The doping program joke of the ITF!!!

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:I will still enjoy Froome being covered in spit and urine in that TDF. Those things will happen for a reason. Likewise those things won't happen to Federer for the same reasons.

It's a bit much.

There are ways in which affinity to a person can be conveyed without being so primitive.

barrystar wrote:....   Unfortunately, in that respect sport mirrors life.  I think that your short-cut will most likely produce a worse system with unintended consequence of injustice of a different sort.  Accepting that radical speedy changes for the better are unlikely does not mean I think the current system 'will do', some changes are obviously needed and vigilance is always needed too.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:

barrystar wrote:Quite - it is perfectly acceptable to decide that you don't like what you see, or to dislike the whole concept of TUE - and then stop following the sport or campaign for a change, but it is not acceptable to say that XX is a cheat unless XX has had an opportunity to respond to a fair process.  A lot of the reaction is from people who feel deprived of a scalp.  I get why Sky is unpopular and I also understand why there is suspicion of TUE, but not at the cost of throwing fair procedure out of the window.

Nah....completely disagree with that. In an ideal world, yes it makes sense. But this is not an ideal world Barry, far from it. UCI is, historically, a corrupt organisation. They obey today to the same financial pressures of the past. They are just getting better (or worse imo actually) at protecting their sport.

You have got be so gullible to believe whatever comes out of it after their past.
That's what I find depressing with the human race, they never learn! Barry tomorrow Bush and Blair (or their successors) were to "legally" justify another invasion of a 3rd world country, you would bite again!
As smart and educated as one might be, if he/she has no discernement skills, he is pretty much a stuffed turkey!

But that road takes you to abolishing Juries, trials and law and just going with the discernment skills of whoever is in charge. It's been tried and doesn't produce the least-harm outcome.

I don't offer a solution. There is no solution to people's credulity. The world has always been corrupt and always will be because people are gullible and the smarter ones know to exploit that credulity.

However as a human I learn to discern. Some are really slow and poor at that.

legendkillar wrote:1) But it's not re-inventing the wheel. It's a shift in direction. Re-inventing the wheel is simply just copying and pasting. 2 different things.

2) Not at all. Let me ask you barry, would you accept each and every time a doctor prescribing you a drug for sport that you didn't need to ingest? I am not saying that every athlete would think like that and doctors are paid by athletes to provide that expertise and in some instances be more focused on edges than health, however putting the emphasis on the athlete for me has wider accountabilities as well as considerations. When the edge is out of the bag, why would competitors keep using? Not convinced you've considered that.

3) Wow that's half glass full and empty. Say no more I will.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:I will still enjoy Froome being covered in spit and urine in that TDF. Those things will happen for a reason. Likewise those things won't happen to Federer for the same reasons.

It's a bit much.

There are ways in which affinity to a person can be conveyed without being so primitive.

It's just part of the deal. one yields what one sows.

In the same way smart people exploit credulous people, frustrated people with no power react the way they can.

If Froome were to be duly punished, he would not be facing those frustrated people. he won't win on every front.

bogbrush wrote:Well offering no solution is pretty lame, to be honest.

The solution lies, as always, in the market. If a product is poor it does't sell. With a powerful brand like the Tour it might take a long time but in the end it will die if people don't want to buy it. Someone might set up an alternative event with their own meaningful controls and then some might buy it. If they want to buy it even if it's openly tainted then that's the product they want.

What I do think is terrible is advocating mob violence including spitting or throwing urine on people. That is an attack and I wonder why if you look forward to that you aren't keen to see tacks on the road, clubs taken to riders as they pass, ride-by knifings or just push them off something in the Alps. Or maybe you do. I mean, why not, or does your discernment extend to deciding the appropriate level of violence to be instigated as well as deciding guilt or innocence?

legendkillar wrote:1) Getting hung up here on the contamination element. I brought it into the argument by saying when at the outset we were discussing "fairness" and I did ask the question and you didn't answer as to whether a failed test which is then deemed "inconclusive" due to factors not related to the amount of a banned substance found and whether this abnormality was genuinely chemical or biological. Forget the process that's been done to death. It was just that question I really wanted your view on in terms of fairness. Promise I will say no more, but just wanted your view on fairness in that instance.

2) I know your not the problem, however I am going in a cultural direction in whereby more emphasis is on the athlete. You might feel there already is given they carry the can in the current system and I would agree, however I think transparency goes a long way. Yes it can lead to a race to the bottom, but no athlete would know by the register what substance has what effect on the competition and what carries the most potency. At this point I would be willing to give it a shot as I see this levels a playing field and would prevent some of the farces seen in sport. Not saying it's perfect, but just might iron some creases out. I totally respect the views opposing.

3) Life is complicated. What would it be if it wasn't eh?

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Well offering no solution is pretty lame, to be honest.

Why? I don;t want to start our philosophical discussion again, but there are no solutions to lots of things. We just have to make do. A bit like the clip I posted earlier. It;s about accepting reality.  The solution is what we have or will get. Like the solution to the October 1929 crisis was WW2.  

The solution lies, as always, in the market. If a product is poor it does't sell. With a powerful brand like the Tour it might take a long time but in the end it will die if people don't want to buy it. Someone might set up an alternative event with their own meaningful controls and then some might buy it. If they want to buy it even if it's openly tainted then that's the product they want.

The market is actually the main problem. Too much money has killed sport if anything. If you are talking about in a 1000 years things will sort themselves out, then you agree with me that there is no solution now, and our only salvation is to learn to discern over the years, like life learnt to fly or to see. But then again, this is ignoring an important factor: the destructive forces of chaos which also learn to destroy better.
I must say, I find you a bit gullible as well to believe the market is the solution...though you are clearly expressing what I have always said about you and the golden calf. It is your religion! Nothing wrong with that btw.

What I do think is terrible is advocating mob violence including spitting or throwing urine on people. That is an attack and I wonder why if you look forward to that you aren't keen to see tacks on the road, clubs taken to riders as they pass, ride-by knifings or just push them off something in the Alps. Or maybe you do. I mean, why not, or does your discernment extend to deciding the appropriate level of violence to be instigated as well as deciding guilt or innocence?

It's just a reaction to an action. Like most, if not all, forms of violence.

I don;t like to cheat nor to spit but to be fair, I have more sympathy for the ones who spit (as it is a reaction) than those who cheat. It's just a point of view. I wish there woudl be no systematic cheating and covering up...so no-one would feel frustrated, in particular those who love the sport and the possible clean atheltes we will never know.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Well offering no solution is pretty lame, to be honest.

Why? I don;t want to start our philosophical discussion again, but there are no solutions to lots of things. We just have to make do. A bit like the clip I posted earlier. It;s about accepting reality.  The solution is what we have or will get. Like the solution to the October 1929 crisis was WW2.  

The solution lies, as always, in the market. If a product is poor it does't sell. With a powerful brand like the Tour it might take a long time but in the end it will die if people don't want to buy it. Someone might set up an alternative event with their own meaningful controls and then some might buy it. If they want to buy it even if it's openly tainted then that's the product they want.

The market is actually the main problem. Too much money has killed sport if anything. If you are talking about in a 1000 years things will sort themselves out, then you agree with me that there is no solution now, and our only salvation is to learn to discern over the years, like life learnt to fly or to see. But then again, this is ignoring an important factor: the destructive forces of chaos which also learn to destroy better.
I must say, I find you a bit gullible as well to believe the market is the solution...though you are clearly expressing what I have always said about you and the golden calf. It is your religion! Nothing wrong with that btw.

What I do think is terrible is advocating mob violence including spitting or throwing urine on people. That is an attack and I wonder why if you look forward to that you aren't keen to see tacks on the road, clubs taken to riders as they pass, ride-by knifings or just push them off something in the Alps. Or maybe you do. I mean, why not, or does your discernment extend to deciding the appropriate level of violence to be instigated as well as deciding guilt or innocence?

It's just a reaction to an action. Like most, if not all, forms of violence.

I don;t like to cheat nor to spit but to be fair, I have more sympathy for the ones who spit (as it is a reaction) than those who cheat. It's just a point of view. I wish there woudl be no systematic cheating and covering up...so no-one would feel frustrated, in particular those who love the sport and the possible clean atheltes we will never know.

Tenez wrote:But those who have really lowered themselves here are not the mobs wtching the tour, it is the sport itself and their top athletes..and may I say those who support this circus.

barrystar wrote:Come on Tenez - where do you draw the line for mob justice?

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:But those who have really lowered themselves here are not the mobs wtching the tour, it is the sport itself and their top athletes..and may I say those who support this circus.

Oh come on, people spitting and throwing piss on people for no other reason than they have decided they are guilty are very, very low. I have to also wonder whether the French crowd at the Tour would be quite so emphatic if it was a French rider rather than a Rosbif. One Englishman winning the Tour might have been acceptable but a brace of them owning it, well.....

Tenez wrote:

barrystar wrote:Come on Tenez - where do you draw the line for mob justice?

a couple of centuries ago, French mobs chopped the heads of our royals and their justice system and set up their own system since. It is not perfect but it also works.

I don;t take side. I am a spectator trying to understand.

The smarter ones exploit the less clever ones who need to wake up and learn but  who in turn revolt themselves when there feel cheated or exploited. You and I cannot do anything about it. It is the spectacle of life.

But again if people were less credulous, we would not have 70% of asthmatics amongst athletes. I don;t care whether it is legal or not. the legal is at the service of powerful people most of the time.

bogbrush wrote:It's mob rule and it never, ever leads anywhere good and you can't be neutral. You are either up for that or you're not.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:It's mob rule and it never, ever leads anywhere good and you can't be neutral. You are either up for that or you're not.

That;s your call. As mentioned France Republic is based on mobs ruling. And the way it's going we may have a second one.

This is what we call the eternal return of reality.

barrystar wrote:

legendkillar wrote:1) Getting hung up here on the contamination element. I brought it into the argument by saying when at the outset we were discussing "fairness" and I did ask the question and you didn't answer as to whether a failed test which is then deemed "inconclusive" due to factors not related to the amount of a banned substance found and whether this abnormality was genuinely chemical or biological. Forget the process that's been done to death. It was just that question I really wanted your view on in terms of fairness. Promise I will say no more, but just wanted your view on fairness in that instance.

2) I know your not the problem, however I am going in a cultural direction in whereby more emphasis is on the athlete. You might feel there already is given they carry the can in the current system and I would agree, however I think transparency goes a long way. Yes it can lead to a race to the bottom, but no athlete would know by the register what substance has what effect on the competition and what carries the most potency. At this point I would be willing to give it a shot as I see this levels a playing field and would prevent some of the farces seen in sport. Not saying it's perfect, but just might iron some creases out. I totally respect the views opposing.

3) Life is complicated. What would it be if it wasn't eh?

Sorry about 1), my mistake.  I did not answer directly.  If someone gets off on a technicality not related to the substance of the matter it is often not fair and it makes me grit my teeth.  What I was trying to illustrate by reference to the contamination point is that you need to create rules and procedures to make these regimes workable, and these often involve possible pratfalls for the unwary prosecutor with the risk of non-compliance allowing the guilty to go free on a technicality.  My view is that in any system some level of 'wrong' results in individual cases has to be accepted as a very regrettable price we have to pay for overall clarity of rules and procedures, so long as they are seen to work in a sufficiently large majority of cases.  That does not mean that we should avoid from striving to avoid them happening, but the maxim 'hard cases make bad law' is true; efforts to bend rules to achieve justice in particular cases frequently open up a can of worms for the next case.  

Do we have a system that makes 'wrong' results acceptable, namely one that works in the majority of cases, and if we don't what could be better?  Those are far more difficult questions to answer - like many I strongly suspect that doping is more widespread than tests suggest, and far too many get away with it, so not a strongly confident answer to the first question, and as to the second I don't know - I have not heard of many suggestions that are realistic, including that could be afforded.

There are inherent problems including a massive mismatch of resources between the athletes and the dopers and disincentives to uncover doping if it's going cause havoc on a sport like Festina did to cycling.

You will often find that in these cases where an 'unfair' result is reached, there is an element of justice because the athlete's reputation is hit and does not recover (and sometime's the sport's too) so whilst they can compete, they don't get the full benefit of any success they enjoy such as sponsorship &c.  So, I agree with BB to an extent that the salutary effect of the market has its force.

bogbrush wrote:We left everywhere better than we found it, and have remained friends with those we once ruled. Half of them even retain our Head of State as their own. Can’t say fairer than that! Not because we’re lovely people but because of the power of our principles of law.

Britain didn’t do it out of kindness but as empires go it was one of the better ones.


Edit: How the Hell did we get here?? 

bogbrush wrote:We left everywhere better than we found it, and have remained friends with those we once ruled. Half of them even retain our Head of State as their own. Can’t say fairer than that! Not because we’re lovely people but because of the power of our principles of law.

Britain didn’t do it out of kindness but as empires go it was one of the better ones.


Edit: How the Hell did we get here?? 

noleisthebest wrote:

bogbrush wrote:We left everywhere better than we found it, and have remained friends with those we once ruled. Half of them even retain our Head of State as their own. Can’t say fairer than that! Not because we’re lovely people but because of the power of our principles of law.

Britain didn’t do it out of kindness but as empires go it was one of the better ones.


Edit: How the Hell did we get here?? 

eeerm...no.

You left Serbia with a 300% increase in cancer thanks to thousands of uranium depleted bombs you dropped in 1999.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:It's mob rule and it never, ever leads anywhere good and you can't be neutral. You are either up for that or you're not.

That;s your call. As mentioned France Republic is based on mobs ruling. And the way it's going we may have a second one.

This is what we call the eternal return of reality.

bogbrush wrote:

Actually, it's not essential. Over here we developed a system of Common Law which resulted in us being able to establish constraints on our Kings even before 1000AD, and meant one guy having to sign a pledge to support many liberties in 1215 including the principle that everyone is subject to the law including the King. If you look at the places in the World that were in our Empire they have tended to have adopted our liberal democratic principles (Canada, Australia, NZ, USA, India, etc.) whereas those the Spanish / Portugese held are Hellholes (all of S America for example).

When we chopped the head off our King it was not because of his poor behaviour but because he acted traitorously in allying himself with the Pope against the people of England, and because he argued he had Divine right and stood over the Law. 

Happily we are getting out of the hideous Continental construction of the EU which is so modeled on the classic Continental system of rule of the people. Our culture is far more raucous in defense of these ancient rights.

barrystar wrote:As you probably know, you are currently on the Fifth Republic.

legendkillar wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44694122

Not sure the purpose of this.

barrystar wrote:

legendkillar wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44694122

Not sure the purpose of this.

Pretty obvious - to try and persuade people that they have nothing to hide.

legendkillar wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44694122

Not sure the purpose of this.

bogbrush wrote:I see the Tour de France has been won by a Britush guy riding for Team Sky who has never taken a TUE nor has asthma treatment.

I’m sure the French public are delighted at this news and can be counted on to cheer him to the rafters for reinforcing confidence in their race.

His insistence that, though not using either, TUEs and salbutamol use are entirely benign should also encourage fans to be reconciled to Froomes wins.