Very Interesting in a bad way.....

User avatar
toolonglegs
Posts: 15463
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Very Interesting in a bad way.....

Postby toolonglegs » Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:19 am


User avatar
sogood
Posts: 17168
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Postby sogood » Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:56 am

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. :?
Bianchi, Ridley, Tern, Montague and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.

MountGower

Postby MountGower » Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:27 am

Error. This post can no longer be displayed.
Last edited by MountGower on Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
sogood
Posts: 17168
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Postby sogood » Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:38 am

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.
Bianchi, Ridley, Tern, Montague and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.

User avatar
toolonglegs
Posts: 15463
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Postby toolonglegs » Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:02 am

Just like i could never understand the amount of guys who blatantly cheat in mtb races by cutting out parts of the course!.
Last edited by toolonglegs on Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
sogood
Posts: 17168
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Postby sogood » Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:14 am

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!
Bianchi, Ridley, Tern, Montague and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 22159
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Postby mikesbytes » Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:19 am

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.
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
toolonglegs
Posts: 15463
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Postby toolonglegs » Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:40 am

:wink:
Last edited by toolonglegs on Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Aushiker
Posts: 22395
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Walyalup land
Contact:

Postby Aushiker » Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:16 am

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

stryker84
Posts: 1818
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:38 pm
Location: Warrnambool

Postby stryker84 » Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:04 pm

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).

User avatar
europa
Posts: 7334
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:51 am
Location: southern end of Adelaide - home of hills, fixies and drop bears

Postby europa » Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:05 pm

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
I had a good bike ... so I fixed it

stryker84
Posts: 1818
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:38 pm
Location: Warrnambool

Postby stryker84 » Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:14 pm

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.

User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 29060
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Postby Mulger bill » Wed Nov 07, 2007 7:48 pm

The man and his client are tossers!

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

Shaun
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011

stryker84
Posts: 1818
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:38 pm
Location: Warrnambool

Postby stryker84 » Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:32 pm

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?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users