A Few Words From Dr. Fuentes

For memory, Fuentes was accused by Manzano, the spanish who saw the death very closely after a bad transfusion in 2003. Mr. Verdruggen and UCI told us that his accusation needed strong proofs! Luckyly Verddruggen is not the guy who is pushing the mud under the rug.
A french reportage with Jesus Manzano about his accident and the doping protocol to beat the testing, Manzano speaks spanish
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h43u5CZ5zqU
After the 5mn, he explains how a rider with a hct above 50% can get it in acceptable range. He takes an albumin injection and have to dry a lot of water …
Maybe you can find a lot of stuff in english.

All of the talk about privacy rights in cycling is a bit amusing to me. Perhaps we can have a discussion related solely to that topic.

Regarding Fuentes, his comments seem to be completely typical of doctors who engage in doping practices. While in law school, there were certain professors who taught us (literally) to be suspicious of doctors (my Torts II professor). However, all suspicions aside , there must be an entire and not entirely unpopular school of thought in the medical profession that agrees with the “doping” of athletes. I have heard over and over again about doctors who take the position that they are helping people who might otherwise hurt or even kill themselves. But this raises all sorts of ethical and legal questions….

Of course you could argue that it is similar to the ACLU defending the Nazi’s right to march in Illinois…or the defense team for OJ Simpson. Most (all?) lawyers believe that no matter what the crime, you have a right to a defense. The big difference is that the attorney will (presumably) not break the law in order to adequately represent the accused.

The article was nothing new from Dr. Fuentes: He apparently views it as helping people who would otherwise hurt themselves. What a humanitarian!

“”However, the cyclists were born to suffer, and they accept it all or almost all.”””

Did their mothers know this at the time?

“Cycling News Flash, December 7, 2007 – Vinokourov handed one-year ban for blood doping.”

I would say that December 7, 2007 was a very good day for headlines for Cycling News and it certainly gets the readers attention — it got mine. The First edition article continues with,

“Kazakh Alexander Vinokourov had been handed a one-year ban today, December 6, from the sport by his country’s federation stemming from his positive test for a homologous blood transfusion during this year’s Tour de France.”

“Similar case(s) have resulted in two-year suspensions by riders’ federations, and the 12-month ban for the rider who won the Albi time trial and Le Louron stage of this year’s Tour seems light in comparison. The International Cycling Union (UCI) could appeal the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), in addition, ‘Vino’ will be barred from racing with a ProTour team for four years.

Now this is getting rather interesting. Since most “cognizeti” (fans) of cycling would immediately raise an eyebrow to the “length” of the ban on Mr Vinokourov — and bring on an avalanche of questions along the lines of — What the heck? The rules state that a rider who gets busted for doping — gets a mandatory 2 year stretch! (ban) for a “first offense.”

Does the writer of the article make a mistake when he states that – if the UCI takes the case of the Kazakh Federations ban on “Vino” to the CAS then — “‘Vino’ will be barred from racing with a ProTour team for four years.”???

Later the same day — “First Edition Cycling News, December 7, 2007 – Vinokourov retires, vows to fight on.”

“Kazakh Alexander Vinokourov made a surprise decision to retire on Thursday after being handed a one year sentence by his national federation for blood doping.”

“Vinokourov’s lawyer, Maurice Suh, who is well known for defending another rider disgraced with a Tour de France doping positive, Floyd Landis,, released a statement following the sentence which indicated Vinokourov would continue to race.”

THE PRESS STATEMENT BY SUH according to this reporter is:

“Mr. Vinokourov looks forward to the end of his suspension and to the opportunity (to) begin returning to racing once his suspension is completed,”

WAIT JUST A MOMENT! — As I read the FE Cycling News article — I am led to believe that this is a “hot story” about the developing events of the “Vino” doping case, that Mr Suh’s relations with Vino are not good that they are not communicating — yet is it?

It appear to this reader that it is a forerunner to that last statement about Maurice Suh and the fact that Mr Suh is Mr Landis’ attorney — if I am reading the article correctly. I think I am.

Next in the same article we get a REACTION from “UCI’s spokesman Enrico Carpani expressed surprise.”

THIS WAS NOT PART OF THE STATEMENT BY “UCI’s spokesman Enrico Carpani “Cycling’s other transfusion positives, American Tyler Hamilton and Spaniard Santi Perez, have resulted in two-year sentences.”

THIS IS EDITORIALIZING by the writer himself. Maybe this writer is just trying to be a “good reporter” giving us information we need to know. Maybe.

WHAT THE STATEMENT WAS FROM UCI’s spokesman Enrico Carpani – “We are very shocked and surprised. We wonder where the Kazakh federation has found elements to deliver such a sanction,” — Carpani told AFP. So the writer IS QUOTING from another story from the AFP. Who knows what initials AFP stand for?

Aha — okay — BUT HOW does mentioning Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton explain to us about the Kazakh Federation decision? IT DOESN’T!

NEXT THE WRITER OF THE ARTICLE presents us with this little “tidbit” —

“The UCI indicated that it would appeal the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), and Vinokourov subsequently announced he would retire.”

“Alexander Vinokourov will stop competing and will retire, but says he will continue to fight for his honour,” — L’Equipe reported.

HOW FASCINATING!

So here I am — a regular guy — going to my news source — Cycling News — get a story about Vino and the Kazakh Federation — with a little bit of “informative honey” thrown in.

What am I actually getting? Well — it would appear that what WE ARE GETTING IS blatant “spin” from — AFP and L’Equipe!

Is the article about Vino and the Vino decision really about Vino and the Kazakh Federation?

NO — it is a “lead in” to a “public attack” on Mr Suh and Mr Landis with Tyler Hamilton thrown in just to give it some more unresolved “spice” to the mixture. Is it a well-written article? You bet it is — IS IT NEWS REPORTING? — NO IT IS NOT — IT IS “SPIN” with the objective to create negative opinions concerning Mr Suh, Mr Landis and Mr Hamilton and sad to say Americans.

So Jean C — While I tend to agree with you about Fuentes — I think everyone here would. What I would like to see more of is EVIDENCE of the statements of Fuentes’s Biography.

I am not saying Fuentes is “innocent” — what I am saying Jean C is that to create such a time line for Fuentes is easy — but it has to backed by proof.

BECAUSE if Fuentes has been such a pariah to the cycling world — then WHY has he be NOT busted before OP? This bum has been in the “game” for a lot of years — and getting away with it — WE NEED TO KNOW WHO ALLOWED HIM TO DO SO — Fact is Fuentes did not exist in a vacuum. The Ruling Bodies had to be AWARE of his activities — yet WHY WAS NOTHING DONE? And who specifically is to blame for this.

William’s comment —

“I was under the impression that the right to a defense was one of our constitutional rights, not just a belief that lawyers have.” — Shows clearly what Americans are concerned about in the issues of doping/cheating in cycling and sports — intelligent people are bound together by the rules and laws they agree to follow.

When the rules and laws are thrown away under the guise of “fighting the bad guys” — the “rationale” being that it is okay — because the bad guys are doing it too — Then there are no means of fighting bad guys anymore. We become no different then them.

DON’T FOR A MINUTE THINK that because we don’t accept “what everybody knows” as evidence or proof of a public accusation THAT WE CONDONE OR SUPPORT doping/cheating.

DON’T FOR A MINUTE assume that we do not have really powerful emotional reactions to the situations — but we try very hard not to let it cloud our reason and judgment.

The problem we are facing is all about the rules and the laws in cycling and sports — it is about legal behavior that is fair and just — yes — even for the accused!

“CHECKS AND BALANCES” — “TRANSPARENCY IN PROCEEDINGS” AND ACCOUNTABILITY are not “play words” to be tossed about in media commentary being presented for consumption.

For Americans it is the glue that holds the society together. You will find that Americans who are comprised from ALL THE NATIONS AND PEOPLES OF THE WORLD — hold this very close to their hearts and minds — even when we are more angry then we may even be able to express — it helps us keep sane in insane situations.

Morgan,
“While I tend to agree with you about Fuentes — I think everyone here would. What I would like to see more of is EVIDENCE of the statements of Fuentes’s Biography.”
There is a least 2 riders who testified about Fuentes’ business: Manzano and Jaschke.
For Jaschke, you can read his Spiegel’s interview here:
http://spoke-n-word-cycles.com/blog.html
For Manzano, I suppose that you can find some stuff on it in english, in French there is a lot!

Some other good reading
http://pappubahry.livejournal.com/262884.html
http://scienceofsport.blogspot.com/
especially
http://scienceofsport.blogspot.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.html

Rant,
I was not trying to impugn the AFP — My comment was an “attempt” to show how “spin” is possible — that anyone can get away with it if they know the rudiments of how it works. “spin” is a tool — a weapon. It is a weapon to aim at triggering peoples hottest fears and emotions to keep them from actually using their ability to reason and function.

If there is a culprit to the spin being put on the two stories about Vino — and please remember here — I do not address Vino’s guilt or innocence — the topic of my comment was not this — it wa about “spin.” One would have to head directly to the desk of Ms Laura Weislo — “Edited by Laura Weislo – Vinokourov shuts the door on cycling” – “Edited by Laura Weislo – Vinokourov retires, vows to fight on.”

As the editions being put out for the 7th and 8th of December — 2007 of Cycling News — she is accredited with the work.

What I was trying to point to was the fact that the “news stories” were actually (1) –compilations and (2) — they were “slanted.” As to “why” they were slanted — I do not believe that I could possibly answer this question. I could make guesses — BUT GUESSES AND ASSUMPTIONS are not proof — are they? It is possible that Ms Weislo is merely interested in “selling print” — very possible.

Does she have an “agenda” I couldn’t possibly answer this either, although one could guess and make assumptions.

HERE IS AN ASSUMPTION/GUESS: — – — if one looks at the “news story” then one would very easily read it and interpret it as having taken a stance and this stance is anti-Landis. How else can one interpret them? Sounds “reasonable, doesn’t it? But in reality – it is “spin” – plain and simple. I have no proof or conferring evidence of any sort to make such a statement.

The point I was trying to make was that the average reader tends to “look” and “see” the headline “hook” — but when reading the “article” is left to responds to the content.

Are readers consciously aware of this activity while reading — I would have to say that most people don’t read in a fashion that is questioning — rather they read for what “interests” them.

If one reads the original articles that were used to “create Ms Weislo’ s creative editing versions — the “spin” is not present. So one must ask — why the “interweaving” of Landis and Hamilton along with the hint that Mr Suh had no case and was summarily “dismissed” as a qualified lawyer.

There is no legitimate reason for this. It creates insecurity and mistrust in the reader — helps form unsubstantiated innuendo to replace logic and reason — in otherwords — it is designed to agitate the reader and because the reader is in an agitated state — he/she will have a greater difficulty in using their logic and reason to understand the “reported” situation.

Now RECALL PLEASE THAT THE LANDIS CASE IS STILL “LEGALLY” UNSETTLED — and is to go before the CAS – it matters NOT that the UCI, WADA and ASO have come to “understand” the verdict from the ARBS in California as “Landis is Guilty!”

Mr Landis has not “exhausted his rights to trial” – In my opinion if there was a less “fuzzy set of rules and laws that govern cycling” – The understanding of ASO, UCI and WADA would and should be considered ILLEGAL!

So for Ms Laura Weislo to edit and compile stories that in reality present Mr Suh’s reputation as a lawyer is questioned “publicly” — therefore his work in the Landis case is put into question. This is spin.

I also wrote this comment because I wished to point out to Jean C — that sending his “Fuentes Resume” is not quiet ethical — BECAUSE the allegations are not followed up by legal proof. Also — as William astutely pointed out:

“F’s activities did not violate existing Spanish law. If he had an official capacity with any cycling teams, the UCI may have had the power to have him kicked off that team, and also bar any other team from hiring him. However, the UCI could not prevent him from conducting his private practice. Could the UCI ban any licensed rider from paying Dr. F a visit? Perhaps, perhaps not.”

William ends his comment with: “We perhaps may question their ethics, but we can do no more.” Referring to doctors and riders who resort to drugs and cheating methods. IF IT IS NOT LEGALLY BANNED — nothing may be “done about it.” No matter how we feel about it!

Understand please — I am NOT STANDING UP for Fuentes. I am standing up for Fuentes’s “rights!” I personally find his actions lower then shark piss – but I do get annoyed at Jean C’s propensity to “present” his comments as acts of “law breaking” when in reality the events transpiring may not have been “illegal” at the time or in the country.

To present “commentary” in this manner is no better then using a public forum to “accuse” and brand. Plain and simple. Jean C and Ludwig both tend to “throw out the accusations” and when confronted by other commentators about it — they respond with ire, or further “repetitions” of their personal agendas. When in reality what is asked of them is to simply word it justly. To present their case fairly, fairly being that it is more then just “how they feel about doping.”

To present a case or incident where “accusations are made” and not backed up with the support of law or rules existing — is in my opinion “spin” of a sort, and therefore nothing less then an appeal to bias and personal opinions and the riled passions of the reader.

Jean C, Ludwig or Stephen have every right to their “opinions” — they – like everyone else have their personal prejudices — be it doping, cheating, or a low opinion of lawyers — BUT if we cannot agree on a fair set of rules and laws — AND THEN FOLLOW THEM IN PRACTICE AND SPEECH – there is no hope of reaching clear understanding. Or for that matter — STOPPING DOPING AND CHEATING!

JeanC,

Excellent summary.

Morgan,

You say
“I also wrote this comment because I wished to point out to Jean C — that sending his “Fuentes Resume” is not quiet ethical — BECAUSE the allegations are not followed up by legal proof.”

So any time someone wants to point out someone’s career on a message board, they are trampling into unethical territory? When are you going to understand that the fight against doping is a fight within one sport for sporting integrity and fairness? It is not about legality, unless the riders actually break the law. It’s about one sport trying to save itself from self-destruction, up against a number of privledged riders and managers who profit from the traditional prep methods. For those who love cycling, this is about sporting integrity rather than legal precedents.

As for Landis’ case being unsettled–is not the abundant evidence and guilty verdict enough for a reasonable person to assume his guilt? And what about your bias? Are you prepared to admit that Landis could be guilty of what he is accused of, and said guilt would undermine many of the overzealous claims you so easily make? For me, it doesn’t matter so much if the science proves Landis is guilty. If the science isn’t sufficient, then he should get off. But what must be fought stiffly is the Landis team’s attempt to mislead the public on the true nature of the doping problem and how to best fight it.

The simple fact of the matter is this–if you defend those cyclists and DSes who have profited out of working association with Fuentes as tarred by “guilt by association” and thus innocent until “hard proof”, and you argue that every such person should be taken at his word and left in their position of privledge within the system….then you basically support Fuentes and what he does. And you support the McQuaids of cycling, who want to details of OP to remain under cover. It’s pretty silly to assume Fuentes was alone, or that people in cycling weren’t aware of who he was and what he was doing. Or that other doctors aren’t doing the exact same thing right now. Is anyone seriously naive enough to think an intelligent adult would dope himself without medical supervision?

The whole strategy of Hamilton, Landis, Vino, and Kash has been to undermine the fair anti-doping regulations and build up public opposition to it. Don’t have any illusions about their respective agendas, and don’t support these characters and then turn around and insist you are for fair sport.

I’ll continue to support those actors who have treated the fan base and the public with enough respect not to lie. All I ask is that these cyclists and managers have enough honor to tell the truth–whether they dope or not. I don’t know what it will take for you people to come around to this position–maybe it will require Landis and his crew to confess. I suppose sometimes one has to get burned before truly grasping that the pot is hot.

Ludwig,

Yes —

“So any time someone wants to point out someone’s career on a message board, they are trampling into unethical territory?”

Correct — when the information is unsubstantiated — you damned right I would call it unethical. A “message board” is public — therefore it is or should be covered by the same rules as if you are printing it in a newspaper or a magazine. — Go ahead Ludwig — try getting such set of statements in a newspaper or magazine without substantiation — Even if you manage such a thing — I hope you have damned good lawyers — you know — the ones — like the ones who actually think that each individual has basic rights”¦maybe they’d be able to save your shirt and underwear for you.

As to your statement —

“As for Landis’ case being unsettled–is not the abundant evidence and guilty verdict enough for a reasonable person to assume his guilt?”

NO IT IS NOT — it is YOUR presumption that the proceedings were held fairly and the testing was unimpeachable — I do not see where your assumptions can be supported other then by circuitous thinking and rabid rationalization. Since you like to infer that there is an omerta of silence — I would like to point out to you that your lack of ability to look at the Landis proceedings clearly makes your assumptions no better. One is a myth of silence and the other is an avalanche of noise.

You continue—

“For me, it doesn’t matter so much if the science proves Landis is guilty. If the science isn’t sufficient, then he should get off.”—

It should certainly MATTER to you if you are truly interested in the concept of “justice and fair play” — but I rather suspect that you prefer to hear only your personal logic — Your next statement bears me out in this —

“But what must be fought stiffly is the Landis team’s attempt to mislead the public on the true nature of the doping problem and how to best fight it.”

So now you are stating that the entire legal team of Landis is perpetrating fraud because they are defending Landis — as is his right — because they find the so called “evidence” that WADA supplied via USADA against Landis as being “faulty.”

In otherwords — in your world — if WADA says — you-be-a-doper — you are. There is no defence. There is no rights of the accused — what the heck lets be honest here — The defense MAY NOT EVEN question the procedural science that WADA and their labs are using — we should just ignore that — right! BECAUSE YOU CHOOSE TO “believe” it is so?” When was the last time you actually thought this through?

As to this statement, Ludwig —

“The simple fact of the matter is this–if you defend those cyclists and DSes who have profited out of working association with Fuentes as tarred by “guilt by association” and thus innocent until “hard proof”, and you argue that every such person should be taken at his word and left in their position of privledge within the system”¦.then you basically support Fuentes and what he does.” —

The only thing that is “clear” is that you have no idea how logic is applied or used — I’ll give you one thing — you do try hard — but you over reach yourself by trying to claim that I am supporting Fuentes and his ilk BECAUSE I believe that everyone has a right to be considered innocent when accused until proven guilty.

As to making a distinction about privileged individuals as compared to have-nots — it seems to me — you are more-guilty of this then I. I believe that everyone — regardless of wealth or lack there-of — deserve certain rights.

I have no idea how you may infer from my comments this next observation of yours — but I sure would like to see you prove it —

“And you support the McQuaids of cycling, who want to details of OP to remain under cover. It’s pretty silly to assume Fuentes was alone, or that people in cycling weren’t aware of who he was and what he was doing. Or that other doctors aren’t doing the exact same thing right now.”

As to what it will take for “people like me” to come around to your way of seeing the world — I would not wait on this Ludwig.

It occurs to me now that I didn’t address the essential contradiction in your reasoning….which is basically that cyclists deserve every right afforded by Anglo-American justice systems to criminals.

I reject such analogies, because they are inappropriate. Dopers are not lawbreakers, they are cheaters. This is a substantial difference. The situation is akin to any other professional organization trying to uphold ethical standards. Since cyclists, like other professionals, voluntarily enter into agreements and sign ethical charters, the profession has the right to eject those cyclists who don’t uphold their word. It isn’t a legal issue–it’s about maintaining the integrity and credibility of a sport.

Imagine, for example, if your reasoning was applied to other sports. If there was a police investigation into the role of a famous football coach in unethically videotaping what the other team is saying–should that coach be entitled to stay in his position until a court of arbitration decides upon his guilt? Or should the team owners and the sport in general have the right to protect itself by preemptively firing this individual?

Does cycling have a right to protect its sporting integrity by instituting reforms? This is eseentially what is at issue here. Drawing out analogies to criminal matters does not add anything to the discussion, because we aren’t talking about criminal allegations, we are talking about unethical professional behavior.

Anglo-Americanism — quaint term that — I had not realized that fairness and justice were Anglo-American inventions. I had thought that people are civilized enough to have stopped using jingoistic-bent name calling a while ago — but I suppose this is a malady of every age of societies.

You are quiet wrong when you surmise that my comment on your statements do not reject your stance. Perhaps if you read it again you may find that it does. But I shall not hold my breath.

—“because you oppose the efforts by the sport to purge itself of doping doctors and doping DSes.”

You wish to “interpret” my words merely to suit your meaning. Well, let me set you straight. I do not oppose sport purging itself of cheating — I simply do not believe that it can be done. I DO Believe in striving for the highest ideals though — even if the end result is a mere shadow of it.

I do vehemently oppose methods that are less then just — or that prevents an accused individual from having a chance to prove him/herself innocent, when accused of a crime — be it moral, ethical or legal.

I appose “governing bodies” that hold themselves outside law — by declaring themselves mere sport governing bodies and therefore they do not have to follow laws and jurisprudence other then the ones they deem for themselves, or convenient for their immediate need or purpose.

I appose media lynching — to generate mob mentality when an individual’s life is at stake, literally or merely financially.

I appose ideologies such as yours appears to be, which ignores that people — whatever their social status may be – have a right to be heard and tried in a fair court of law.

I appose people who would consider silencing others because they do not think and feel the same way you do.

I appose public “branding” of individuals — as well as mutilation or for that matter whipping — I also do not believe that a governing body has a right to take what it cannot give.

I do believe that everyone is subject to having the right to be perceived as a human being first — be it a sportsman or an ideologue.

I reject narrow-minded parroting of populist beliefs merely to be accepted or to be perceived popular.

I resent repeated attacks on an accused person merely because you think you have something to say — and when someone calls you on it — your only response is to keep repeating the same inane nonsense you perceive to be the only truth.

To make a statement about an individual without “collaborative proof” is slander. I do not believe one has to be Anglo-American to understand this.

I do not believe in “silencing” anyone from speaking or DEFENDING themselves when accused — and I do NOT feel that being embarrassed by the turn of events should stop anyone from standing up for the rights of the individual.

When an individual’s means of livelihood is threatened — be they “cheaters or dopers” — even they have a right to DEFEND themselves in a civilized society.

As to WADA, omerta and conspiracies — no one including myself — denies that “cheating” has been a part of cycling – since its inception — as well as in other sports.

What is not acceptable is that we allow isolation of the governing bodies and give them carte-blanche power — they may not feel safe from “accountability,” even if it costs the realization and acceptance that EVERY RIDER, EVERY SPORTS FIGURE is no different then you. Because according to your logic — EVERYONE will cheat as long as they get away with it.

As to your self-justified stance about the discovery that all your sports heroes were cheaters, perhaps then for you — you should look for heroes in other occupations — there are many to choose from.

I love cycling — I am too old to be looking for heroes — I watch it because it is beautiful and I have done it myself and greatly enjoyed it — But this is not why I DEFEND the rights of an individual — no sir — I do it because it is fair to do so, because the individual has the right of protection against the mob mentality, unfair use of rules or laws against him.

And just in case you don’t get it — I do hold Fuentes in contempt along with and including all those who were responsible for enabling him to carry on – ethically — not legally — since what he was doing at the time was not illegal — whether you like it or not.

One other thing — I am sorry that your heroes have disappointed you — but do not let yourself become bitter and there by cloud your own thinking.

Morgan,

You miss my point. You keep harping on about legal rights, but cycling reforming itself is not about enforcing laws. It’s about a professional organization having standards. Your legal analogies don’t make any sense.

Ultimately, debate with you is near impossible because you make every issue a personal issue, and accuse me of wanting to harm individuals or take away their rights.

Most of the things you “oppose” are also opposed by me. All I’m asserting is that your support for the enablers and practioners of the cycling omerta undermines whatever anti-doping or fairness agenda you may have. The “silencing” of thoughtful discussion or meaningful reforms takes place on behalf of the doping omerta and their interest in perpetuating the status quo. And your assertion that the cycling media should not be allowed to include any speculative reasoning in their doping reportage is typical omerta logic.

I am for an open, public discussion of the way forward for cycling and other sports. I am for full amnesty for any athelete that steps forward and confesses.

But none of this can take place unless the sport can agree on a fair anti-doping program, and the sport is both capable and not afraid to eject cheaters.

“And just in case you don’t get it — I do hold Fuentes in contempt along with and including all those who were responsible for enabling him to carry on – ethically — not legally — since what he was doing at the time was not illegal — whether you like it or not.”

Well I don’t hold him in contempt in any legal fashion either. I simply believe a sport has a right to enforce ethical standards, just like any professional organization.

I don’t think Fuentes is a bad person. I don’t think he should go to jail. I simply despise what the doping culture does to cycling.

Ludwig,

“—a sport has a right to enforce ethical standards, just like any professional organization.”

No organization has a right to enforce its rules or by-laws by trampling on the rights of individuals.

“—I simply despise what the doping culture does to cycling.”

So you believe that WADA’s actions have been shaped by the “doping culture” — In otherwords — it is apparently okay to fight them at their own game using their own “rules” — disregarding the value of the individual or his right to a fair representation.

“—So far, most of your objections have been personal in nature and beside the point.”

You have the right to interpret your opinion as you wish — only because you may express yourself as you wish — this is one of the “rights” of individuals, as is my right to oppose your stance. My “personal opinions” are no more personal then yours. That is the idea behind free speech.

“”¦none of this can take place unless the sport can agree on a fair anti-doping program, and the sport is both capable and not afraid to eject cheaters.”

A sport is not an entity of itself — it is a social activity, governed by individuals — with individual agendas. Therefore it/they are bound to follow “fair and just” actions — When it/they put themselves above the rules they themselves become transgressors of “fair and just action.”

“—I am for an open, public discussion of the way forward for cycling and other sports. I am for full amnesty for any athelete that steps forward and confesses.”

Then you must also be for “open door hearings and public access” — You must then be for “scrutinizing the behavior and actions” of the “governing bodies” of sports and be willing to look at said behavior and question whether it tramples on the rights of individuals under the guise of a moral crusade.

“—your assertion that the cycling media should not be allowed to include any speculative reasoning in their doping reportage is typical omerta logic.”

When “speculative reasoning” — WITHOUT COLLABORATIVE EVIDENCE is used by the reporting media and said media present an individual that is under “accusation” — then this is nothing more then “finding the accused guilty by association” — it is also known as propaganda and character assassination and has nothing to do with investigative journalism, and everything to do with shading the accused as guilty before he or they have had a chance to fight for their innocence. As is your insinuation that my logic comes from a particular “omerta” point of view, this is called “branding.”

“—Ultimately, debate with you is near impossible because you make every issue a personal issue, and accuse me of wanting to harm individuals or take away their rights.”

You ARE trampling on the individual’s rights to defend themselves and are therefore harming them. I make no claims to being a lawyer, nor do I call my reasoning anything but from a personal viewpoint — No more personal as your comments.

You wish to discount my commentary as “personal” — how convenient for you. You play at semantic logic and when your points are held to light and show themselves to be “wanting” you attempt to diminish their stance by accusing me of making personal arguments against you — this is called “circular thinking,” it has little to do with logic.

When you make accusations and add the names of individuals to your statements — you may not claim that you are presenting a logical stance of your accusations since you yourself have become an accuser of a person who is not able or may not be aware that you are accusing them, and you are doing it in a public forum. This infringes on the rights of the individual to meet his accuser face to face and challenge the accusation.

At this point your stance has become slander — since the initial “speculative” assertions, which you present, have not been followed up by “collaborative evidence” — you are accusing the accused of guilt because you say so. You still do not present “collaborative evidence” – to prove your point, or back up your accusation.

“—You keep harping on about legal rights, but cycling reforming itself is not about enforcing laws. It’s about a professional organization having standards.”

What I keep harping on is that the rights of the individual may not be sacrificed in the name of any cause or belief. I have nothing against an organization having standards. But they may not ignore the right of the individual to defend himself when accused.

Jean C –

There is a world of difference between discussing and making alligations.

Nowhere in my stance have I stated that you or anyone else cannot say as they wish – but even in the first amendment – there is that little clause that states that you may not use “free speech” to attacki another merely because you feel it is justified.