Page 1 of 1

Very Interesting in a bad way.....

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:19 am
by toolonglegs

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:56 am
by sogood
If you have enough money, you can turn black into white in the court system. Sounded like that Landis didn't throw enough money into his game. :?

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:27 am
by MountGower
Error. This post can no longer be displayed.

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:38 am
by sogood
MountGower wrote:The biggest problem in all of this is that the majority of riders and managers truely believe their sport is too hard and can not be mastered without the assistance of drugs. That is why drugs are not only a problem but a true cycling tradition.

How to untaint a sport that is, by it's essential nature, tainted, is like winning without drugs - apparently too hard.

Do they give up or try to find a new approach toward the unwinnable battle? If it's a new approach, then what is that approach?

Drugs are still used by 100m sprinters, 100m swimmers, tennis players and just about any sport category. So I think being hard is one thing, human nature is probably the bigger influence.

At the end of the day, sports are there to test the natural limits of the competitors. And when there's glory and money to be had, people start to do funny things.

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:02 am
by toolonglegs
Just like i could never understand the amount of guys who blatantly cheat in mtb races by cutting out parts of the course!.

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:14 am
by sogood
Very sad but true. Those who take short cuts on courses probably started pretty young. Only a few weeks ago when I took my son to Luna Park (don't bother, it's a total rip off these days), I was amazed to see a young kid blatantly jump the queue repeatedly despite being thrown back once by some adults earlier. You can see the big smirk on his face. If that's how kids are brought up, then our future is dim!

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:19 am
by mikesbytes
The problem is, if the competitors have an ability to make themselves faster, be that a better set of wheels or a drug or what, you need to also do that to remain competitive.

Now providing the new set of wheels is available to all competitors at a realistic price, that isn't an issue, but the drugs may kill you or shorten your life.

There's a saying in bodybuilding "may the best chemist win" lets keep that saying out of cycling please.

The other side of the coin is where you genuinely need the drug, such as the british cyclist this year in TDF who had a skin problem but couldn't take the drug needed to deal with it.

Now vetrans is another issue. Old fellows/fellowettes need drugs to deal with age related health issues, so the don't test vets for drugs as many of them would probably fail.

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:40 am
by toolonglegs
:wink:

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:16 am
by Aushiker
G'day

I think we are overlooking a real basic issue ... the issue of journalistic licence. Just because a lawyer has decided to run a particularly line of defence it does mean the outcome is a given, even if the reporter writes like it is.

I would be surprised it if really gets far at all. If this was a real possibility it would have been tested well before now in the courts.

Regards
Andrew

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:04 pm
by stryker84
I really don't see how it is a violation of human rights when you willingly sign up to the organisation and all terms and conditions of the deal, including mandatory drug testing. Since the athlete in question voluntarily chose to sign on with the sport, the UCI, and all that it entails, surely that's consent?

My solution, should this somehow get through the court, would be to look at it as similar to a clinical trial volunteer for a new method, or medication, or whatever - sure, you can pull out whenever you want and refuse consent for the project (or for drug testing), but then you get delisted from the project (tossed from the UCI), your results are counted as a fail (whatever competitions you're currently enrolled in are void), and you're not allowed back into any further research (since you're not UCI/WADA sanctioned, no racing for you).

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:05 pm
by europa
Sounds like a pretty shoddy defence by a very shoddy human being (not the lawyer, he's just doing his job, Kashechkin for instructing his lawyer to run that defence).

And how hard will it be to combat it? You enter an event or even a series, you get given a contract that allows the organisers to run drug tests. You don't want to sign it? Fair enough, go play with someone else.

It's not the temptations that shape a human being, it's how you respond to them, and that is a personal choice.

Richard

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:14 pm
by stryker84
Exactly, Richard.

The main problem I see here is they argue it is basic human rights. They'll say you can't ban someone from participating in what is essentially a public event among the current ProTour teams simply because he exercises his basic human right to privacy, and to his own lifestyle as an individual.
Might be seen (well, legally, anyway) as of same import as if the UCI said we don't want Mr A riding because he publicly is a Muslim, or chooses to be a vegetarian, or whatever.

Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 7:48 pm
by Mulger bill
The man and his client are tossers!

If you don't like the rules of the game, find a game you do like.

Shaun

Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:32 pm
by stryker84
You agree, I agree, now let's see if the courts agree. :roll:

Any update on this case so far? Wasn't it meant to be heard on Tuesday or something?