This is the Time for the Truth

pete said:

Floyd, you could still be a hero if you just tell the truth. That's all
we can hope to believe in. This world is too full of [censored]. If
you're guilty, come clean, and the sport will be better for it.

Agreed. I've tentatively lost a lot of respect for Floyd. If his B
sample comes back good, then great. However, I doubt that will
happen. But if he were to come clean and tell the truth, I'd be
willing to forgive almost everything (short of letting him keep his
trophy, of course). But it could do wonders for the sport.

-Bryan

--
remove the "REMOVE" from my email to email

Ditto (for the most part).

But it's not enough to just admit to taking it. You have to completely
spill the beans. Name the names (all of them). Tell the world the
whole story about the systematic doping in the peloton. How the teams
foster it, provide underground sources for doping products, how the use
is masked and the tests beaten, etc. And yes, you'll have to talk
about the goings-on at Postal too. Floyd, you could be the guy who
writes the book that everyone will buy. It's probably the last
significant dollars you can earn in your life.

Lance's ego is obviously too big to do anything like this, but Floyd,
you appear to at least have some degree of humility. Use it.

Hamilton stuck to his ridiculous story and look at him now. He's just
some Boulder nutjob who goes out and trains all day for absolutely no
good reason at all. Is that what you want to be? The guy we all laugh
at and call "Alcohol Boy" (ala "Chimera Boy"😉?

"Bryan K. Walton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

pete said:

Floyd, you could still be a hero if you just tell the truth. That's all
we can hope to believe in. This world is too full of [censored]. If
you're guilty, come clean, and the sport will be better for it.

Agreed. I've tentatively lost a lot of respect for Floyd. If his B
sample comes back good, then great. However, I doubt that will
happen. But if he were to come clean and tell the truth, I'd be
willing to forgive almost everything (short of letting him keep his
trophy, of course). But it could do wonders for the sport.

Maybe the A sample is not his and the B sample will return negative.
Wouldn't that be great? This leads me to ask, what if you are out of [censored]
and can not provide a B sample? Can they wait for some water to get through
your system? Could a cheater say he is out of pee and drink as much water
as possible trying to dilute the results? All interesting questions that
need to be answered in the RBR FAQ.

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

Quoted message said:

Floyd, you could still be a hero if you just tell the truth. That's all
we can hope to believe in. This world is too full of [censored]. If
you're guilty, come clean, and the sport will be better for it. Perhaps
Ivan and Jan would be inclined to join you.

I love my bike.

Is one David Millar not more than enough?

Benjo

pete said:

Floyd, you could still be a hero if you just tell the truth. That's all
we can hope to believe in. This world is too full of [censored]. If
you're guilty, come clean, and the sport will be better for it. Perhaps
Ivan and Jan would be inclined to join you.

I love my bike.

It would be more efficient to tie heavy rocks to him and toss him in
the river. If he floats, he's guilty; and if he drowns, then your
assumptions were incorrect. Either way, move on to the next accused
doper. The Inquisition's procedures included demonstrating the
instruments of torture to a victim to encourage confession, perhaps a
variation on this would be helpful.

There may in fact be cases where people who declare their innocence are
truthful. If you are willing to accept the UCI/WADA/CAS verdicts (and
there are those not so inclined) why is it an issue for you if the
accused maintains his stance?

Wayne

pete said:

Floyd, you could still be a hero if you just tell the truth. That's all
we can hope to believe in. This world is too full of [censored]. If
you're guilty, come clean, and the sport will be better for it. Perhaps
Ivan and Jan would be inclined to join you.

I love my bike.

It would be more efficient to tie heavy rocks to him and toss him in
the river. If he floats, he's guilty; and if he drowns, then your
assumptions were incorrect. Either way, move on to the next accused
doper. The Inquisition's procedures included demonstrating the
instruments of torture to a victim to encourage confession, perhaps a
variation on this would be helpful.

There may in fact be cases where people who declare their innocence are
truthful. If you are willing to accept the UCI/WADA/CAS verdicts (and
there are those not so inclined) why is it an issue for you if the
accused maintains his stance?

Wayne

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

Quoted message said:

pete said:

Floyd, you could still be a hero if you just tell the truth. That's all
we can hope to believe in. This world is too full of [censored]. If
you're guilty, come clean, and the sport will be better for it. Perhaps
Ivan and Jan would be inclined to join you.

I love my bike.

It would be more efficient to tie heavy rocks to him and toss him in
the river. If he floats, he's guilty; and if he drowns, then your
assumptions were incorrect. Either way, move on to the next accused
doper. The Inquisition's procedures included demonstrating the
instruments of torture to a victim to encourage confession, perhaps a
variation on this would be helpful.

There may in fact be cases where people who declare their innocence are
truthful. If you are willing to accept the UCI/WADA/CAS verdicts (and
there are those not so inclined) why is it an issue for you if the
accused maintains his stance?

For the same reason that you have more respect to some one who apologize
when he did something wrong.
For the same reason that helping the justice to find the cheaters he help
the sport he said to love so much.

Quoted message said:

Wayne

routebere said:

This leads me to ask, what if you are out of [censored]
and can not provide a B sample? Can they wait for some water to get through
your system? Could a cheater say he is out of pee and drink as much water
as possible trying to dilute the results? All interesting questions that
need to be answered in the RBR FAQ.

On the Horner diaries on Velonews, Horner mentioned that he was picked
for a random test on one stage, a stage where he relieved himself
somewhere near the end. He had to wait 2 hours until he could pee
enough for the test and he lamented that that interfered with his
recovery process. So I guess a real pro would save some pee for the
end.

Joe

routebere said:

"Bryan K. Walton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

pete said:

Floyd, you could still be a hero if you just tell the truth. That's all
we can hope to believe in. This world is too full of [censored]. If
you're guilty, come clean, and the sport will be better for it.

Agreed. I've tentatively lost a lot of respect for Floyd. If his B
sample comes back good, then great. However, I doubt that will
happen. But if he were to come clean and tell the truth, I'd be
willing to forgive almost everything (short of letting him keep his
trophy, of course). But it could do wonders for the sport.

Maybe the A sample is not his and the B sample will return negative.
Wouldn't that be great? This leads me to ask, what if you are out of [censored]
and can not provide a B sample? Can they wait for some water to get through
your system? Could a cheater say he is out of pee and drink as much water
as possible trying to dilute the results? All interesting questions that
need to be answered in the RBR FAQ.

Doubtful that the B sample will be negative. They divide the A sample
into smaller samples and test all of those samples before arriving at a
determination of a positive result. By the time they even start testing
the B sample, there is already a strong trend. This is why Floyd has
already said he expects the B sample to come back positive. He knows
damn well what they do in the testing process already. They all do.

And they do not ask you to pee again. They merely divide the sample
into two containers. One marked "A" and the other marked "B". Should
you arrive at the testing site with no ability to pee, the guy will
just say to you "Den vee vil vait!" (and you shall).

Drinking water will not dilute anything, because they are usually
testing the actual metabolites that end up in your urine (not the
concentration of the metabolites within it). Also remember, they now
take blood samples too. It aint all about the urine.

The most classic event was Belgian sprinter Michael Pollentier, who
once arrived at doping control with a squeeze bulb/hose contraption
attached to his [censored]. Not knowing that the officals would actually
watch him drop 'trou and pee right in front of them, he was caught
red-handed. (Claimed he was only joking). He retired almost
immediately afterwards.

Montesquiou said:

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

Quoted message said:

pete said:

Floyd, you could still be a hero if you just tell the truth. That's all
we can hope to believe in. This world is too full of [censored]. If
you're guilty, come clean, and the sport will be better for it. Perhaps
Ivan and Jan would be inclined to join you.

I love my bike.

It would be more efficient to tie heavy rocks to him and toss him in
the river. If he floats, he's guilty; and if he drowns, then your
assumptions were incorrect. Either way, move on to the next accused
doper. The Inquisition's procedures included demonstrating the
instruments of torture to a victim to encourage confession, perhaps a
variation on this would be helpful.

There may in fact be cases where people who declare their innocence are
truthful. If you are willing to accept the UCI/WADA/CAS verdicts (and
there are those not so inclined) why is it an issue for you if the
accused maintains his stance?

For the same reason that you have more respect to some one who apologize
when he did something wrong.
For the same reason that helping the justice to find the cheaters he help
the sport he said to love so much.

Quoted message said:

Wayne

My point remains the same. You and the original poster want confession
even when the accused knows he is innocent. I fail to see the benefit
to him or to the sport with a confession in that case. And I am
puzzled why those who are convinced of guilt care? Criminal juries
don't work this way .. unless they are not deeply persuaded their
verdict was correct, I suppose.

Again the Inquisition comes to mind. We'll torture Person A, or
threaten him, in part because we want him to implicate others. The
truth isn't of any importance, all that remains is the demonstration by
whatever means that those doing the accusations and judgment are "in
the right."

Wayne

Wayne

Wayne said:

My point remains the same. You and the original poster want confession
even when the accused knows he is innocent. I fail to see the benefit
to him or to the sport with a confession in that case. And I am
puzzled why those who are convinced of guilt care? Criminal juries
don't work this way .. unless they are not deeply persuaded their
verdict was correct, I suppose.

Again the Inquisition comes to mind. We'll torture Person A, or
threaten him, in part because we want him to implicate others.

Makes you wonder about Millar's confession, after 48 hours of ...
whatever police can do in 48 hours.

pete said:

Floyd, you could still be a hero if you just tell the truth.

That sentence presumes that he hasn't bee telling the truth - that he
is lying.

Quoted message said:

That's all
we can hope to believe in. This world is too full of [censored].

I'm sure that will change very soon. Stick around and hold your
breath.

Quoted message said:

If
you're guilty, come clean, and the sport will be better for it. Perhaps
Ivan and Jan would be inclined to join you.

Sure. Let's all hold hands and sing Kum Ba Yah.

Quoted message said:

I love my bike.

Sigh. Is this to be the year of the never-ending-July?

R

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

Montesquiou said:

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

Quoted message said:

pete said:

Floyd, you could still be a hero if you just tell the truth. That's all
we can hope to believe in. This world is too full of [censored]. If
you're guilty, come clean, and the sport will be better for it. Perhaps
Ivan and Jan would be inclined to join you.

I love my bike.

It would be more efficient to tie heavy rocks to him and toss him in
the river. If he floats, he's guilty; and if he drowns, then your
assumptions were incorrect. Either way, move on to the next accused
doper. The Inquisition's procedures included demonstrating the
instruments of torture to a victim to encourage confession, perhaps a
variation on this would be helpful.

There may in fact be cases where people who declare their innocence are
truthful. If you are willing to accept the UCI/WADA/CAS verdicts (and
there are those not so inclined) why is it an issue for you if the
accused maintains his stance?

For the same reason that you have more respect to some one who apologize
when he did something wrong.
For the same reason that helping the justice to find the cheaters he help
the sport he said to love so much.

Quoted message said:

Wayne

My point remains the same. You and the original poster want confession
even when the accused knows he is innocent. I fail to see the benefit
to him or to the sport with a confession in that case. And I am
puzzled why those who are convinced of guilt care? Criminal juries
don't work this way .. unless they are not deeply persuaded their
verdict was correct, I suppose.

*****

For me it is not enough to say " I did not do it".
Unless you want to change the rules : against evidence, there is no
argument.

The result of the Lab's test is an evidence.

******

Again the Inquisition comes to mind. We'll torture Person A, or
threaten him, in part because we want him to implicate others. The
truth isn't of any importance, all that remains is the demonstration by
whatever means that those doing the accusations and judgment are "in
the right."

Wayne

Wayne

Quoted message said:

Ditto (for the most part).

But it's not enough to just admit to taking it. You have to completely
spill the beans. Name the names (all of them). Tell the world the
whole story about the systematic doping in the peloton.

He could do that, but then the peloton would have to kill him.

How the teams

Quoted message said:

foster it, provide underground sources for doping products, how the use
is masked and the tests beaten, etc. And yes, you'll have to talk
about the goings-on at Postal too. Floyd, you could be the guy who
writes the book that everyone will buy. It's probably the last
significant dollars you can earn in your life.

Lance's ego is obviously too big to do anything like this, but Floyd,
you appear to at least have some degree of humility. Use it.

Hamilton stuck to his ridiculous story and look at him now. He's just
some Boulder nutjob who goes out and trains all day for absolutely no
good reason at all. Is that what you want to be? The guy we all laugh
at and call "Alcohol Boy" (ala "Chimera Boy"😉?

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

Quoted message said:

routebere said:

"Bryan K. Walton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 2006-08-02, pete <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Floyd, you could still be a hero if you just tell the truth. That's
> all
> we can hope to believe in. This world is too full of [censored]. If
> you're guilty, come clean, and the sport will be better for it.

Agreed. I've tentatively lost a lot of respect for Floyd. If his B
sample comes back good, then great. However, I doubt that will
happen. But if he were to come clean and tell the truth, I'd be
willing to forgive almost everything (short of letting him keep his
trophy, of course). But it could do wonders for the sport.

Maybe the A sample is not his and the B sample will return negative.
Wouldn't that be great? This leads me to ask, what if you are out of
[censored]
and can not provide a B sample? Can they wait for some water to get
through
your system? Could a cheater say he is out of pee and drink as much
water
as possible trying to dilute the results? All interesting questions that
need to be answered in the RBR FAQ.

Doubtful that the B sample will be negative. They divide the A sample
into smaller samples and test all of those samples before arriving at a
determination of a positive result. By the time they even start testing
the B sample, there is already a strong trend. This is why Floyd has
already said he expects the B sample to come back positive. He knows
damn well what they do in the testing process already. They all do.

And they do not ask you to pee again. They merely divide the sample
into two containers. One marked "A" and the other marked "B". Should
you arrive at the testing site with no ability to pee, the guy will
just say to you "Den vee vil vait!" (and you shall).

Drinking water will not dilute anything, because they are usually
testing the actual metabolites that end up in your urine (not the
concentration of the metabolites within it). Also remember, they now
take blood samples too. It aint all about the urine.

The most classic event was Belgian sprinter Michael Pollentier, who
once arrived at doping control with a squeeze bulb/hose contraption
attached to his [censored]. Not knowing that the officals would actually
watch him drop 'trou and pee right in front of them, he was caught
red-handed. (Claimed he was only joking).

It wasn't his fault that he got caught. As he said immediately afterwards:
"There was suddenly a new doctor." Apperently the man before was a little
bit more reasonable.

Quoted message said:

He retired almost immediately afterwards.

He retired only after six years...

Benjo

Montesquiou said:

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

Montesquiou said:

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

Quoted message said:

pete wrote:
> Floyd, you could still be a hero if you just tell the truth. That's all
> we can hope to believe in. This world is too full of [censored]. If
> you're guilty, come clean, and the sport will be better for it. Perhaps
> Ivan and Jan would be inclined to join you.
>
> I love my bike.

It would be more efficient to tie heavy rocks to him and toss him in
the river. If he floats, he's guilty; and if he drowns, then your
assumptions were incorrect. Either way, move on to the next accused
doper. The Inquisition's procedures included demonstrating the
instruments of torture to a victim to encourage confession, perhaps a
variation on this would be helpful.

There may in fact be cases where people who declare their innocence are
truthful. If you are willing to accept the UCI/WADA/CAS verdicts (and
there are those not so inclined) why is it an issue for you if the
accused maintains his stance?

For the same reason that you have more respect to some one who apologize
when he did something wrong.
For the same reason that helping the justice to find the cheaters he help
the sport he said to love so much.

Quoted message said:

Wayne

My point remains the same. You and the original poster want confession
even when the accused knows he is innocent. I fail to see the benefit
to him or to the sport with a confession in that case. And I am
puzzled why those who are convinced of guilt care? Criminal juries
don't work this way .. unless they are not deeply persuaded their
verdict was correct, I suppose.

*****

For me it is not enough to say " I did not do it".
Unless you want to change the rules : against evidence, there is no
argument.

The result of the Lab's test is an evidence.

******

Again the Inquisition comes to mind. We'll torture Person A, or
threaten him, in part because we want him to implicate others. The
truth isn't of any importance, all that remains is the demonstration by
whatever means that those doing the accusations and judgment are "in
the right."

Wayne

Wayne

One last attempt -- use whatever procedures are in place, or which you
choose, to determine guilt. If you wish, put your faith in those
procedures and remain comfortable with their consequences.

But -why- then insist that the victim -- or, if you prefer, "guilty
party" -- agrees with you? The sole party to the case who knows with
absolute certainty of guilt or innocence must be made to recant?

Wayne

Wayne said:

Montesquiou said:

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

Montesquiou said:

"Wayne" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
> pete wrote:
>> Floyd, you could still be a hero if you just tell the truth. That's all
>> we can hope to believe in. This world is too full of [censored]. If
>> you're guilty, come clean, and the sport will be better for it. Perhaps
>> Ivan and Jan would be inclined to join you.
>>
>> I love my bike.
>
> It would be more efficient to tie heavy rocks to him and toss him in
> the river. If he floats, he's guilty; and if he drowns, then your
> assumptions were incorrect. Either way, move on to the next accused
> doper. The Inquisition's procedures included demonstrating the
> instruments of torture to a victim to encourage confession, perhapsa
> variation on this would be helpful.
>
> There may in fact be cases where people who declare their innocenceare
> truthful. If you are willing to accept the UCI/WADA/CAS verdicts (and
> there are those not so inclined) why is it an issue for you if the
> accused maintains his stance?
>

For the same reason that you have more respect to some one who apologize
when he did something wrong.
For the same reason that helping the justice to find the cheaters he help
the sport he said to love so much.

> Wayne
>

My point remains the same. You and the original poster want confession
even when the accused knows he is innocent. I fail to see the benefit
to him or to the sport with a confession in that case. And I am
puzzled why those who are convinced of guilt care? Criminal juries
don't work this way .. unless they are not deeply persuaded their
verdict was correct, I suppose.

*****

For me it is not enough to say " I did not do it".
Unless you want to change the rules : against evidence, there is no
argument.

The result of the Lab's test is an evidence.

******

Again the Inquisition comes to mind. We'll torture Person A, or
threaten him, in part because we want him to implicate others. The
truth isn't of any importance, all that remains is the demonstration by
whatever means that those doing the accusations and judgment are "in
the right."

Wayne

Wayne

One last attempt -- use whatever procedures are in place, or which you
choose, to determine guilt. If you wish, put your faith in those
procedures and remain comfortable with their consequences.

But -why- then insist that the victim -- or, if you prefer, "guilty
party" -- agrees with you?

It's called integrity.

The sole party to the case who knows with

Quoted message said:

absolute certainty of guilt or innocence must be made to recant?

Wayne

benjo maso said:

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

Quoted message said:

routebere said:

"Bryan K. Walton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On 2006-08-02, pete <[email hidden]> wrote:
> > Floyd, you could still be a hero if you just tell the truth. That's
> > all
> > we can hope to believe in. This world is too full of [censored]. If
> > you're guilty, come clean, and the sport will be better for it.
>
> Agreed. I've tentatively lost a lot of respect for Floyd. If his B
> sample comes back good, then great. However, I doubt that will
> happen. But if he were to come clean and tell the truth, I'd be
> willing to forgive almost everything (short of letting him keep his
> trophy, of course). But it could do wonders for the sport.

Maybe the A sample is not his and the B sample will return negative.
Wouldn't that be great? This leads me to ask, what if you are out of
[censored]
and can not provide a B sample? Can they wait for some water to get
through
your system? Could a cheater say he is out of pee and drink as much
water
as possible trying to dilute the results? All interesting questions that
need to be answered in the RBR FAQ.

Doubtful that the B sample will be negative. They divide the A sample
into smaller samples and test all of those samples before arriving at a
determination of a positive result. By the time they even start testing
the B sample, there is already a strong trend. This is why Floyd has
already said he expects the B sample to come back positive. He knows
damn well what they do in the testing process already. They all do.

And they do not ask you to pee again. They merely divide the sample
into two containers. One marked "A" and the other marked "B". Should
you arrive at the testing site with no ability to pee, the guy will
just say to you "Den vee vil vait!" (and you shall).

Drinking water will not dilute anything, because they are usually
testing the actual metabolites that end up in your urine (not the
concentration of the metabolites within it). Also remember, they now
take blood samples too. It aint all about the urine.

The most classic event was Belgian sprinter Michael Pollentier, who
once arrived at doping control with a squeeze bulb/hose contraption
attached to his [censored]. Not knowing that the officals would actually
watch him drop 'trou and pee right in front of them, he was caught
red-handed. (Claimed he was only joking).

It wasn't his fault that he got caught. As he said immediately afterwards:
"There was suddenly a new doctor." Apperently the man before was a little
bit more reasonable.

Quoted message said:

He retired almost immediately afterwards.

He retired only after six years...

Benjo

Michel Pollentier rode a Coor's Classic for 7-Eleven before he retired.

Bret

Andre said:

Wayne said:

Montesquiou said:

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

Montesquiou wrote:
> "Wayne" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
> [email hidden]...
> > pete wrote:
> >> Floyd, you could still be a hero if you just tell the truth. That's all
> >> we can hope to believe in. This world is too full of [censored]. If
> >> you're guilty, come clean, and the sport will be better for it. Perhaps
> >> Ivan and Jan would be inclined to join you.
> >>
> >> I love my bike.
> >
> > It would be more efficient to tie heavy rocks to him and toss himin
> > the river. If he floats, he's guilty; and if he drowns, then your
> > assumptions were incorrect. Either way, move on to the next accused
> > doper. The Inquisition's procedures included demonstrating the
> > instruments of torture to a victim to encourage confession, perhaps a
> > variation on this would be helpful.
> >
> > There may in fact be cases where people who declare their innocence are
> > truthful. If you are willing to accept the UCI/WADA/CAS verdicts(and
> > there are those not so inclined) why is it an issue for you if the
> > accused maintains his stance?
> >
>
> For the same reason that you have more respect to some one who apologize
> when he did something wrong.
> For the same reason that helping the justice to find the cheaters he help
> the sport he said to love so much.
>
>
> > Wayne
> >

My point remains the same. You and the original poster want confession
even when the accused knows he is innocent. I fail to see the benefit
to him or to the sport with a confession in that case. And I am
puzzled why those who are convinced of guilt care? Criminal juries
don't work this way .. unless they are not deeply persuaded their
verdict was correct, I suppose.

*****

For me it is not enough to say " I did not do it".
Unless you want to change the rules : against evidence, there is no
argument.

The result of the Lab's test is an evidence.

******

Again the Inquisition comes to mind. We'll torture Person A, or
threaten him, in part because we want him to implicate others. The
truth isn't of any importance, all that remains is the demonstration by
whatever means that those doing the accusations and judgment are "in
the right."

Wayne

Wayne

One last attempt -- use whatever procedures are in place, or which you
choose, to determine guilt. If you wish, put your faith in those
procedures and remain comfortable with their consequences.

But -why- then insist that the victim -- or, if you prefer, "guilty
party" -- agrees with you?

It's called integrity.

The sole party to the case who knows with

Quoted message said:

absolute certainty of guilt or innocence must be made to recant?

Wayne

I promised I wouldn't do this, but ..

You have someone you believe to be a cheat and a liar, and now want to
see him display integrity?

I don't think so.

My guess is the insistence on confession is to make the accusers feel
better and to help them "prove" pre-conceived notions. Medievalism
triumphant.

W.