"Jim Flom " <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:6DU0f.2991$ir4.14@edtnps90...
Quoted message said:"Bob Schwartz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:Somebody said:Which "scientific protocols" were breached by the Maybray lab's
research?
Dude, at your age you really ought to be able to find your own
[information]. You really shouldn't have to ask other people to point
it out for you.
Bob 'Hug for Bri' Schwartz
Somebody musta overlooked this, from pro cycling...
McQuaid said ... "If we expect athletes to follow ethical lines we all
have
to do the same," he said. "In this case the protocols were not followed so
we cannot look at sanctions."
Those are procedural testing protocals. The question I asked you above is
what scientific protocols were violated by the Mabry lab? None of the
riders who tested positive face any possible sanction. That has nothing to
do with the science involved.
Quoted message said:
Amusing too is McQuaid's characterization of those who see conflict of
interest where Lance has funded the UCI:
"I don't think there is any connection with it [the investigation]. If
someone has provided assistance in the fight against doping, that doesn't
prejudice the independence of the UCI in the anti-doping fight," McQuaid
told The Guardian. "Certain people might perceive it as [a conflict of
interest], but intelligent people wouldn't."
Well, intelligent people will disagree on that. The SF Weekly article
discussed here earlier addressed that issue quite well. But you might want
to consider the following even though it deals with public officials and
elected members of government.:
http://www.transparency.org/working_papers/carney/1-rationale.html#public-interest
An Absolute Obligation
For legislators, ministers or officials to decide a matter even partly on
the basis that it will benefit his or her private interests is to betray the
trust of the people. The decision must be made solely on the basis that it
is in the best interests of society. For to allow any other consideration,
may result in a decision other than that most appropriate in the public
interest. The primary test is subjective, that is, one which the politician
or official must apply personally according to his or her own conscience.
But even if this test is satisfied, there is also an objective assessment to
be made. Might the decision be viewed by the people as one made other than
solely on the basis of their welfare? This must also be considered by the
legislator, minister or official but unlike the subjective test, the
ultimate judgement on this issue rests with the people. Why must this be so?
The reason is public confidence. The people are entitled to feel confident
that their power or sovereignty is being exercised for their benefit. For,
as the famous American counsel, Archibald Cox, has noted, the stability of
government rests on the maintenance of public confidence:
Both a free society and a democratic government require a high degree of
public confidence in the integrity of those chosen to govern.
This confidence can be easily eroded by the appearance of a conflict of
interest. For this reason, the ethical requirement for legislators,
ministers and officials is to avoid both actual, potential and apparent
conflicts of interest.
At times the requirement to avoid apparent conflicts of interest appears
unfair and harsh, especially when abused by political opponents. Yet a
politician or official who creates the appearance of a conflict of interest
is simply inviting the closer inspection of his or her motives. It is a
self-imposed vulnerability. Unless the appearance can be dispelled by the
politician or official, they risk the political consequences of assumed
unethical behaviour. The appearance of a conflict of interest is, in other
words, one of the hazards of the game of politics. Its avoidance becomes one
of the rules of the game when the objective of the game is the pursuit
solely of the public interest.
Quoted message said:
Good call, Curtis.
JF
--
http://spaces.msn.com/members/flomblog/
