Re: Where's the science?

On Jul 21, 1:39 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
================
However, when you say this is not the time for
technicalities or due process, you leave open
the question, when _is_ the time?  Generally,
nobody needs due process until they're accused
of something.  This is why even arrogant Italians
who look guilty, guilty, guilty should be treated by
the same rules as poor suffering innocents
whose dog just happened to die.
================

(Someday I'll figure out why my replies don't properly "quote" some posts)

What, exactly, is "due process?" According to this-http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d080.htm

"DUE PROCESS - The idea that laws and legal proceedings must be fair. The
Constitution guarantees that the government cannot take away a person's
basic rights to 'life, liberty or property, without due process of law.'
Courts have issued numerous rulings about what this means in particular
cases."

But that references the US Constitution, and when you do a search on
International Due Process, you get into a real mixed bag, most of it dealing
with refugees.

Are we claiming that this is a basic human rights issue? Does that really
apply to athletes who agree to the measures in question ahead of time, and
aren't forced into this line of work?

But to answer the question about *when* is the time (for "technicalities"),
I would say it should occur within a set period of time after the event,
perhaps no more than 5-10 days, which should have given enough time for the
B sample to be analyzed. There should be no long drawn out period in which
the athlete exists in a no-mans land, unable to compete due to allegations
that have, as yet, not been proven.


Mike,

"Due process," meaning due process of law, is a
statement about just that, process - the laws should be
followed as written and applied equally to all. It doesn't
necessarily say what the rules should be or have anything
to do with fundamental human rights. It is an Anglo/American
legal concept, but I think there are basically similar ideas
in European law now. Essentially it is anti-monarchical -
the idea that the laws cannot be superseded by a king,
president, unitary executive, CIA interrogator, or a sheriff's
deputy with a chip on his shoulder.

The end state of what you advocate is reasonable.
You're just getting to it the wrong way. The current
situation is broken. When you say that we should
suspend due process and technicalities while the
race is going on, and fix it up later, you forget that
the dope cops use one case as precedent for the
next, always expanding what they can do. I'm going
to go libertarian and channel SLAVE of the STATE for
a moment: when you surrender a right to authority,
the chances that the authority will give it back once
the so-called state of emergency is past are very
very small.

This is why you should be advocating to change
the rules first, rather than saying riders should be
fired mid-race and we can fix the rules and the
LNDD leaks later. A month from now, no one will
be agitating to fix the rules.

I think Ricco is a bigmouth with Gary Hart syndrome
who likely had what he thought was undetectable
new EPO. Oops. It would suck to leave him in the
race for a couple of extra days. However, this was
foreseeable, and they should have changed the rules
before starting the Tour. And they should have provided
for expediting the B-test. I'm not sure if they've done
his yet, but they certainly haven't leaked the result yet.

Ben
.

Relevant Pages