Schleck off the hook while 'bad boy' Boonen gets roasted

finchy

dennisn wrote:

This is where you and I part company, so to speak. Show me where it says that because he rides a bicycle fairly well that he HAS to tell "cycling fans" anything about
his private life or public one for that matter. He is not answerable to you any more than you are answerable to him. If he wanted it to be your business he would have told you.
Just like if I started asking you personal questions you might tell me to "get lost" at the very least. Where you guys get the idea that these people OWE YOU explanations,
details of their lives, apologies, glimpses into their personal and business goings on, and the like is beyond me. It's none of your business just like yours is none of theirs.

Dennis Noward

I wouldn't expect him to tell me anything about his family, his pets, his education or anything else that is personal. But there's a difference between those private things and the question of whether he has or hasn't doped (or attempted to).

Take this analogy - if a business stood accused of ripping off its customers, would it not owe the customers an explanation? Because that is what doping is - conning the public. We give up our time and money to see a sport, and sportsmen and women should be answerable where any potential infringement of the rules takes place.

finchy

dennisn wrote:

This is where you and I part company, so to speak. Show me where it says that because he rides a bicycle fairly well that he HAS to tell "cycling fans" anything about
his private life or public one for that matter. He is not answerable to you any more than you are answerable to him. If he wanted it to be your business he would have told you.
Just like if I started asking you personal questions you might tell me to "get lost" at the very least. Where you guys get the idea that these people OWE YOU explanations,
details of their lives, apologies, glimpses into their personal and business goings on, and the like is beyond me. It's none of your business just like yours is none of theirs.

Dennis Noward

I wouldn't expect him to tell me anything about his family, his pets, his education or anything else that is personal. But there's a difference between those private things and the question of whether he has or hasn't doped (or attempted to).

Take this analogy - if a business stood accused of ripping off its customers, would it not owe the customers an explanation? Because that is what doping is - conning the public. We give up our time and money to see a sport, and sportsmen and women should be answerable where any potential infringement of the rules takes place.

finchy

dennisn wrote:

This is where you and I part company, so to speak. Show me where it says that because he rides a bicycle fairly well that he HAS to tell "cycling fans" anything about
his private life or public one for that matter. He is not answerable to you any more than you are answerable to him. If he wanted it to be your business he would have told you.
Just like if I started asking you personal questions you might tell me to "get lost" at the very least. Where you guys get the idea that these people OWE YOU explanations,
details of their lives, apologies, glimpses into their personal and business goings on, and the like is beyond me. It's none of your business just like yours is none of theirs.

Dennis Noward

I wouldn't expect him to tell me anything about his family, his pets, his education or anything else that is personal. But there's a difference between those private things and the question of whether he has or hasn't doped (or attempted to).

Take this analogy - if a business stood accused of ripping off its customers, would it not owe the customers an explanation? Because that is what doping is - conning the public. We give up our time and money to see a sport, and sportsmen and women should be answerable where any potential infringement of the rules takes place.

dennisn

johnfinch wrote:

dennisn wrote:

This is where you and I part company, so to speak. Show me where it says that because he rides a bicycle fairly well that he HAS to tell "cycling fans" anything about
his private life or public one for that matter. He is not answerable to you any more than you are answerable to him. If he wanted it to be your business he would have told you.
Just like if I started asking you personal questions you might tell me to "get lost" at the very least. Where you guys get the idea that these people OWE YOU explanations,
details of their lives, apologies, glimpses into their personal and business goings on, and the like is beyond me. It's none of your business just like yours is none of theirs.

Dennis Noward

I wouldn't expect him to tell me anything about his family, his pets, his education or anything else that is personal. But there's a difference between those private things and the question of whether he has or hasn't doped (or attempted to).

Take this analogy - if a business stood accused of ripping off its customers, would it not owe the customers an explanation? Because that is what doping is - conning the public. We give up our time and money to see a sport, and sportsmen and women should be answerable where any potential infringement of the rules takes place.

Key word here is "accused". No company or person "owes" anyone an explanation unless
he or it is found to be guilty, not just accused. And then if found guilty, what kind of
explanation would you want "Yes, my company stole your money" or "Yes, I used drugs".
That has already been settled and he / they wouldn't be telling you anything you didn't
already know. Not sure what you want.

Dennis Noward

dennisn

DaveyL wrote:

"he doesn't have to account for anything to anyone (not you, not me, not them)". Do you mean, in general, or just in this specific case? From your other posts, I guess you mean that he doesn't have to account to me and you for anything in general, but I am assuming for "them" he only doesn't have to account for his actions in the Fuentes case. Because if he didn't have to account to "them" in general, you'd be saying he can take what likes, do what he likes, and not be accountable to anyone.

That's not what you're saying, is it?

Sorry if this is confusing. If it is, it's because I'm trying to follow your "logic".

In general, a person who doesn't want to explain his actions or talk about things he's accused of doesn't have to. Sort of the right to remain silent. While a lot of people on this site seem to feel that because someone isn't talking that it means he's guilty. I tend to go the other direction. If I don't want to talk about something with you, I won't. If I were to be accused of doping I could talk about it or not with whomever I want to or no one. If proven guilty of doping or any crime I'm liable to be punished with whatever the rules or laws provides for and have therefore been held accountable. Except for torture I'm
under no odligation to talk to anyone about it if I don't want to. Isn't this a right all humans have? If guilty I serve my "time" and it's over. If I get caught again I'll be held accountable again, for whatever. In any case you are not in the equation, nor is anyone else except whom I want to be involved. If I felt the need to say I was sorry I would, but once again
it would be to whom I wanted to say it.

Dennis Noward

le_patron

I agree the evidence is not sufficient to prosecute, but it is compelling enough to most rational and informed observers for them to conclude that on balance he either cheated or attempted to cheat.

The fact that this 'evidence' is not enough for the authorities to do anything or that he necessarily 'owes' anyone an explanation is largely immaterial. We don't necessarlily need hard court submissible standard evidence to figure out what was happening.

This doesn't mean everyone has jumped to the wrong conclusion in some sort of internet kangaroo court, or on the flip side that he has no case to answer. It just means considered opinions are made based on available evidence.

If anyone does have an innocent and plausible explanation for what was going on, let's hear it because I've not heard one yet. In the meantime I know where my money would go (and it's not into a Fuentes bank account).

richard wants a baum

dennisn wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

dennisn wrote:

This is where you and I part company, so to speak. Show me where it says that because he rides a bicycle fairly well that he HAS to tell "cycling fans" anything about
his private life or public one for that matter. He is not answerable to you any more than you are answerable to him. If he wanted it to be your business he would have told you.
Just like if I started asking you personal questions you might tell me to "get lost" at the very least. Where you guys get the idea that these people OWE YOU explanations,
details of their lives, apologies, glimpses into their personal and business goings on, and the like is beyond me. It's none of your business just like yours is none of theirs.

Dennis Noward

I wouldn't expect him to tell me anything about his family, his pets, his education or anything else that is personal. But there's a difference between those private things and the question of whether he has or hasn't doped (or attempted to).

Take this analogy - if a business stood accused of ripping off its customers, would it not owe the customers an explanation? Because that is what doping is - conning the public. We give up our time and money to see a sport, and sportsmen and women should be answerable where any potential infringement of the rules takes place.

Key word here is "accused". No company or person "owes" anyone an explanation unless
he or it is found to be guilty, not just accused. And then if found guilty, what kind of
explanation would you want "Yes, my company stole your money" or "Yes, I used drugs".
That has already been settled and he / they wouldn't be telling you anything you didn't
already know. Not sure what you want.

Dennis Noward

Dennis sometimes i think you avoid the obvious becasuse you have to much fun razzing people up i think its obivous what most on here are saying is that further investigation was warranted or the least Schleck was very lucky that they had little else to go on. I think in the end your banging on about the whole hero worship thing again and in this case thats not was going on. Everyone just wants to see justice done, too many dopers get off with half arsed excuse or atleast they used to and no one wants to see a return to the bad old days.

dennisn

le patron wrote:

I agree the evidence is not sufficient to prosecute, but it is compelling enough to most rational and informed observers for them to conclude that on balance he either cheated or attempted to cheat.

The fact that this 'evidence' is not enough for the authorities to do anything or that he necessarily 'owes' anyone an explanation is largely immaterial. We don't necessarlily need hard court submissible standard evidence to figure out what was happening.

This doesn't mean everyone has jumped to the wrong conclusion in some sort of internet kangaroo court, or on the flip side that he has no case to answer. It just means considered opinions are made based on available evidence.

If anyone does have an innocent and plausible explanation for what was going on, let's hear it because I've not heard one yet. In the meantime I know where my money would go (and it's not into a Fuentes bank account).

I don't have any problems with what you say. You say you have it all figured out. OK,
now what? Even if someone did confess, what would it matter, you have it all figured out already, so it's nothing new. In any case, you're not part of the equation. None of any of this is about you. It's about a bike racer taking drugs to improve performance.

Dennis Noward

dennisn

richard wants a baum wrote:

dennisn wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

dennisn wrote:

This is where you and I part company, so to speak. Show me where it says that because he rides a bicycle fairly well that he HAS to tell "cycling fans" anything about
his private life or public one for that matter. He is not answerable to you any more than you are answerable to him. If he wanted it to be your business he would have told you.
Just like if I started asking you personal questions you might tell me to "get lost" at the very least. Where you guys get the idea that these people OWE YOU explanations,
details of their lives, apologies, glimpses into their personal and business goings on, and the like is beyond me. It's none of your business just like yours is none of theirs.

Dennis Noward

I wouldn't expect him to tell me anything about his family, his pets, his education or anything else that is personal. But there's a difference between those private things and the question of whether he has or hasn't doped (or attempted to).

Take this analogy - if a business stood accused of ripping off its customers, would it not owe the customers an explanation? Because that is what doping is - conning the public. We give up our time and money to see a sport, and sportsmen and women should be answerable where any potential infringement of the rules takes place.

Key word here is "accused". No company or person "owes" anyone an explanation unless
he or it is found to be guilty, not just accused. And then if found guilty, what kind of
explanation would you want "Yes, my company stole your money" or "Yes, I used drugs".
That has already been settled and he / they wouldn't be telling you anything you didn't
already know. Not sure what you want.

Dennis Noward

..... and no one wants to see a return to the bad old days.

Are you saying that these are the good old days? Seems a bit hard to believe when
all I seem to read on this forum is that the death of cycling is at hand. Everyone out there wants heads to roll, lifetime bans for all, etc., etc.. Yeah, these are the good old days.

Dennis Noward

richard wants a baum

Nice that you took out the rest of what i said, and didnt address it. The fact is Dennis it is extremely suss that money was transferred and for the rest of his career his going to have a black mark against his name, and unfortunately probably his brother as well. He is very lucky that he either found out what he was doing and stopped (unlikely really) or got smart and made untraceable transfers (what i think most people here believe happend). No Dennis these arent the good old days but its been getting progressively better, Zero Tolerence is the only way of combating the problem, and sometimes line ball decisions go either way and will always have ppl on both sides arguing which way it should have gone.

finchy

dennisn wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

dennisn wrote:

This is where you and I part company, so to speak. Show me where it says that because he rides a bicycle fairly well that he HAS to tell "cycling fans" anything about
his private life or public one for that matter. He is not answerable to you any more than you are answerable to him. If he wanted it to be your business he would have told you.
Just like if I started asking you personal questions you might tell me to "get lost" at the very least. Where you guys get the idea that these people OWE YOU explanations,
details of their lives, apologies, glimpses into their personal and business goings on, and the like is beyond me. It's none of your business just like yours is none of theirs.

Dennis Noward

I wouldn't expect him to tell me anything about his family, his pets, his education or anything else that is personal. But there's a difference between those private things and the question of whether he has or hasn't doped (or attempted to).

Take this analogy - if a business stood accused of ripping off its customers, would it not owe the customers an explanation? Because that is what doping is - conning the public. We give up our time and money to see a sport, and sportsmen and women should be answerable where any potential infringement of the rules takes place.

Key word here is "accused". No company or person "owes" anyone an explanation unless
he or it is found to be guilty, not just accused. And then if found guilty, what kind of
explanation would you want "Yes, my company stole your money" or "Yes, I used drugs".
That has already been settled and he / they wouldn't be telling you anything you didn't
already know. Not sure what you want.

Dennis Noward

Hmm, my last post came up three times for some reason.

Dennis, my original point was that if cyclists were to take the line that they don't need to explain themselves to anyone, the sport would quickly lose fans. Do you want to see sponsors pull out of the sport, TV coverage withdrawn and events cancelled?

OK, so what do I want to know? I want to know why Schleck, a registered cyclist in Luxembourg, paid Fuentes, a doctor practising in Spain, via an anonymous Swiss bank account. Why the need for secrecy?

diarmuid

dennisn wrote:

Key word here is "accused". No company or person "owes" anyone an explanation unless
he or it is found to be guilty, not just accused. And then if found guilty, what kind of
explanation would you want "Yes, my company stole your money" or "Yes, I used drugs".
That has already been settled and he / they wouldn't be telling you anything you didn't
already know. Not sure what you want.

Dennis Noward

With all due respect, it's thanks to people like you turning a blind eye to doping, that pro cycling is still a mess. If we had Paul Kimmage running the UCI instead of Verbruggen and Quaid I feel confident in saying we still wouldn't have to be dealing with EPO 15 years after it's introduction to the peleton.

You seem to have trouble differentiating the act of justice in society and the inclusion in an exclusive sporting event. Both are not necessarily subject the same rules (presumption of innocence). I don't see why the latter event cannot have a more robust set of rules, especially when it's totally evident that the less robust approach is not working! If you fail to satisfy these rules you are excluded from the events not jailed for life.

le_patron

dennisn wrote:

le patron wrote:

I agree the evidence .... In the meantime I know where my money would go (and it's not into a Fuentes bank account).

I don't have any problems with what you say. You say you have it all figured out. OK,
now what? Even if someone did confess, what would it matter, you have it all figured out already, so it's nothing new. In any case, you're not part of the equation. None of any of this is about you. It's about a bike racer taking drugs to improve performance.

Dennis Noward

If on his own, not in competition with no-one watching, I'd agree. But that is not the case. As everyone else is saying, it's a global sport. Sports have fans that provide the income for the companies to exist to fund the team thats play the sport. Sports also have rules to provide credibility to the sport. The fans and sponsors have a vested interest in wanting to know whether these rules have been broken. If fans or sponsors think the sport is not credible because rules have been broken, they might leave or otherwise lose interest. Therefore cycling fans and more casual observers are very much part of the equation. And in an (seemingly futile) effort to keep the sport credible, people are willing to make judgements before a rider is officially sanctioned, usually because the evidence is pretty irrefutable that he/she has reduced the credibility of the sport. And in those scenarios an innocent rider might want to explain himself, even if he misguidedly feels he doesn't owe anyone anything.

flattythehurdler

I didn't realise he knew the English football team

dennisn

le patron wrote:

dennisn wrote:

le patron wrote:

I agree the evidence .... In the meantime I know where my money would go (and it's not into a Fuentes bank account).

I don't have any problems with what you say. You say you have it all figured out. OK,
now what? Even if someone did confess, what would it matter, you have it all figured out already, so it's nothing new. In any case, you're not part of the equation. None of any of this is about you. It's about a bike racer taking drugs to improve performance.

Dennis Noward

If on his own, not in competition with no-one watching, I'd agree. But that is not the case. As everyone else is saying, it's a global sport. Sports have fans that provide the income for the companies to exist to fund the team thats play the sport. Sports also have rules to provide credibility to the sport. The fans and sponsors have a vested interest in wanting to know whether these rules have been broken. If fans or sponsors think the sport is not credible because rules have been broken, they might leave or otherwise lose interest. Therefore cycling fans and more casual observers are very much part of the equation. And in an (seemingly futile) effort to keep the sport credible, people are willing to make judgements before a rider is officially sanctioned, usually because the evidence is pretty irrefutable that he/she has reduced the credibility of the sport. And in those scenarios an innocent rider might want to explain himself, even if he misguidedly feels he doesn't owe anyone anything.

I don't follow how you can say that the sport has LOST credibility. The rules say that if you're found guilty of using drugs, you're gone. Seems to me that more than a few people, of late, are "gone". Many of them moaning about their innocence, but isn't that the norm. Prisons are full of innocent people these days. In any case it all seems pretty
credible to me. Do some guys slip through? Sure they do. Whoever said this was a perfect world? As long as there is money to be made and glory to be had(in any pursuit)
someone will try to slide by on the shady side. You can't have perfection.
As far as explaining himself. If I were a pro rider that was accused of doping or some other offence, I think my only comment(if any) would be "prove it". There is no way I'm going to explain to the public at large why I'm innocent. If only for the reason that "it's
none of your damn business". I don't follow how people feel that because they are fans
that some riders private life and / or public life is "their business".

Dennis Noward

dennisn

Dennis sometimes i think you avoid the obvious becasuse you have to much fun razzing people up i think its obivous what most on here are saying is that further investigation was warranted or the least Schleck was very lucky that they had little else to go on. I think in the end your banging on about the whole hero worship thing again and in this case thats not was going on. Everyone just wants to see justice done, too many dopers get off with half arsed excuse or atleast they used to and no one wants to see a return to the bad old days.[/quote]

---

I'm not razzing anyone(well maybe a little). I actually think this way.
I really do enjoy the back and forth banter.

Was "further investigation warranted" and was "Schleck .. very lucky"? Could be. I'm
betting he thinks twice in the future. Beyond that I feel it's the end of it. At least for now.
Nothing to cause his dismissal from racing has been proven. While that my not satisfy
some people "that's the way it is".

I'm convinced that at the core of a lot of this is misguided "hero worship"
and / or fan "obsession". I could find bunches of posts on this forum in which people
talk about their cycling "heroes" (and use the word hero). As for me, my heroes are
the people who are there for me. Parents, family, friends, and a 17 year old Vietnamese
kid who saved my life. Not some sports figure or movie star.

I also think justice is being served. Riders are getting bounced out at what seems to be a record pace. Not to everyone's satisfaction, of course, but it is moving in that direction.

Dennis Noward

timoid.

Dennis is right on this one.

Although the payment indicates that Frank was or at least was willing to be a naughty boy, it should not be grounds for bouncing him out of the sport.

Boonen's problems are unfortunate and he should be helped through them rather than ostrasized.

dennisn

Timoid. wrote:

Dennis is right on this one.

Although the payment indicates that Frank was or at least was willing to be a naughty boy, it should not be grounds for bouncing him out of the sport.

Boonen's problems are unfortunate and he should be helped through them rather than ostrasized.

Well put. We all have had or are having our own "issues" in life. Even at the somewhat advanced age of 60 I still have them now and again.

Dennis Noward

finchy

But Dennis, yet again you ignore my point completely.

In the past few years we have lost the Zurich Championship, Tour of Missouri, Tour of Germany and the Stuttgart 6 day. Also Discovery Channel, Gerolsteiner, Phonak and Credit Agricole. OK, so new teams have come in, but for how much longer will they come if cycling keeps getting hit by doping scandals?

You talk about riders' rights to keep silent if they are accused. What you don't talk about is their responsibility to the sport - to the organisers, the staff who work on their teams, other cyclists and staff who work on smaller teams and are more vulnerable to a loss of interest in cycling.

What about the people who flocked to Alpe d'Huez in 2006 to see him win? Many will have paid a fair amount of money to travel there. Does he not owe them an explanation?

I'd agree that cyclists shouldn't have to answer to anyone if the allegations are groundless, but that is not the case in this story.

I expect that you will reply talking his rights, and tell me that I think he owes me something, but please try to think about the consequences of his actions, and tell me - do you really think, that in the current situation, cyclists don't have a responsibility to the sport's reputation and well-being?

BTW, I'm not talking specifically about Schleck here, this is a general point about the relationship between professional sportsmen and women, fans and the sport.

Tom Butcher

Maybe a suspension can't be made to stick in the courts but from what we know I think the evidence against Schleck is enough. His excuses are slightly more realistic than Tyler Hamilton's twin explanation but probably no more so than some of the nonsense cyclists have come out with when caught and that we've all laughed at over the years.

Some of Dennis' claims early in this thread about there being a lack of evidence beggar belief. And talking about obligation - surely he has an obligation not to tell lies about a doping offence - an obligation most rational observers would say he is not living up to. Whether he can get away with that is another thing entirely.

scottfrasernz

In my original post I tried to draw a contrast between the treatment (demonising) Boonen received versus this result for Schleck.

It seems left to ASO to do something.

So I'm expecting they will consider banning Frank Schleck from the 2009 Tour de France.

Boonen was banned from the 2008 Tour, although his positive test for cocaine did not contravene any UCI rules (it was a positive out of season positive for a non-performance-enhancing - although illegal - substance).

"I have been in the news in a negative way lately. I am not perfect and will accept the consequences" said Boonen.

"He (Schleck) deeply regrets having taken initial contact to these people and confirms towards his team and the Luxembourg anti-doping committee that his involvement never went beyond the initial contact, i.e. the bank transfer" said CSC (on behalf of Schleck).

It would seem that the Luxembourg courts are prepared to 'stand behind one of their own' rather than investigating further. I wager that there was 'no further evidence' because no effort was made to find it.

E.g. tracking of emails or SMS or phone calls, any receipt for payment, travel records etc

I may have this wrong but it seems to me that even the most elementary investigative checks were not performed in this instance.

Grimone

Pains me to say it but......I think he's been caught red handed, but the authorities just haven't got enough to prosecute! :roll:

It's no coincidence that before the introduction of EPO into cycling, there were no sub 41minute Alpe D'huez ascents. Since the early 90's there have been 22! Including of course, the good friend of Fuentes - Schleck!

Just look down thelist and see how many have been banned, or under-suspicion;

1 37' 35" Marco Pantani 1997 Italy
2* 37' 36" Lance Armstrong 2004 United States
3 38' 00" Marco Pantani 1994 Italy
4 38' 01" Lance Armstrong 2001 United States
5 38' 04" Marco Pantani 1995 Italy
6 38' 23" Jan Ullrich 1997 Germany
7 38' 34" Floyd Landis 2006 United States
8 38' 35" Andreas Klöden 2006 Germany
9* 38' 37" Jan Ullrich 2004 Germany
10 39' 02" Richard Virenque 1997 France
11 39' 06" Iban Mayo 2003 Spain
12* 39' 17" Andreas Klöden 2004 Germany
13* 39' 21" Jose Azevedo 2004 Portugal
14 39' 28" Miguel Induráin 1995 Spain
15 39' 28" Alex Zülle 1995 Switzerland
16 39' 30" Bjarne Riis 1995 Denmark
17 39' 31" Carlos Sastre 2008 Spain
18 39' 44" Gianni Bugno 1991 Italy
19 39' 45" Miguel Induráin 1991 Spain
20 40' 00" Jan Ullrich 2001 Germany
21 40' 46" Fränk Schleck 2006 Luxembourg
22 40' 51" Alexander Vinokourov 2003 Kazakhstan

€7000 doesn't just disappear from a bank account for nothing.

Boonen's case is very similar to that of Adrian Mutu the ex Chelsea FC player. He was using the drug recreationally, which, for a man in his position is wrong in itself, but at least he was not involved with enhancing his performance and defrauding others in the peleton.

dennisn

johnfinch wrote:

But Dennis, yet again you ignore my point completely.

In the past few years we have lost the Zurich Championship, Tour of Missouri, Tour of Germany and the Stuttgart 6 day. Also Discovery Channel, Gerolsteiner, Phonak and Credit Agricole. OK, so new teams have come in, but for how much longer will they come if cycling keeps getting hit by doping scandals?

You talk about riders' rights to keep silent if they are accused. What you don't talk about is their responsibility to the sport - to the organisers, the staff who work on their teams, other cyclists and staff who work on smaller teams and are more vulnerable to a loss of interest in cycling.

What about the people who flocked to Alpe d'Huez in 2006 to see him win? Many will have paid a fair amount of money to travel there. Does he not owe them an explanation?

I'd agree that cyclists shouldn't have to answer to anyone if the allegations are groundless, but that is not the case in this story.

I expect that you will reply talking his rights, and tell me that I think he owes me something, but please try to think about the consequences of his actions, and tell me - do you really think, that in the current situation, cyclists don't have a responsibility to the sport's reputation and well-being?

BTW, I'm not talking specifically about Schleck here, this is a general point about the relationship between professional sportsmen and women, fans and the sport.

1). "... how much longer...?" You have two choices. Sweep doping under the rug or
work on stopping it. So what's it going to be? Sweep under or do the work(and suffer the publicity that will come with it)? You probably don't agree with what is or is not being done, but that's not your call. What happens to Pro cycling will happen to it and I don't have a clue what things will be like in ten years.

2). "... responsibility to the sport...." Everyone has responsibilities. You ,me, us ,them.
Does everyone act responsibly? I'll let you answer that. Short of thumbscrews or
water boarding, can you force people to be responsible?

3). "... people who flocked to..." I doubt very seriously that the people who watch pro
racing are so ill informed that they don't know about cycling's dope problems. I'm betting that they sort of figure that there are a few racers who are not on the up and up. As for
explaining things to them. Once again, short of torture how do you expect to get them to do this if they won't or don't feel it's necessary? And even if they did explain, what would they say? I doped for the money and glory? I didn't dope? What do you want to hear that would make you happy?

4). "... cyclist shouldn't have to answer...." My only problem is that why should they have to answer for everything that anyone thinks they should answer for. If found guilty of whatever, I think that morally you may owe a few people some sort of "explanation".
However, as I said before, just because they "should" doesn't mean they will. Here again
torture could come into play.

I think that most people on this subject have put these riders on pedestals, raised them to a level of "higher being", demanded that they must be "pure riders",
and subjected them to a whole
new set of rules because of this exalted status. Then they turn out to be human like the rest of us and not, as one magazine once put it, "angels climbing into the clouds".

Dennis Noward

dennisn

Tom Butcher wrote:

Some of Dennis' claims early in this thread about there being a lack of evidence beggar belief. And talking about obligation - surely he has an obligation not to tell lies about a doping offence - an obligation most rational observers would say he is not living up to. Whether he can get away with that is another thing entirely.

"... an obligation to not tell lies..". Don't we all have this sort of "obligation"? Whether it's about drugs or whatever? See my previous post, as I feel that a bit of torture will loosen
up his tongue. Maybe a hot poker in the eye will make him confess his sins.

"... get away with that....". Get away with what? If you have all the evidence to have him thrown out of cycling I would urge you to go to the proper authorities and I'm sure that
they would be most interested in your findings.

Dennis Noward

Tom Butcher

dennisn wrote:

Tom Butcher wrote:

Some of Dennis' claims early in this thread about there being a lack of evidence beggar
"... an obligation to not tell lies..". Don't we all have this sort of "obligation"? Whether it's about drugs or whatever? See my previous post, as I feel that a bit of torture will loosen
up his tongue. Maybe a hot poker in the eye will make him confess his sins.

"... get away with that....". Get away with what? If you have all the evidence to have him thrown out of cycling I would urge you to go to the proper authorities and I'm sure that
they would be most interested in your findings.

Dennis Noward

---

Your first point seems to be an admission that he does indeed have an obligation to come clean. Nobody is saying a confession should be tortured out of him - simply that he has an obligation to the sport and the fans - you agree after all and we didn't even have to torture you.

On the second point - get away with paying a doctor a large sum of money with at least the intention of receiving doping - is there much difference between this case and the Basso case ?

Grimone

Tom Butcher wrote:

Tom Butcher wrote:

is there much difference between this case and the Basso case ?

Not really.

dennisn

Tom Butcher wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Tom Butcher wrote:

Some of Dennis' claims early in this thread about there being a lack of evidence beggar
"... an obligation to not tell lies..". Don't we all have this sort of "obligation"? Whether it's about drugs or whatever? See my previous post, as I feel that a bit of torture will loosen
up his tongue. Maybe a hot poker in the eye will make him confess his sins.

"... get away with that....". Get away with what? If you have all the evidence to have him thrown out of cycling I would urge you to go to the proper authorities and I'm sure that
they would be most interested in your findings.

Dennis Noward

---

Your first point seems to be an admission that he does indeed have an obligation to come clean. Nobody is saying a confession should be tortured out of him - simply that he has an obligation to the sport and the fans - you agree after all and we didn't even have to torture you.

On the second point - get away with paying a doctor a large sum of money with at least the intention of receiving doping - is there much difference between this case and the Basso case ?

It's not whether he may or may not have a moral obligation to tell you. It's whether he feels he must and I would guess that he doesn't. Pretty much end of story.

"On the second point". Once again, if you have the proof required.......
If not, end of story(for now). You'll have to deal with it. If there is anything to actually deal with. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

Dennis Noward

ozzzyosborn206

i havnt read all the previous threads as after i got half way through it seems to have turned into an arguement, but contador had as much to do in the doping scandle as many others but has managed to get out of it and win three tours, funny how everyone has forgotten he was on the list. What Boonen has done was wrong but how can they slap a fine or anything on him? if they tested everyone as much as he gets tested i think alot for people would get caught, granted he should set an example but he must be allowed to have a life aswell? also €7, 000 is alot for a training programe but its not alot for drugs that can take you from amateur to pro in 3 years is it?

richard wants a baum

I think that most people on this subject have put these riders on pedestals, raised them to a level of "higher being", demanded that they must be "pure riders",
and subjected them to a whole
new set of rules because of this exalted status. Then they turn out to be human like the rest of us and not, as one magazine once put it, "angels climbing into the clouds".

Dennis Noward

Actually i think alot post show the opposite, they hardly even seem to be looked at as human Schleck is different to Basso in one way Basso admitted to trying to dope Schleck hasnt. The closer comparison is Contador though he didnt have to go to a hearing and explain himself.

dennisn

richard wants a baum wrote:

I think that most people on this subject have put these riders on pedestals, raised them to a level of "higher being", demanded that they must be "pure riders",
and subjected them to a whole
new set of rules because of this exalted status. Then they turn out to be human like the rest of us and not, as one magazine once put it, "angels climbing into the clouds".

Dennis Noward

Actually i think alot post show the opposite, they hardly even seem to be looked at as human


I'm not so sure. It really seems that most people(i.e. fans) expect the riders to be above human frailties. Never to be tempted by the usual human condition things. Only concerned with riding. Above it all because of their abilities on a bicycle. Never to make a
mistake(drugs) or have an error in judgement. They must be the "pure riders". It's either
be like that or there will be calls for your head on a stake or calls for you to be burned at the stake(so to speak). There is no "human" middle ground for these people. They are either totally evil or revered and praised supermen. Some of them, like Lance, have even been both. Sort of like Pro wrestling. Good guy one day, bad guy the next, good, bad,.....

Dennis Noward