It's one thing to practice civil
(or even willful) disobedience, and understand there are likely negative
consequences to your actions. It's another thing entirely when you're
apparently allowed to break the RULES with no fear of action. Could be
this is something harder to understand in the US, where it would be very
easy to fire someone over such an infraction, vs France?

Benjo's point is well taken. With an ethical motive, a person can violate a
rule they were otherwise bound to obey. This is why we have whistle blower
stautes (sadly, the too often don't protect against retailiation) protect
people in government who act ethically in the face of misconduct they have
discovered.

Quoted message said:

In any event, I find it hard to make a case for such a thing being "quite
laudable" unless there's a likelihood that a legit positive isn't going to
go anywhere for political reasons. Far as I know, that's not been the
situation. Nobody's shown evidence that people at the lab are being paid
to ignore positive results.

Speaking truth to a lie is not only importent, it is ethically admirable.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also not sure what you're saying about the evidence being inadmissible.
Are you saying that, due to the errors, somebody knew the results
wouldn't stand up, and so leaked them to gain public support for a
finding of guilt?

It was inadmissible because of the chain of custody, etc., etc., etc., -
discussed a least a thousand times in this newsgroup.

Agreed, no need to rehash that.

Wrong. It is not admissable because no charge can be brought retroactively
under the doping rules as presently written. Hence there is no forum for
seeking admission and making objection thereto. For all we know, the chain
of custody may well be completely intact.

Quoted message said:

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

>> In general, we (western society, the part of the world that you & I
>> represent) try to separate the police from those who enforce
>> judgement. Heck, we'll even be so timid as to put a jury and judge
>> in-between the two. There are very good reasons for doing so.
>
>
> Sure, it would be completely objectionable if the man (or men) who
> leaked the information would have interfered in the legal priocess. But
> of course that was not te case.

Why do you make feel confident making the assumption that someone who
cannot be trusted to follow lab/UCI rules, and in fact has *not*
followed those rules, hasn't interfered in the "legal proess?" This is
what I find so surprising. The people working in the lab shouldn't act
like they're part of the punishment process. Because they're not.
They're part of the evidence-finding process. And that's ALL. Rules are
set up that govern how that evidence is dealt with. Rules that are not
being followed. The implication is that people working in the lab have
an agenda that is not part of the lab's charter, and that, to many,
makes their work suspect.

You're right of course that people working in the lab shouldn't act like
they're part of the punishment process (or is it proess?). But they are
also human, making moral judgments, and perhaps breaking rules when
they're thinking justice isn't done. Quite laudable in some cases, quite
condemnable in others.

Quoted message said:

>After all, the culprit(s) might have thought the evidence was been
>completely convincing, he (or they) must have known that it was
>completely inadmissible. And by the way, I'm not defending the
>culprit(s), I'm only arguing that it would be too easy to call the leak
>simply `unethical'.

I'm lost on that last paragraph. Not sure if you're supporting the case
for it being unethical or the opposite.

I only said that it's not a simple matter of ethical vs.unethical, but
both parties might convinced that they are morally right. I'm not judging
whcih of them is right or wrong.

Quoted message said:

Also not sure what you're saying about the evidence being inadmissible.
Are you saying that, due to the errors, somebody knew the results
wouldn't stand up, and so leaked them to gain public support for a
finding of guilt?

It was inadmissible because of the chain of custody, etc., etc., etc., -
discussed a least a thousand times in this newsgroup.

Benjo

In article <[email hidden]>,

benjo maso said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> In general, we (western society, the part of the world that you & I
> represent) try to separate the police from those who enforce judgement.
> Heck, we'll even be so timid as to put a jury and judge in-between the
> two. There are very good reasons for doing so.

Sure, it would be completely objectionable if the man (or men) who leaked
the information would have interfered in the legal priocess. But of
course that was not te case.

Why do you make feel confident making the assumption that someone who
cannot be trusted to follow lab/UCI rules, and in fact has *not* followed
those rules, hasn't interfered in the "legal proess?" This is what I find
so surprising. The people working in the lab shouldn't act like they're
part of the punishment process. Because they're not. They're part of the
evidence-finding process. And that's ALL. Rules are set up that govern how
that evidence is dealt with. Rules that are not being followed. The
implication is that people working in the lab have an agenda that is not
part of the lab's charter, and that, to many, makes their work suspect.

You're right of course that people working in the lab shouldn't act like
they're part of the punishment process (or is it proess?). But they are
also human, making moral judgments, and perhaps breaking rules when they're
thinking justice isn't done. Quite laudable in some cases, quite condemnable
in others.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

After all, the culprit(s) might have thought the evidence was been
completely convincing, he (or they) must have known that it was completely
inadmissible. And by the way, I'm not defending the culprit(s), I'm only
arguing that it would be too easy to call the leak simply `unethical'.

I'm lost on that last paragraph. Not sure if you're supporting the case
for it being unethical or the opposite.

I only said that it's not a simple matter of ethical vs.unethical, but both
parties might convinced that they are morally right. I'm not judging whcih
of them is right or wrong.

It is not morals, or ethics or right&wrong or how
somebody felt. Somebody gave his word to keep data
confidential, then broke his word. Fair is fair. Punish
the dopers and punish the rogues in the laboratory. Not
in private but publicly so justice can be seen to be
done. Or else they can stop preaching at me about
doping.

--
Michael Press

In article
<[email hidden]>,

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Why do you make feel confident making the assumption that someone who
> cannot be trusted to follow lab/UCI rules, and in fact has *not*
> followed those rules, hasn't interfered in the "legal proess?" This is
> what I find so surprising. The people working in the lab shouldn't act
> like they're part of the punishment process. Because they're not.
> They're part of the evidence-finding process. And that's ALL. Rules are
> set up that govern how that evidence is dealt with. Rules that are not
> being followed. The implication is that people working in the lab have
> an agenda that is not part of the lab's charter, and that, to many,
> makes their work suspect.

You're right of course that people working in the lab shouldn't act like
they're part of the punishment process (or is it proess?). But they are
also human, making moral judgments, and perhaps breaking rules when
they're thinking justice isn't done. Quite laudable in some cases, quite
condemnable in others.

I think you let people off too easily. It's one thing to practice civil
(or even willful) disobedience, and understand there are likely negative
consequences to your actions. It's another thing entirely when you're
apparently allowed to break the RULES with no fear of action. Could be
this is something harder to understand in the US, where it would be very
easy to fire someone over such an infraction, vs France?

Benjo's point is well taken. With an ethical motive, a person can violate a
rule they were otherwise bound to obey. This is why we have whistle blower
stautes (sadly, the too often don't protect against retailiation) protect
people in government who act ethically in the face of misconduct they have
discovered.

They did not blow the whistle on the lab. They divulged
information they promised to keep confidential in order
to smear someone else. Try to keep this straight. That
is called corruption. The laboratory is meant to find
on physical evidence. Their charter does not include
bringing charges.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

benjo maso said:

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

Quoted message said:

>>In general, we (western society, the part of the world that you & I
>>represent) try to separate the police from those who enforce judgement.
>>Heck, we'll even be so timid as to put a jury and judge in-between the
>>two. There are very good reasons for doing so.
>
>
>Sure, it would be completely objectionable if the man (or men) who leaked
>the information would have interfered in the legal priocess. But of
>course that was not te case.

Why do you make feel confident making the assumption that someone who
cannot be trusted to follow lab/UCI rules, and in fact has *not* followed
those rules, hasn't interfered in the "legal proess?" This is what I find
so surprising. The people working in the lab shouldn't act like they're
part of the punishment process. Because they're not. They're part of the
evidence-finding process. And that's ALL. Rules are set up that govern how
that evidence is dealt with. Rules that are not being followed. The
implication is that people working in the lab have an agenda that is not
part of the lab's charter, and that, to many, makes their work suspect.

You're right of course that people working in the lab shouldn't act like
they're part of the punishment process (or is it proess?). But they are
also human, making moral judgments, and perhaps breaking rules when they're
thinking justice isn't done. Quite laudable in some cases, quite condemnable
in others.

Quoted message said:

>After all, the culprit(s) might have thought the evidence was been

Quoted message said:

>completely convincing, he (or they) must have known that it was completely
>inadmissible. And by the way, I'm not defending the culprit(s), I'm only
>arguing that it would be too easy to call the leak simply `unethical'.

I'm lost on that last paragraph. Not sure if you're supporting the case
for it being unethical or the opposite.

I only said that it's not a simple matter of ethical vs.unethical, but both
parties might convinced that they are morally right. I'm not judging whcih
of them is right or wrong.

It is not morals, or ethics or right&wrong or how
somebody felt. Somebody gave his word to keep data
confidential, then broke his word. Fair is fair. Punish
the dopers and punish the rogues in the laboratory. Not
in private but publicly so justice can be seen to be
done. Or else they can stop preaching at me about
doping.

Other than the Lance case, in which it is unclear that the person who
leaked the info knew it even related to Lance....when has a lab "leaked"
information.

The UCI and WADA is free to use a different lab if it doesn't like
anything it does. And if cyclists don't like these labs, they should
sue the labs or ask the UCI to divest from WADA. But apparently
Armstrong has elected not to sue the lab for these leaks. I wonder why.

Thanks,

Magilla

In article <[email hidden]>,

MagillaGorilla said:

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

benjo maso said:

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

>>>In general, we (western society, the part of the world that you & I
>>>represent) try to separate the police from those who enforce judgement.
>>>Heck, we'll even be so timid as to put a jury and judge in-between the
>>>two. There are very good reasons for doing so.
>>
>>
>>Sure, it would be completely objectionable if the man (or men) who leaked
>>the information would have interfered in the legal priocess. But of
>>course that was not te case.
>
>Why do you make feel confident making the assumption that someone who
>cannot be trusted to follow lab/UCI rules, and in fact has *not* followed
>those rules, hasn't interfered in the "legal proess?" This is what I find
>so surprising. The people working in the lab shouldn't act like they're
>part of the punishment process. Because they're not. They're part of the
>evidence-finding process. And that's ALL. Rules are set up that govern how
>that evidence is dealt with. Rules that are not being followed. The
>implication is that people working in the lab have an agenda that is not
>part of the lab's charter, and that, to many, makes their work suspect.

You're right of course that people working in the lab shouldn't act like
they're part of the punishment process (or is it proess?). But they are
also human, making moral judgments, and perhaps breaking rules when they're
thinking justice isn't done. Quite laudable in some cases, quite condemnable
in others.

>>After all, the culprit(s) might have thought the evidence was been

>>completely convincing, he (or they) must have known that it was completely
>>inadmissible. And by the way, I'm not defending the culprit(s), I'm only
>>arguing that it would be too easy to call the leak simply `unethical'.
>
>I'm lost on that last paragraph. Not sure if you're supporting the case
>for it being unethical or the opposite.

I only said that it's not a simple matter of ethical vs.unethical, but both
parties might convinced that they are morally right. I'm not judging whcih
of them is right or wrong.

It is not morals, or ethics or right&wrong or how
somebody felt. Somebody gave his word to keep data
confidential, then broke his word. Fair is fair. Punish
the dopers and punish the rogues in the laboratory. Not
in private but publicly so justice can be seen to be
done. Or else they can stop preaching at me about
doping.

Other than the Lance case, in which it is unclear that the person who
leaked the info knew it even related to Lance....when has a lab "leaked"
information.

The UCI and WADA is free to use a different lab if it doesn't like
anything it does. And if cyclists don't like these labs, they should
sue the labs or ask the UCI to divest from WADA. But apparently
Armstrong has elected not to sue the lab for these leaks. I wonder why.

Because he is not big enough to take on a whole
country? What is in it for him? Not everybody is smart
enough to choose his battles. Armstrong is.

An athletic competition is won on the playing field.
Leave it there. First across the line wins; no
take-backs or do-overs. If I want legal drama I will
watch Court TV and politicians's antics.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

MagillaGorilla said:

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"benjo maso" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>news:[email hidden]...
>
>
>>>>In general, we (western society, the part of the world that you & I
>>>>represent) try to separate the police from those who enforce judgement.
>>>>Heck, we'll even be so timid as to put a jury and judge in-between the
>>>>two. There are very good reasons for doing so.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sure, it would be completely objectionable if the man (or men) who leaked
>>>the information would have interfered in the legal priocess. But of
>>>course that was not te case.
>>
>>Why do you make feel confident making the assumption that someone who
>>cannot be trusted to follow lab/UCI rules, and in fact has *not* followed
>>those rules, hasn't interfered in the "legal proess?" This is what I find
>>so surprising. The people working in the lab shouldn't act like they're
>>part of the punishment process. Because they're not. They're part of the
>>evidence-finding process. And that's ALL. Rules are set up that govern how
>>that evidence is dealt with. Rules that are not being followed. The
>>implication is that people working in the lab have an agenda that is not
>>part of the lab's charter, and that, to many, makes their work suspect.
>
>You're right of course that people working in the lab shouldn't act like
>they're part of the punishment process (or is it proess?). But they are
>also human, making moral judgments, and perhaps breaking rules when they're
>thinking justice isn't done. Quite laudable in some cases, quite condemnable
>in others.
>
>
>>>After all, the culprit(s) might have thought the evidence was been
>
>>>completely convincing, he (or they) must have known that it was completely
>>>inadmissible. And by the way, I'm not defending the culprit(s), I'm only
>>>arguing that it would be too easy to call the leak simply `unethical'.
>>
>>I'm lost on that last paragraph. Not sure if you're supporting the case
>>for it being unethical or the opposite.
>
>I only said that it's not a simple matter of ethical vs.unethical, but both
>parties might convinced that they are morally right. I'm not judging whcih
>of them is right or wrong.

It is not morals, or ethics or right&wrong or how
somebody felt. Somebody gave his word to keep data
confidential, then broke his word. Fair is fair. Punish
the dopers and punish the rogues in the laboratory. Not
in private but publicly so justice can be seen to be
done. Or else they can stop preaching at me about
doping.

Other than the Lance case, in which it is unclear that the person who
leaked the info knew it even related to Lance....when has a lab "leaked"
information.

The UCI and WADA is free to use a different lab if it doesn't like
anything it does. And if cyclists don't like these labs, they should
sue the labs or ask the UCI to divest from WADA. But apparently
Armstrong has elected not to sue the lab for these leaks. I wonder why.

Because he is not big enough to take on a whole
country? What is in it for him? Not everybody is smart
enough to choose his battles. Armstrong is.

Take on a whole country? What are you talking about?

Quoted message said:

An athletic competition is won on the playing field.
Leave it there. First across the line wins; no
take-backs or do-overs. If I want legal drama I will
watch Court TV and politicians's antics.

Wrong - athletic competitions are won and lost in the lab and with the
dope tests all the time.

Magilla

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

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

>> Why do you make feel confident making the assumption that someone who
>> cannot be trusted to follow lab/UCI rules, and in fact has *not*
>> followed those rules, hasn't interfered in the "legal proess?" This
>> is
>> what I find so surprising. The people working in the lab shouldn't
>> act
>> like they're part of the punishment process. Because they're not.
>> They're part of the evidence-finding process. And that's ALL. Rules
>> are
>> set up that govern how that evidence is dealt with. Rules that are
>> not
>> being followed. The implication is that people working in the lab
>> have
>> an agenda that is not part of the lab's charter, and that, to many,
>> makes their work suspect.
>
> You're right of course that people working in the lab shouldn't act
> like
> they're part of the punishment process (or is it proess?). But they
> are
> also human, making moral judgments, and perhaps breaking rules when
> they're thinking justice isn't done. Quite laudable in some cases,
> quite
> condemnable in others.

I think you let people off too easily. It's one thing to practice civil
(or even willful) disobedience, and understand there are likely
negative
consequences to your actions. It's another thing entirely when you're
apparently allowed to break the RULES with no fear of action. Could be
this is something harder to understand in the US, where it would be
very
easy to fire someone over such an infraction, vs France?

Benjo's point is well taken. With an ethical motive, a person can
violate a
rule they were otherwise bound to obey. This is why we have whistle
blower
stautes (sadly, the too often don't protect against retailiation)
protect
people in government who act ethically in the face of misconduct they
have
discovered.

They did not blow the whistle on the lab. They divulged
information they promised to keep confidential in order
to smear someone else. Try to keep this straight. That
is called corruption. The laboratory is meant to find
on physical evidence. Their charter does not include
bringing charges.

My comment was not directed toward the issue of anyone working for the
French lab. WB statutes was merely given as an illustrative example.

Quoted message said:

--
Michael Press

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is not morals, or ethics or right&wrong or how
somebody felt. Somebody gave his word to keep data
confidential, then broke his word. Fair is fair. Punish
the dopers and punish the rogues in the laboratory. Not
in private but publicly so justice can be seen to be
done. Or else they can stop preaching at me about
doping.

At law we have the doctrine of Necessity. There are times when breaking
rules is justified. It isn't a simple either/or as Benjo attempted to
explain to you.

Quoted message said:

--
Michael Press

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Breaking a rule doesn't have to be unethical. It's quite possible that

the

Quoted message said:

man who leaked the results was morally outraged that a man of whom he was
convinced that he was cheating and lying, was making millions and
presented himself as a paragon of honesty and sincerety. He might have
thought it would be ethically in the public interest that the truth was
revealed. If that's the case, you might still be convinced that the
obligation to keep the samples secret was morally of prior importance,
but that doesn't mean that his point of view was unethical.

Benjo

It's an issue of trust.
Labs should do what labs do, without extending their role. Anyone who
violates that trust should be removed.
People's livelihoods are being impacted by shoddy ethics, then
organizations paper over the cracks and still expect the death penalty.
A sportsman's career is not a public interest issue.

And sportsmen/sportswomen should do what they have agreed to do--compete
clean. Welcome to the gray world.

Quoted message said:

A quote from a magistrate I knew. "The public may be interested, but that
doesn't mean it's in the public interest."

Different issue.

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

Quoted message said:

I think you let people off too easily. It's one thing to practice civil
(or even willful) disobedience, and understand there are likely negative
consequences to your actions. It's another thing entirely when you're
apparently allowed to break the RULES with no fear of action. Could be
this is something harder to understand in the US, where it would be very
easy to fire someone over such an infraction, vs France?

Benjo's point is well taken. With an ethical motive, a person can violate a
rule they were otherwise bound to obey. This is why we have whistle blower
stautes (sadly, the too often don't protect against retailiation) protect
people in government who act ethically in the face of misconduct they have
discovered.

Quoted message said:

In any event, I find it hard to make a case for such a thing being "quite
laudable" unless there's a likelihood that a legit positive isn't going to
go anywhere for political reasons. Far as I know, that's not been the
situation. Nobody's shown evidence that people at the lab are being paid
to ignore positive results.

Speaking truth to a lie is not only importent, it is ethically admirable.

There is a worthwhile distinction to be drawn between:
1) an individual who exposes the lies of an institution or
corporate entiity - which is what whistleblowers are, and
what people usually mean when they talk about speaking
truth to power. Versus:
2) an institution or corporate entity that exposes the lies
of an individual. This is usually called "criminal prosecution,"
or occasionally "WADA/CAS proceeding" or the like. Outside
of criminal prosecution and para-judicial entities like CAS, it's
usually called "vindictive."

I'm sure there's legal doctrine on this. The individual who leaked
test results was likely acting as an individual, but the notable
failure of anyone in power such as the LNDD director to be upset
leads to a degree of institutional responsibility, or at least loss
of credibility.

To give another example, if I co-signed a newspaper ad that said
"As scientists, we believe President Bush's inaction on global
warming kills babies and puppies" and listed my institutional
affiliation, I would have to add a disclaimer like "Affiliation listed
for identification purposes only" to cover my institution's
collective ass. Even if the scientific consensus wholly supported
that GWB's inaction on global warming kills babies and puppies.

In any case, we've gone regrettably far from the OP's topic: are
they really investigating LANCE's activities in 2005? Are they
serious about linking him to the Mystery Hacker? Don't confuse
Blackberry-thumb with actual hacking ability. Yet wouldn't a guy as
rich as LANCE be able to come up with some better "forged"
e-mails?

Ben
Speaking irony to power

Quoted message said:

In any case, we've gone regrettably far from the OP's topic: are
they really investigating LANCE's activities in 2005? Are they
serious about linking him to the Mystery Hacker?

Ben
Speaking irony to power

From last Friday's Le Monde:
"Lance Armstrong est accusé d'avoir piraté plusieurs ordinateurs privés:
Betsy Andreu, l'épouse d'un ex-ami et équipier du coureur, a déposé une
plainte en 2005 et a exposé ses soupçons lors d'une procédure judiciaire.
Les enquêteurs français n'ont pas encore retrouvé la trace du pirate qui
s'est introduit dans le système informatique du Laboratoire antidopage
(LNDD)"

Robert
speaking power to irony

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In any case, we've gone regrettably far from the OP's topic: are

they really investigating LANCE's activities in 2005? Are they
serious about linking him to the Mystery Hacker? Don't confuse
Blackberry-thumb with actual hacking ability. Yet wouldn't a guy as
rich as LANCE be able to come up with some better "forged"
e-mails?

Ben
Speaking irony to power

Placing a program on ones computer to track keystrokes is easy to do and is
often done in matrimonial disputes. Hacking into most email accounts is not
difficult either. With the right hardware and software it's really child's
play. Even Kunich could do it. :-) Hope that brings him back.

B. Lafferty said:

<[email hidden]> wrote :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In any case, we've gone regrettably far from the OP's topic: are

they really investigating LANCE's activities in 2005? Are they
serious about linking him to the Mystery Hacker? Don't confuse
Blackberry-thumb with actual hacking ability. Yet wouldn't a guy as
rich as LANCE be able to come up with some better "forged"
e-mails?

Placing a program on ones computer to track keystrokes is easy to do and is
often done in matrimonial disputes. Hacking into most email accounts is not
difficult either. With the right hardware and software it's really child's
play. Even Kunich could do it. :-) Hope that brings him back.

If you have physical access to a computer (which I guess is the
case in most matrimonial disputes) I agree it is hard to secure
without extreme measures. Installing a keylogger or exploiting
passwords saved in a browser should be trivial in insecure
systems given access to the computer. Even though I run a secure
OS, any fool could 0wn me by stealing my laptop, removing the
(unencrypted) hard drive, and mounting it on a computer to which
they had root access. At least, that's how _I_ would do it. I can't
speak for KUN1CH2600, though.

However, hacking remote computers is somewhat harder. I thought
Betsy Andreu's fear of LANCE the Hacker was one of her less credible
accusations. Individual Windows machines are notoriously
vulnerable, but one might hope the LNDD mail server is hosted
on something a little better.

LANCE is rich enough to hire all the hackers he wants (maybe that's
where KUN1CH went?) but I don't think he's dumb enough to actually
do that and leave a trail.

Ben

email hidden said:

B. Lafferty said:

<[email hidden]> wrote :

Quoted message said:

> In any case, we've gone regrettably far from the OP's topic: are
they really investigating LANCE's activities in 2005? Are they
serious about linking him to the Mystery Hacker? Don't confuse
Blackberry-thumb with actual hacking ability. Yet wouldn't a guy as
rich as LANCE be able to come up with some better "forged"
e-mails?

Placing a program on ones computer to track keystrokes is easy to do and is
often done in matrimonial disputes. Hacking into most email accounts is not
difficult either. With the right hardware and software it's really child's
play. Even Kunich could do it. :-) Hope that brings him back.

If you have physical access to a computer (which I guess is the
case in most matrimonial disputes) I agree it is hard to secure
without extreme measures. Installing a keylogger or exploiting
passwords saved in a browser should be trivial in insecure
systems given access to the computer. Even though I run a secure
OS, any fool could 0wn me by stealing my laptop, removing the
(unencrypted) hard drive, and mounting it on a computer to which
they had root access. At least, that's how _I_ would do it. I can't
speak for KUN1CH2600, though.

However, hacking remote computers is somewhat harder. I thought
Betsy Andreu's fear of LANCE the Hacker was one of her less credible
accusations. Individual Windows machines are notoriously
vulnerable, but one might hope the LNDD mail server is hosted
on something a little better.

LANCE is rich enough to hire all the hackers he wants (maybe that's
where KUN1CH went?) but I don't think he's dumb enough to actually
do that and leave a trail.

Ben

Good Post. IMO, the remote system would have to be a *nix based OS in order
to be able to find a trail. I'm unaware of a Windoze machine that can do
more than very crude tracking, say through ZA.

Most hacking involves some trivial but important social engineering,
letting the hacker get an account name and/or even a password. Thus it's
not that easy to hack into a network, and it has to be done from a machine
running, typically, Linux. If the network isn't that secure, one might get
a script to get in.

LA is more an email guy, uses the blackberry a lot. If he's hiring a hacker
then he's gonna get someone good, not some amateur who would leave a trail,
no? Lots of guessing, but that's my take.

On 11/28/06 6:19 AM, in article
[email hidden], "B. Lafferty"

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In any case, we've gone regrettably far from the OP's topic: are

they really investigating LANCE's activities in 2005? Are they
serious about linking him to the Mystery Hacker? Don't confuse
Blackberry-thumb with actual hacking ability. Yet wouldn't a guy as
rich as LANCE be able to come up with some better "forged"
e-mails?

Ben
Speaking irony to power

Placing a program on ones computer to track keystrokes is easy to do and is
often done in matrimonial disputes. Hacking into most email accounts is not
difficult either. With the right hardware and software it's really child's
play. Even Kunich could do it. :-) Hope that brings him back.

You are assuming physical access to the computer.

Add to it that 50%+ of people do not use a password for their account which
99% of the time is an account with administrator privileges........

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

Even though I run a secure
OS, any fool could 0wn me by stealing my laptop, removing the
(unencrypted) hard drive, and mounting it on a computer to which
they had root access. At least, that's how _I_ would do it.

Did Judith Regan co-write that post?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard Kveck said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

Even though I run a secure
OS, any fool could 0wn me by stealing my laptop, removing the
(unencrypted) hard drive, and mounting it on a computer to which
they had root access. At least, that's how _I_ would do it.

Did Judith Regan co-write that post?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

He saw his kids 6 times in 2006!

B. Lafferty said:

Quoted message said:

Placing a program on ones computer to track keystrokes is easy to do and is
often done in matrimonial disputes. Hacking into most email accounts is not
difficult either. With the right hardware and software it's really child's
play. Even Kunich could do it. :-) Hope that brings him back.

ST said:

You are assuming physical access to the computer.
Add to it that 50%+ of people do not use a password for their account which
99% of the time is an account with administrator privileges........

You are assuming Windoze, although I seem to recall the original Windoze
Neanderthal Technology did force passwords but that feature was removed
from XP (what is XP an acronym for ?).