Floyd Landis Sentenced For Hacking Test Lab 173
McGruber writes with some news that slipped by in December: "Floyd Landis won the 2006 Tour de France, but was later stripped of his title after testing 'positive for an unusually high ratio of the hormone testosterone to the hormone epitestosterone (T/E ratio).' In February 2010, Slashdot covered the news that Landis had been accused of hacking into the laboratory that detected the unusually high T/E ratio. Since then, Landis was 'convicted in absentia by a French court for his role in hacking into the computers of a French doping lab,' according to National Public Radio. Landis and his former coach Arnie Baker both received 12-month suspended sentences, according to USA Today."
The important part is missing from the summary (Score:5, Insightful)
"Judges said that although no evidence directly linked Messrs. Landis and Baker to the hacking of the antidoping lab, both men benefited from the illegal intrusion."
So, basically, anyone who benefits from a crime is somehow culpable whether or not they actually had anything to do with it.
Gotta love that French "justice" system...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And you can't honestly believe he hoped for "some luck" to make his test results look normal...
Re:The important part is missing from the summary (Score:5, Insightful)
> We shall assume his guilt on the bases that he would have benefitted from committing the crime and we are already prejudiced against him over other stuff.
The French have a history of judging people like that. People living under common law systems don't realise how good they've got it until they try engaging with the authorities elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
...and here in the States we have radicals who want to do away with the common-law system. They're the idiots who howl about "activist judges"; no doubt most of them don't understand what the end result of their desires would be.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. You are aware that the US is not primarily a common (as opposed to civil law) system, right, the majority of states being mixed jurisdictions? Didn't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh really? I'm aware of Louisiana having its own system derived from France's law code a couple centuries back, that New York law has a few remnants of Dutch civil law, and California having codified its laws (civil law style) but keeping the common law system.
I'd say it's you who are blowing smoke out your ass.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Nowhere do I say so.
I say that the idiots who cry about judicial activism are asking for a system where we don't have the protections of common law.
Re: (Score:2)
Nowhere do I say so.
I say that the idiots who cry about judicial activism are asking for a system where we don't have the protections of common law.
I don't think you understand what us idiots call "activist judges". An activist judge is one who uses his/her own opinion to base rulings on instead of the law. For example, Prop 8 in California was passed by a majority of Californians, but was struck down by a judge citing "The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples". I use this as an example because there is nothing in either the US or Cal
Re: (Score:2)
Of course judges can create law, and they've done so since the founding. It's called "case law".
Re: (Score:3)
The United States is innovative. Congress is finding innovative ways to usher in an Orwellian nightmare. Have you protested SOPA today?
About justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The important part is missing from the summary (Score:5, Interesting)
There are many things about France which are shocking to anyone who has not spent much time in France. To take three examples:
In the field of education, medicine involving taking in over ten times the number of people you expect to graduate then expelling all but the top tenth in first year exams.
In the field of business, I was surprised at the number of government-owned or government-propped French businesses which have taken over following privatisation in other EU countries.
In the field of justice, the lack of jury availability except in the most severe cases means some absurd rulings from a weak judiciary.
They have a very classist approach to society and they're even more hypocritical than England with their good-sportsmanship-equality-under-the-law bullshit.
You left one out: (Score:5, Interesting)
No freedom to practice your religion without interference from the state. Muslim women can't wear the burqa in public. Jewish schoolboys can't wear the yarmulke in public schools while Christians are prohibited from wearing "large" crosses. In the name of secularism French society has crossed the line into intolerance and forced compliance with the tyranny of the majority.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No freedom to practice your religion without interference from the state. Muslim women can't wear the burqa in public. Jewish schoolboys can't wear the yarmulke in public schools while Christians are prohibited from wearing "large" crosses. In the name of secularism French society has crossed the line into intolerance and forced compliance with the tyranny of the majority.
You're an idiot. Study the word laic before writing nonsense.
French institutions are laic, and that includes the public school system.
On the other hand you can bloody worship whoever or whatever you want in your private sphere.
In the US on the other hand, you mix religion and politics like ice and whiskey.
So you're the last people that should speak about the benefits of a laic state.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You left one out: (Score:4, Informative)
Laicism at its core is intolerance for religion; as long as its not state sponsored, and its not inconveniencing anyone, me displaying symbols of my religion (or lack thereof -- are atheist bumper stickers illegal in France?) shouldn't be any of the state's business.
That's exactly wrong. Laicism is about the state not sponsoring any religion. So the "as long as it is not state sponsored" itself is contradicting Laicism, because the state is explicitely forbidden to sponsor religion.
And that means that showing religious symbols in state operated buildings is considered advertisement of religion and this is frowned upon there (not in the public itself, just on governmental premises).
The case is differently with the burqa, because hiding your face in public is considering wearing a mask, and this runs afoul the ban on concealment. The same is valid for ski masks, or motorcycle helmets or whatever. The burqa is not any different from a legal viewpoint.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The public building gives you room to advertise your religion - you are leeching an opportunity the state gives to all citizens to interact with the state to propagate your beliefs. If you would start to put up advertisements for your business in a governmental building, you also would be complimented out of the door. How is the religion you adhere to any different?
Re: (Score:2)
I am strongly for the advance of secularism, however part of that core is that people are allowed to choose. Thus, this kind of 'secularism' is incompatible with that.
Re: (Score:3)
Whatever you may think the core of the cause you're espousing is, if you really want to allow people the freedom to choose, "secularism" is the wrong word. Secularism as an ideal was born out of the French Revolution's persecution of Catholics; ever since then secularism has involved a government hostility towards religion which at least tries to bar religious peoples' voices from the public sphere (extremely anti-democratic) and usually extends to various other kinds of persecution.
I'll give a little backg
Re: (Score:2)
Muslim women can't wear the burqa in public. Jewish schoolboys can't wear the yarmulke in public schools while Christians are prohibited from wearing "large" crosses
All of this is pretty new: was set recently by president Sarkozy.
That should change from May 2012...
Re: (Score:2)
This is frequently misunderstood. The principle is similar than in the US, but differently implemented. The idea is that one is completely free to practice whatever religion one wants (there are exceptions for sects who recruit people forcefully), but that in the public space proselytism and displaying outward signs of a religious nature is proscribed. Note that the "public space" does not mean the park or the street, it is quite restricted: it means teaching and being taught in the public system, and inter
Re: (Score:2)
No freedom to practice your religion without interference from the state. Muslim women can't wear the burqa in public. Jewish schoolboys can't wear the yarmulke in public schools while Christians are prohibited from wearing "large" crosses. In the name of secularism French society has crossed the line into intolerance and forced compliance with the tyranny of the majority.
You are very wrong here! - The state does not interfere with your right to practice your religion. You can believe what you want and go to church/temple/mosque as you please. You can dress how you like with a few limitations which shouldn't bother anyone. The so-called 'banned symbols' are not essential to the practice in any way - you can wear what you like at home or at your place of worship.
The reason for imposing restrictions especially when it comes to burqa and nijab is to liberate those women who are
Re: (Score:2)
The requirement that religion can only be practiced in the home or place of worship is a restriction. The purpose of religious symbols is not advertisement; if someone truly believes that they must wear a yarmulke then it is a severe discrimination to ban this person from attending schools or to require him to deny his religion in public. This is the state becoming big brother in that they claim to know better than anyone else and have decided what is or is not religion and how it should and should not be
Re: (Score:2)
I had an American flag shirt that I got one 4th of July. I wore it a lot, and it was one of my favorite shirts (not because I was overly patriotic or anything, just because it was comfortable). Granted, my high-school tenure was between 2000 and 2004, and it was in Arkansas, I was able to do it without any problems. In fact, at the time I didn't even think that it might ever become an issue... anywhere
If kids are being stopped for doing something so innocent... wow... What a crazy state.
Re: (Score:2)
You should read my post back there in this thread.
I implanted my tongue firmly in cheek and pointed out, that if you're going to be patriotic, you really don't wear the flag as a shirt, as that's what the actual flag etiquette says.
That's totally ignoring the fact that there is no actual ban on wearing a flag shirt to school in California as the previous poster stated and further implied that it's banned because somehow patriotism in California is banned (apparently he hasn't been to Orange County) because
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt kids are really stopped from wearing "patriotic" shirts. More likely it's one of those memes from the conservative commentariat designed to keep their listeners afraid and angry, and thus more easily led.
Re:You left one out: (Score:4, Insightful)
It is perfectly okay, yet tacky, to do so. The Flag Code has no penalties and is non-binding.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it distasteful for someone to wear the flag as clothing, but I appreciate that those folks don't mean to be disrespectful. They think they're showing everyone how much they love their country.
Re:You left one out: (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think of it as disrespectful... more just unintentionally offensive. I find it distasteful for someone to wear the flag as clothing, but I appreciate that those folks don't mean to be disrespectful. They think they're showing everyone how much they love their country.
Personally I am against flag burning except for when people wrap themselves in one.
Re:You left one out: (Score:4, Insightful)
Some of can appreciate the meaning of a symbol without the brain washed devotion to it.
I much rather people understand what the US flag stands for even if they wear, burn, make cake out of or whatever than exercise devotional purity and in doing do completely miss it's meaning...
Except for the part where... (Score:2)
Dead people do not take offense or breath.
Re: (Score:2)
It also would show such a shirt-wearer's disrespect for the US flag. It's offensive to the people who've given their lives so that an American can be free to be a douchebag.
I like to think I did my 6 years of service in large part so people can be idiots, douchebags, fat, lazy, crass, rude, craven or whatever they please. If you want to honor my small contribution, please drive really slowly in the fast lane, or tear ass on an elevator, or take a full cart through the express checkout, or misspell 'lose' and 'loose.'
Re:You left one out: (Score:5, Interesting)
Etiquette is just a word for controlling people's behaviors. Not allowing "flag desecration" simply because you find it offensive is just censorship.
Re:You left one out: (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when is it OK to desecrate the flag by wearing it as a shirt, cupcake?
December 15, 1791.
Re: (Score:2)
You're looking for "legal", not "OK". It's true that the Flag Code has no legal force (and I'm happy that it doesn't), but if one is going to be obnoxiously patriotic then one should treat the flag with respect.
Re:You left one out: (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not going to deify the flag to the point of trying to determine what is okay for others. That you can wear the American flag as a diaper is what makes that flag so special in the first place.
Nationalism is a disease. Reverence for a symbol is religion. Be careful how you project your values onto others.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, don't get me wrong. The sort who wear the flag would probably think me unpatriotic because I don't ape the usual ways of "proving" to all and sundry that I love my country. I just expect them to walk the walk.
Re: (Score:3)
and for that matter...
http://www.etsy.com/listing/50473469/american-flag-reusable-cloth-maxi-pad [etsy.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's why they should dump the pledge of alliegence to the flag and replace it with a pledge of alliegence to the Constitution. Except that no politician would take it.
Politicians regularly place their hand upon the bible and swear to uphold the constitution as part of the ceremony of acceptance of their office. You can see how seriously they take that, though.
Re: (Score:2)
You're looking for "legal", not "OK".
You're looking for a way to project your obsolete morality onto others. Any flag worth fighting for was born from fire in the first place.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Since always, the fag is not sacred.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
In California, the 'fag' is indeed sacred.
Re: (Score:2)
When did free speech require flag etfiquette be observed, you can burn the thing if you like I don't see a legitimate argument against issuing it as a shirt or panties for that matter. I also don't agree that attending public school should mean checking your civil liberties at the door.
Re: (Score:3)
This. It boggles my mind that the average loudly patriotic type is OK with utterly disrespecting his flag by wearing it as an item of (ratty) clothing, or by flying it in all weather without a spotlight, or by never replacing it once it gets torn and faded. I see that all the time in my area.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you're right, a torn and faded flag doesn't adequately represent this country. You have to patch the tears with the logos of corporations like Coca-Cola (has its own private armies in latin america) or Halliburton (chosen to rebuild the stuff we're bombing in the middle east by the same people who were bombing it, who also worked for Halliburton and owned big pieces of it... Or how about the big 3 automakers for whom we continue to pass ostensibly illegal protectionist laws so that they may continue t
Re: (Score:2)
There is a reason why every fireman, every officer and every solider wears one on their shoulder. They still believe in what it stands for, as imperfect as that idea may have become in recent years. Call them brave, call them stupid, but they still believe those colors are worth defending, and sometimes dying for.
History is cyclical; either the country, as a whole, will learn what that f
Re: (Score:2)
If you're appalled by the way the "patriotic" types treat the flag, wait until you see what they've done to the Constitution!
Re:You left one out: (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I expect people who are all LOOK AT ME I'M SO PATRIOTIC to walk the walk.
Re: (Score:2)
It's this post and others like it that changed your status. Welcome, friend.
I am not a flag waver myself, and some might call me unpatriotic, but I do expect those who profess to be patriotic to know a few things about how to express their patriotism without looking like morons.
--
BMO
Re:You left one out: (Score:5, Insightful)
Well you're a hypocrite sweet cheeks.
A true patriot will shed his own blood to defend the freedoms for other people to scream at the top of their lungs, that which you would scream at the top of your lungs in opposition to.
Freedom is not selective. You either fight for all freedoms, or for none at all. Fighting for just those you agree with makes you an enemy of freedom, and in this case just a hypocrite.
You're love of freedom is not represented by a simple symbol, but your actions. Get over it.
Re: (Score:2)
And you're oblivious.
Many of the ones who have been hopping up and down about being patriotic in the last 10 years have not been ones for freedom of speech. Opposition to the wars mean that you're nearly a traitor. Just ask any of the current Republicans except for Ron Paul running for President.
Although a lot of the "love it or leave it" rhetoric has disappeared as many have figured out how we've been bamboozled by our politicians into two worthless wars.
But then there's the hard-core who are left.
It's fu
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny those who are most vociferous about their patriotism don't know anything about how to express it without looking like complete, utter morons to the rest of us. Wearing a flag shirt thinking it's somehow proper and shouting "USA USA" only proves that you're a fool.
And yet, railing against people who wear a flag shirt thinking that there's something wrong with it when the ability to do such things is what makes this country great and shouting "you're immoral" only proves that you're a fascist idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
My saying certain speech should be illegal would make me a fascist.
My pointing out that I don't like something and expressing my opinion does not make me a fascist.
Learn the difference, sir.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Learn the difference, sir.
You would seek to bring about your changes through societal and not legal pressure. A fascist can be "a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views." Frankly, the idea that wearing the flag is somehow wrong is, today, an extreme right-wing view. Most of us are rather more interested in freedom than in bullshit symbology.
Re: (Score:2)
Learn to read your own posts. You supported the restrictions on free speech and expression by another party and justified it through your references to proper etiquette.
Those are your own personal values, that quite possibly are shared by a majority of Americans. Including myself.
However, I support free speech and expression, even when I disagree with it and it deeply offends me.
While I may cherish the flag, only because of the values it represents, not the government it represents, I don't force that val
Re: (Score:2)
Restrictions on free speech? What?
No, he's perfectly free to look like an idiot if he wants to wear a flag shirt. And I am entirely free to call him an idiot. I am absolutely free to use flag etiquette to do it with.
This all started out because the poster I replied to claimed that you can't wear a flag shirt in the state of California because it's not politically correct. This false assumption bruised his inflated sense of patriotism in which he thinks that wearing a flag shirt demonstrates it. Those o
Re: (Score:2)
It violates the flag code to make clothing out of a flag, NOT to display a PICTURE or other representation of the flag on a piece of clothing. Do try to get it right if you're going to be anal about the flag code. It makes life so much less vexing.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is it OK to desecrate the flag by wearing it as a shirt, cupcake?
--
BMO
I'm confused. Are you saying you prefer wearing the flag as a cupcake? :P~~~~~
Reminds me of another joke based on nationality: What do you call a greek parachutist? Con descending.
Re: (Score:2)
A small tasteful patch != a T-shirt whose design is an enormous flag.
It's a bit like pornography, though; you know it when you see it.
Re: (Score:3)
A small tasteful patch != a T-shirt whose design is an enormous flag.
No, no it really isn't. Wearing the flag to make yourself more grand is what you're railing against, right? Putting the flag on your outfit to make yourself seem more patriotic is a misuse of it by your own standards.
It's also more than a little pathetic. I own an australian outback coat and wear it in the season, as we often get sideways wind and rain. My dad bought me a little flag pin for it so people would think I'm a patriot. Great, now if they think I'm concealing a shotgun, they'll think I'm planning
Re: (Score:2)
Shut your cockhole you ignorant hippie faggot wetback.
You forgot "commie" and "jew"
Re: (Score:2)
To add to your remarks
1- The medical education example is kind of an extreme case, and is due to the fact that medical education is in the hands of the "order" of medical doctors, who want their profession to remain a societal elite. They have a history of making some poor decisions such as favoring some specialists fields over others, leading to long-term dearths in some fields. At present for instance it is hard to get an appointment with an eye specialist in France, because there are not enough of them.
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to what ? taking the right nubmer until the last spot is occupied, and refusing to take the rest ? If you do taht you will have a gaussian of "skills" over your year of people studying medicine. But if you take a whole lot more, but cream up the left side of the gaussian until 95% are thrown out you are left with people wit
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on.
#1 is true of much of the US (private law schools, some of which give scholarships for the first year but take them away if you're not in the top 10%).
#2 is true of much of the US (heard of Ford Motors?).
#3... ha. Ever been in a courtroom outside a metro area, in the US.
Oops. Just noticed you're an AC. Figures.
Re:The important part is missing from the summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't let lack of evidence interfere with how the French feel about themselves. They're still pissed off from Lance Armstrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately because of the debacle that surrounded the last tests of Lance's samples it's hard to say what the truth is. Without testing both samples you can't rule out contamination, which is why they have an A and a B sample to begin with.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Can't let lack of evidence interfere with how the French feel about themselves. They're still pissed off from Lance Armstrong.
The French media just loved Lance Armstrong, as anybody who actually knows anything about the subject can attest. But of course when it turned out that he was just a cheating doper, some journalists began to write critical articles about him and the entire doping circus he represented.
Lance Armstrong is a cheating doper, no doubt about that; he has simply failed too many doping tests that anybody can deny that. But for technical reasons he can't get a doping sentence because retro-testing can't be used as e
Re:The important part is missing from the summary (Score:5, Informative)
There was one positive test and there wasn't the normal second sample to validate against. The French paper managed to dig up results that weren't supposed to be released of a B sample that tested positive. The reason he wasn't charged was that there was supposed to be a second sample that could be used to verify that the sample hadn't been contaminated.
It has nothing to do with a ban on retro testing and everything to do with the poor quality of evidence.
Personally, I think he probably did it, but in civilized society you can't randomly lower the bar because you didn't get the result you wanted.
Re: (Score:2)
Doubting Lance's claims of purity is like doubting Kim Jong-Il's 11 hole-in-ones in his first golf match. It is not proper!
Sadly, Lance Armstrong has been elevated to an American icon, and allegations of doping are treated as lèse-majesté by his fans.
Re:The important part is missing from the summary (Score:5, Informative)
"Judges said that although no evidence directly linked Messrs. Landis and Baker to the hacking of the antidoping lab, both men benefited from the illegal intrusion."
So, basically, anyone who benefits from a crime is somehow culpable whether or not they actually had anything to do with it.
Gotta love that French "justice" system...
So some clueless blogger totally misrepresent the case and the submitter gives it a flat out wrong headline.
Landis, a known lying doper and cheater, hasn't been convicted for hacking, but for being in possession of stolen documents. Landis, when he was still lying about his doping, was showing these documents to everyone interested, claiming that they showed his innocence, so there is no arguments about him being in possession of these documents.
So Landis escaped a hacking charge and mere got a sentence for being in possession of stolen documents. I am sure that any US citizen publicly showing medical lab records stolen in an hacking accident, would get into trouble with US laws, and rightly so.
--
Regards
Re:The important part is missing from the summary (Score:5, Insightful)
At least someone intelligent on slashdot. I have lived for many years in France *and* in the US and I have grown extremely tired of the constant misrepresentation of what happens in France by US media (and vice versa, unfortunately). The unavoidable subsequent avalanche of xenophobic comments by people who obviously do not have a clue is no less appalling. It generally takes me no more than 5 minutes to debunk 95% of lies spreads about France/US in the media, too much work apparently. Sigh.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't make sense either, unless someone physically broke in and took something, which then later fell into his hands.
Convicted for embarrassing the WADA (Score:5, Informative)
Landis is being punished for daring to defy the anti-doping authorities, insist on his rights to a public hearing (no longer allowed), and embarrassing the hell out of the USADA and WADA by absolutely demolishing their scientific credibility with regard to the testosterone case (after they had to dig in their heels because they had already illegally released the preliminary reports, pre-B sample test to the media). I would note that in the original (and appealed) decisions, the panels through out the initial T-E ratio test as being hopelessly compromised. The mass spectrometry tests were allowed to stand, despite being the quality of lab work that would get laughed out of a college chemistry class, because both panels chose to totally disregard the testimony of John Amory. (see: http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=383 [rant-your-head-off.com] or http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2008/12/winnowing-john-amory.html [blogspot.com])
Now, as it turned out, Landis later admitted to doping with HGH that season, and testosterone in previous seasons. But I really think that's incidental to this case. He's being punished because he showed the WADA and UCI are just as corrupt as the cyclists, and the Chatenay-Malabry lab technicians are too incompetent to run a mass spectrometer that undergraduates successfully use thousands of times a day in research labs.
Re:The important part is missing from the summary (Score:5, Informative)
That's what happens when you refuse to show up for your trial. It is presumed that whatever evidence the prosecution introduces is as they say it is, as nobody says otherwise.
In civil court that happens every day in the US.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, what happens when you refuse to show up for a criminal trial is that it's adjourned. If you were absent without good reason then you can enjoy being charged for failing to turn up. If you don't make yourself known then you'll be arrested and forced to turn up.
Nothing else is presumed about your absence because it goes against natural justice to convict you without the opportunity to defend yourself.
Civil trials, where the purpose is to provide specific compensation for loss rather than to protect societ
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There is a reason "convicted in absentia" actually exists as a real legal thing.
You're probably looking for Federal Rule 43 of Criminal Procedure, clarified by the Supreme Court's opinion after Crosby in 1993. You can sometimes excuse yourself from a trial after it has commenced and it might be inferred that you're still in the courtroom but simply not saying anything, i.e. the trial continues as if you're there. But if you refuse to show up for a trial then, like I said, you will not be convicted in your absence.
Excusing yourself after the trial has begun, a voluntary decision made af
Re: (Score:2)
Usually it's to facilitate injustice.
When Ira Einhorn was being extradited from France, they objected to the fact that he'd been convicted in absentia and insisted that Pennsylvania grant him a new trial. So they understand it's unjust too.
Re:The important part is missing from the summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It was "in abstentia", which cant help your case.
Old news? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your news isn't any newer.
Re: (Score:2)
So, where was your submission two months ago?
Re: (Score:3)
I like doping! (Score:5, Insightful)
The anti-doping groups are terrified of new doping methods they cannot detect.
This is great, if the doping has no adverse side effects and is not detectable then I want some!
I want these athletes testing out drugs and the long term affects and me benefiting from watching their performances and some day using safe versions of the drugs
Anti-doping is a waste of money. They should be putting money into making doping safe.
Fairness is pointless, some people are born taller, stronger, faster. Some have more money for better training, coaching, and equipment.
No reason we cannot level the playing field or push it beyond its current limits with chemistry.
Plus if your sport requires such little skill that doping can help you win it, then it is not much of a sport anyway
Re: (Score:3)
Plus if your sport requires such little skill that doping can help you win it, then it is not much of a sport anyway
Please. I'd love for you to name a single sport that wouldn't be assisted by the use of steroids. Strength is a fundamental basis of every sport and if it isn't, it's an activity, rather than a sport. In which case, there's also drugs for that - beta blockers, caffeine, etc.
Also, there's a huge difference between "undetectable" and "no adverse side effects."
Re: (Score:2)
I do not care how strong or fast you are, if you cannot dribble and shoot a basketball doping is going to do nothing to make you an NBA star.
A little doping may make an NBA star faster or jump higher, but then we would expect the younger stronger players to always dominate.
Instead we watched Jo
Re:I like doping! (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead we watched Jordan, well into his thirties past his physical prime, lead the Bulls to multiple championships.
Well he's retired now, right? And if he attempted a comeback this year, it would be a weird joke, he couldn't even play bench. He hasn't lost the skill and the NBA hasn't overtaken the skill level Michael Jordan once had. So obviously skill is a contributing factor, but athleticism is also a good part of it.
There's millions of kids who aspire to the NBA, and tens of thousands of very skilled basketball players. 300 make it to the NBA. With such a large talent pool, there's plenty of player who are 98% as good, but just not quite there. I sincerely believe that these players who didn't make the NBA, if given unfettered access to steroids, would be better than Kobe Bryant. Even if they didn't, Kobe would no longer be such a dominating player, unless he also started juicing. Steroids are just that effective, and strength that important.
Think about Barry Bonds, who at the age of 37 had a sudden power surge and shattered batting records. A hundred years of baseball history tells you, baseball players don't dramatically increase their power in their late 30s. They do what A-Rod is doing in his mid 30s, getting dramatically less powerful and with less ability to recover sufficiently. Or look at Jose Canseco, who was always the worse player to his twin brother Ozzie. Jose got more into juicing and won unanimous AL MVP and had a near Hall of Fame career, Ozzie Canseco was never a regular starter.
Really all legalizing steroids would do is mean, every single professional athlete would have to use steroids. This would surely filter down to college athletes and just amateurs who want to get good. I think steroids deserve more study than they receive, maybe in the future all old people will take HGH, but I don't think we're at a point that the general population should be using them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The illusion of choice. Right, look up the story of the various athletes in the history of sport who were forced to use performance enhancing drugs through their federation. Most obvious are the former Eastern Germany female swimmers. I doubt they are very happy now. Maybe in a couple hundred years when the world is everywhere a democracy. Even then, people would have to start using drugs very early on, when they are minors. What *choice* would they have ?
The simplest and sanest choice is to ban all perform
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly: skill is a very minor factor in that sport compared to strength and endurance.
12-month suspended (Score:2)
Ryan Braun is disputing a similar result (Score:5, Informative)
Braun Banned for PEDs [baseballprospectus.com]
What does this have to do with Floyd Landis? Just that epi/natural testosterone comparisons aren't cut and dried, and that the French do like to find winning non-French bikers to be dopers, and under the French Napoleonic code of justice you are guilty until proven innocent.
Re: (Score:2)
Just goes to show you that the New Orleans variant of Frenchness is vastly superior...
Re: (Score:3)
What does this have to do with Floyd Landis? Just that epi/natural testosterone comparisons aren't cut and dried, and that the French do like to find winning non-French bikers to be dopers,
You do know that he has admitted doping, right? He has since described how it happened: The suspicious blood levels and performance spike were the result of a transfusion with blood carelessly taken too shortly after taking testosterone during training. Blood transfusions can be detected by the presence of blood preservatives and plastic weakeners from the blood bag, but tests for these are not considered conclusive evidence on their own, if i understand correctly from the Alberto Contador case last summer.
Wrong. Not informative. Presomption of innocence. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hello,
Did you learn that in school or did you vaguely hear about it on the internet somewhere? This is completely false. Presumption of innocence is *more* enshrined in law in France than in the USA:
Hacking a test lab? Really? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)