Monday Roundup
News
Freezerbox writes an interesting criticism of the Mitchell Report and finds the public humiliations of Marion Jones and Floyd Landis cruel. The author feels that funding the exploration of making some PEDs safe and legal might be a better way to go than trying to erase the past.
The CyclingNews reports that Saunier Duval's directeur sportif Joxean Fernandez Matxin has a bone to pick with the UCI's Pat McQuaid about his handling of the Iban Mayo "B" sample retest:"Pat McQuaid is the worst thing for cycling at the moment," Matxin complained to Cyclingnews. "He is destroying cycling, and nobody knows why. I gave him my support many times before, but not now."
The VeloNews runs an AFP story that, despite the headline, reveals the UCI may be finding it difficult to meet the time line it established for the implementation of its "blood passport" program:
... it now seems the UCI faces an uphill struggle to meet the deadline with experts also raising doubts over the logistics needed to cope with an operation of such magnitude.
Their primary concerns are with the constant analysis of the blood levels and the number of tests involved. Before the 2008 Tour, which begins on July 5, the UCI is expecting to gather, analyze and chart 4,200 blood samples - six for each of the 500 riders of the Pro Tour and 200 continental teams that qualify for wild-cards in UCI Pro Tour events.
The VeloNews Monday Mailbag finds opinions split on "disgraced rider" Tyler Hamilton's return to competitive cycling on the Rock Racing team.
The NY Times writes about Roger Clemens' public relations appeal on YouTube that he has never used PEDs.
Blogs
Flahute posts that the Landis team is likely paying attention to the LaTasha Jenkins/USADA decision and rather belatedly paraphrases Blackstone's Formulation:
“Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."Heranando Go Lightly reports Landis beating Wiens, but coming behind Keith DeFiebre, in a story of dubious veracity.
6 comments:
I've referred to Blackstone's Formulation in the past as well:
http://www.flahute.com/2007/10/12/landis-to-appeal-split-decision-ruling-bike-biz/
We don't have the data available for Tyler that we have for Floyd. I'm inclined to think WADA used Tyler to make a point about doping in professional cycling in a way they have used Floyd, the facts and process be damned.
Regardless, he served his time. He deserves to have the opportunity for employment in his chosen sport. Anything less is petty vindictiveness and small minds at work. IMHO.
There was a whole lot more evidence in Tyler's case than there was Floyd's case ... especially later in the Puerto investigation. Even if the lab work was sloppy as in Floyd's case, there is certainly sufficient circumstantial evidence that came out after the fact to "convict" TH in my mind.
As for Floyd, regardless of his actual innocence or guilt; he got screwed by the system ... the only evidence against him is the lab work, and the lab protocol was very definitely screwed up left, right and sideways.
That doesn't completely invalidate the results, but for something this important, there should be certainty.
Floyd may not be innocent, but there is sufficient reasonable doubt that he should be found "not guilty" (and believe me, there is a difference); and that's why I generally support what Floyd is trying to prove ... WADA/USADA should be held to the same standards as a criminal court ... "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Hey Paula, take a day off! We can survive without our trusty roundup. Thanks for all you do.
Peace and Merry Christmas to all.
Especially to you and all yours, Floyd.
MIke, take a day off? What's that? :-) Hey, I have to get up @7 and fix Christmas breakfast for 15 people, I might as well see if there is anything out there worth posting. To all who read TBV, Happy Holidays!!! Thanks for all of your support....
Paula
flahute,
Really? Do you have access to a document dump by Tyler or USADA? Do you have inside knowledge of the OP files that are supposed to implicate Tyler and many others? The man did his time, plus some. It's vindictive, petty, and small minded for officials of a sanctioning body to seek punishments in excess of what is published in their own rules. This has smelled of alterior motives from the start.
Post a Comment