Are you surprised

secretsqirrel

Yey Dennisn.......

I think you just agreed with me and Dave_1.

blazing_saddles

dennisn wrote:

I would rather see a hundred dopers out there racing than one innocent one lose his job
because of speculation and maybe's. No matter how sure a person may be of someones guilt, it doesn't matter, because they(and you and I) are not the jury.

Don't say it too loud. That's possibly a pretty accurate assessment of the current racing scene.

calvjones

dennisn wrote:

So everyone is still innocent until PROVEN guilty. NOT, guilty maybe or I think he's guilty
or what about those stories of him being guilty or but it's been proven to MYsatisfaction
or we all know he's guilty.

I would rather see a hundred dopers out there racing than one innocent one lose his job
because of speculation and maybe's. No matter how sure a person may be of someones guilt, it doesn't matter, because they(and you and I) are not the jury.

Um... straw man. Note the word 'suspended' not 'sacked' in the Pro Tour rule.

skavanagh.bikeradar

Additionally, however unfair the current situation may or may not be it is of cycling's own making. They have brought it on themselves.

The'yve got two options: head in the sand Vs continued strengthening of the anti-doping efforts. It's Ashenden Vs Fuentes, McQuaid Vs Gripper, Brunyeel Vs Brailsford............choose your side......

dennisn

calvjones wrote:

dennisn wrote:

So everyone is still innocent until PROVEN guilty. NOT, guilty maybe or I think he's guilty
or what about those stories of him being guilty or but it's been proven to MYsatisfaction
or we all know he's guilty.

I would rather see a hundred dopers out there racing than one innocent one lose his job
because of speculation and maybe's. No matter how sure a person may be of someones guilt, it doesn't matter, because they(and you and I) are not the jury.

Um... straw man. Note the word 'suspended' not 'sacked' in the Pro Tour rule.

C'mon, are they or are they not INNOCENT until......? Are you or are you not innocent.....?
Or are you guilty because I say you are??? Do you want to be "suspended" on unproven
charges? I don't think so. Neither do I.

flattythehurdler

skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:

Additionally, however unfair the current situation may or may not be it is of cycling's own making. They have brought it on themselves.

The'yve got two options: head in the sand Vs continued strengthening of the anti-doping efforts. It's Ashenden Vs Fuentes, McQuaid Vs Gripper, Brunyeel Vs Brailsford............choose your side......

I think that you have the first pair the wrong way round (unless you are privy to info that we are not).
One also could apply many sobriquets to the role of brunyeel in pro cycling. "Head in the sand" isn't one of them.

calvjones

dennisn wrote:

calvjones wrote:

dennisn wrote:

So everyone is still innocent until PROVEN guilty. NOT, guilty maybe or I think he's guilty
or what about those stories of him being guilty or but it's been proven to MYsatisfaction
or we all know he's guilty.

I would rather see a hundred dopers out there racing than one innocent one lose his job
because of speculation and maybe's. No matter how sure a person may be of someones guilt, it doesn't matter, because they(and you and I) are not the jury.

Um... straw man. Note the word 'suspended' not 'sacked' in the Pro Tour rule.

C'mon, are they or are they not INNOCENT until......? Are you or are you not innocent.....?
Or are you guilty because I say you are??? Do you want to be "suspended" on unproven
charges? I don't think so. Neither do I.

So if a teacher/cop is accused of abuse by a child/citizen, you don't suspend them? Hmmm.... tough call. This quite often happens, and after suspension the innocent worker goes back to work, the guilty get canned.

Seems to me that if there's a good primae facie case to answer (as with Kloeden - there is documentary evidence of his girlfriend's involvement as well as Sink's testimony & the evidence that T-mobile were systematically doping) suspending them so they can't help (as here) AC win the Tour is the best thing to do. You can't take the Tour away from AC if Klodi is eventually banned.

dennisn

calvjones wrote:

dennisn wrote:

calvjones wrote:

dennisn wrote:

So everyone is still innocent until PROVEN guilty. NOT, guilty maybe or I think he's guilty
or what about those stories of him being guilty or but it's been proven to MYsatisfaction
or we all know he's guilty.

I would rather see a hundred dopers out there racing than one innocent one lose his job
because of speculation and maybe's. No matter how sure a person may be of someones guilt, it doesn't matter, because they(and you and I) are not the jury.

Um... straw man. Note the word 'suspended' not 'sacked' in the Pro Tour rule.

C'mon, are they or are they not INNOCENT until......? Are you or are you not innocent.....?
Or are you guilty because I say you are??? Do you want to be "suspended" on unproven
charges? I don't think so. Neither do I.

So if a teacher/cop is accused of abuse by a child/citizen, you don't suspend them? Hmmm.... tough call. This quite often happens, and after suspension the innocent worker goes back to work, the guilty get canned.

Seems to me that if there's a good primae facie case to answer (as with Kloeden - there is documentary evidence of his girlfriend's involvement as well as Sink's testimony & the evidence that T-mobile were systematically doping) suspending them so they can't help (as here) AC win the Tour is the best thing to do. You can't take the Tour away from AC if Klodi is eventually banned.

Tough call? Couldn't agree more. But I'm pretty sure I don't want to be your, so called,
"innocent worker ... goes back to work", after having my name dragged through the mud
as a child molester, doper, whatever. I realize that in this day and age it would seem that
most people are guilty until proven otherwise, but I prefer not to buy into that line of thinking.