Leblanc reflects on first week
11/07/2006
A third of the way through his final Tour as the race director, Jean-Marie Leblanc reflects on how the race has gone so far, why he won't be wasting his breath on Manolo Saiz and the question he'd liked Lance Armstrong to answer.

Tour de France co-director Jean-Marie Leblanc has given his views on what is his last Tour in the organisational hot seat, reflecting on everything from the dominance of the sprinters during the first week to Lance Armstrong’s absence, as well as more controversial issues.

Speaking to AS, Leblanc rebutted CSC team manager Bjarne Riis’s comments about the first week being boring because there had been so many sprints. “If we were to put mountains at the start of the race we would be criticised for making the race too hard, they would say it was impossible without doping. And the Tour could also be decided right at the start and then there would be no excitement. And, of course, sprinters are a key part of cycling as well,” Leblanc countered.

The Frenchman also thinks the Tour is better without Armstrong’s presence. “I’ve got nothing about him but if he had come for his eighth title we would have been speaking about the same things again, his control, the strength of his team, his strategy, and his rivals would have come with the same attitude. But they have had to change, to adopt new tactics and to improvise. Nobody knows who is going to win the Tour, and I don’t mind at all who it is,” he admitted.

He also said that the Tour is better off without the likes of Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich. “It’s unacceptable for the Tour to have riders who are doped or involved in doping rings,” he stated. “I think the Tour is better for this, it is more interesting because we are going to discover new riders, like the German [Marcus] Föthen. A new Ullrich will emerge, a new Basso…”

Leblanc said he had not spoken with any of those ejected from the Tour last week, and added that he had no desire at all to talk to controversy-mired Astana team manager Manolo Saiz. “Look, I’m at the end of my career. That man has soured things for me, he’s annoyed me in my final Tour. It has been shown that he has been lying to me for years. I’ve got nothing to say to him. I won’t waste any more time and energy on a man like Saiz.”

Leblanc admitted he would be in favour of some restriction on the use of earpieces in order to return some element of uncertainty to the race. “I think it would be better if only two riders per team were to wear earpieces, so that they could be given any vital information and for security purposes. Riders have to be able to improvise,” he commented.

Finally, he turned to criticism of Armstrong attributed to the Tour boss some weeks ago. “It was written somewhere that I said the Tour de France deserved a winner who wasn’t Lance Armstrong, but I never said that. What I did say was that the laboratories have shown that in the 1999 Tour there was EPO in Armstrong’s samples, and I believe in the efficiency of these laboratories. The American hasn’t responded to that. What he has done is talk of a plot between the French ministry of sport, the Tour… I am not saying he was doped in 2000 or after that. What I am saying is that there was EPO in his sample in 1999. And I would ask him why he hasn’t explained that.”

Source: http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2279

Hippo ... potamus? No ...
Hypo ... thermia? No ...
Hypo ... crite? BINGO!

And exactly what means will those new Ullrichs and Bassos rise, and how will the
Tour be better off with the new ones than the old ones?

Great quotes! Thanks for posting that.

"What I did say was that the laboratories have shown that in the 1999 Tour there was EPO in Armstrong’s samples, and I believe in the efficiency of these laboratories. The American hasn’t responded to that. What he has done is talk of a plot between the French ministry of sport, the Tour… I am not saying he was doped in 2000 or after that. What I am saying is that there was EPO in his sample in 1999. And I would ask him why he hasn’t explained that.”


He believes in the efficiencies in the laboratories in the face of a clear demonstration that they were not very efficient at all. And what more can be said in explaination for the load of junk that passes as scientific proof in LeBlanc's world then "When I p'eed in the bottle, there was no EPO in my urine". I hope Jean Marie is never put in a position where any thing of import in his life is determined by a decision maker having limitations that he himself consistantly exhibits.

you make unsubstantiated allegations about the lab, similar to what you claim leblanc is doing.

let's give all accused riders lance's very effective defense teams and we'll see how far we get in the fight against doping.

I find it incredible that Armstrong could say that with a straight face in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary. Let's hope he is never put in a position where he has to depend on a person telling the kinds of falsehoods like he himself does.

Of course JLM is a hypocrite...........but he's not more of a hypocrite then say Lefevere who says that the teams are acting very good against doping, yet the PR-person of Quickstep is a certain Museeuw..........

Smug,,,,,, your just as obvious in your unwavering belief that L.A. is guilty of doping as the L.A. supporters are with the notion he did not dope.
It is clear now more than ever that the entire peloton is tainted even at this point. My contention is that they all are hiding something and that it is foolish to believe anything else. I know you read Noam Chomsky and I am sure you do not believe everything that he puts into print. Therefore the obvious point is there is always many ways to view the same information.

I think Bill is substantiating his accusations with the Vrijamn (sp?) report. I understand that you'd prefer to overlook that document.

I think the way JM Leblanc hailed (or at least endorsed the hailing of) Pantani (and dare I say it ... Armstrong ... only to make a very well known change of opinion later on) as the Tour's saviour puts him on the top of the podium of hypocrites, but Lefevre and Saiz share that podium with him quite deservedly.

Yes! And I do not have a dog in this fight. I do know that when a credible laboratory has a chance to explain chain of custody it certainly does so and does not refuse to, has a chance to certify that samples it claims are positive are not tainted by its own 'experimentations" does so and does not refuse to do so, has an opportunity to certify that its machines were calibrated does so and does not refuse to do so, has a chance to certify that its samples were properly stored does so and does not refuse to do so, has a n opportunity to set forth its scientific basis for its conclusions jumps all over that with glee and does not refuse to do so. Jean Marie believes in the credibility of this laboratory despite all this. he chooses to believe what he wants to believe like Smug does against Armstrong and like others do in favor of Armstrong. I'm prepared to believe either side but somebody better be pretty convincing and these 1999 "results" are worthless unless you are prepared to believe anything/anyone conforming to your own ultimate beliefs. i make a living refusing to do do that.

All the circumstances surrounding that report (appointment, release and content) have it tarred with "apprehension of bias."

it's like a fantasy land, trying to believe that lance is the only clean rider in the peloton.

i'd like to be a defense attorney in your court, what a cake walk!

Wily Voet's 1998 statistical claims that 95% of the professional peloton are on the sauce are looking very credible and supportable in July 2006.

not really sure how choamsky enters this, although i've yet to see him make a claim that he couldn't provide the facts that establish his belief.

and...there off! again!

breaking from the gate, it's smug, followed by veloflash and jonathan bringing up the rear! and down the backstretch here comes da judge!

in a photo finish it's...da judge by a keen legal nose!

armstrong isn't even in the damn race and that wacked out old man leblanc just can't ignore him...and neither can others, apparantly.

dope or no dope, armstrong kicked all their rears for 7 tours. for some reason that really frosts the marbles off some folks. a possible doper beating a bunch of other possible dopers. woopee.

oh...and the lab is a joke. period, plain and simple.

Why don't you google my name, read the newspaper articles about cases in my court and then see if you would make that comment.
I actually think you would enjoy being an attorney in my court because it would be your case and its presentation upon which a decision would be made and not the identity of your client that would determine the ultimate result.

I do not believe that Armstrong was the only clean rider in the peloton because:

1) I don't believe all riders were dirty;
2) I don't believe Armstrong was the only one clean rider;
3) I'm not 100% certain Armstrong was always clean but I am 100% certain that there has been absolutely nothing even remotely resembling proof that he was not.

well, you are in luck, because lance has a great bunch of attorneys, and they'll make sure he'll be able to keep his trophies. as a judge, i'm sure you are most concerned that defendants in front of you have access to process. if they do, i'm sure you don't focus so much on each result.

like in the case of the spanish bust, i'm sure you hope each of those involved are treated in the same way armstrong was because obviously, if you are worried that a rider whose blood shows traces of epo, you are also concerned about those you can't ride because some idiot made some notation regarding their nickname or their dogs name.

there's been plenty of proof that armstrong has used performance enhancing substances or methods. it's evaluating that proof that is difficult. as it should be for EVERY rider, not just american golden boys.



the lab is not a joke (it's only a joke because armstrong is involved), but your first point is the most important one -- those races are over, let's focus on the future.

My point was lost in the poor way I composed my post.

I wanted to say that everyone reads the same info (usually) and come to different conclusions and beliefs (same with Noam). I just used it as an example.

For me it is obvious that things within the Pro Peloton is not transparent and leaves many questions and much room for conspiracy. The exact same goes for WADA and other similar organizations.

dang, spanky! did lance pee in your cheerios this morning?

plenty of "evidence"?

well, evidently NOT...according to eveyone that's actually tried to pin lance to the cross.

where is all this "evidence" and how come the world's best anti-dopers can't get a conviction on lance?

I am gonn atry and be neutral here, but I joined this forum as opposed to another because of the vicious slams that happen elsewhere. If a civil judje posting with his real name is open to insults guys, I think its time to take a step back and cool off. The real point here is why would LeBlanc even mention Armstrong when asked to reflect on THE FIRST WEEK OF THIS TOUR except to deflect the focus on
1. his race having riders in it NOW whom Fuentes says he has helped --not that there is a lot Jean Marie has been able to do about that
2. he is in a public pissong contest because he came out with a lot of public statements before the Vrijmans report that has casted serious doubts on the results

anyhoo, I know I have received a lot of croticism and disbelief when I post about stuff I do every day for a living in medical stuff, so thats OK. We are just here for fun right?

As I said, it is the case and its presentation that dictate results and this relies on common law and statutory interpretation to define the process or context in which the legal/factual determinations are made. If you are saying that one should not so much focus on results after due process and proceedure is adhered to, then I'm at a loss, because I don't know what else there is: "The Truth?" Who gets to define it if the process does not?
I have not seen the 500 page report so I have not concluded anything about the Spanish operation. But, frequently, one is expected to evaluate evidence upon which cases should proceed and upon that basis, there seems to be plenty enough to pursue. And, cycling is a private enterprise so if that private enterprise prohibits participation upon one be suspected of engaging in an illegal activity or an activity violating the rules of competition then who am I to comment on that? The suspected riders suffer by accusation under those rules and as a strategy, their rivals could certainly take advantage of that rule by concocting some "evidence" sufficient to throw the others out of a competion pending conclusion. I've suggested the riders form a strong union to protect them from such rules through negotiation but the union as in baseball could then create negotiated conditions fostering cheating so that isn't such a hot idea after all.
I'm all for WADA in that regard if they would just quit blowing hot air and get down to the prosecution of cheaters.
There is a difference between some evidence (liars testify under oath and thier testimony is evidence) and credible evidence. There is a difference between the weight one assigns to two credible options in evaluating which one you adopt. You have elevated certain evidence to credible. That is your perogative. I do not elevate that evidence in that way and that is my perogative, similarly. We simply must agree to disagree.
Are Hinault/Mercx European golden boys? Is Inderain a Spanish golden boy? Are all winners golden boys? That part I don't get.

Also, I have yet to be insulted by anyone here and I hope none has been intended -there is passion in these comments and I think the debate has been civil enough.

Meh here's my two cents on the issue.

I find it impossible to believe that a clean rider no matter how good physically can match a doped rider of extremely similar capabilities. Does that mean I'm accusing a certain rider of doping, no its just in my personal opinion if Ulle and Basso are doping and losing by 6 mins to Armstrong it casts doubt on him. Having said that dope or no dope Lance was probably the best (I say that in the belief that at least a few members of the pro peloton aren't doped ie a Moncoutie or Mcgee or Bordman form the past, who knows what they may have achieved in a level playing field.)

Does anyone know the years Ullrich/Basso are implicated? Just this year-2006? Or past years as well-2005? 2004? Jan was great in 2003 and close to Armstrong who hung on by his fingernails- anything about Jan in 2003?

i think the time that we spent on hamilton and armstrong's defenses should be spread out over cyclists in general . . . or as campybob says, just let them dope.

It's not true that there's 'nothing remotely resembling proof' against Armstrong. There is quite a bit of evidence resembling (but unequal to) proof. It's just that every piece has its own counterarguments, is circumstantial or just inconclusive. Still, putting all things together, if I'm thinking about what has happened in cycling and about Armstrong's role within that then yes, I think he too is one of the riders that used doping methods. The alternative is believing in a host of lying ex-employees, (former) friends, doctors, in falsified samples, test-influencing saddle cream, jealous rivals and last but not least a conspiracy of French journalists. It could be true, but the rather more simple explanation that Armstrong has been doing what lots of other riders did seems more likely to me.

That, however, is not enough basis to have someone tried and convicted. And Armstrong cannot be penalized on the basis of UCI regulations. So he may very well go free. Big deal. If the case against him isn't strong enough to prove him guilty without reasonable doubt etc., then more power to him. Smug is right if he notes a principal unequality in having lots of lawyers to be able to defend one person as opposed to someone who is less fortunate, but that is a general inequality which is present in many aspects of society, I don't see cycling as the best battleground to solve such an issue. Most riders on Fuentes' list can, I expect, pay good lawyers (they could certainly pay the Spanish doctor's considerable fees). Mancebo was making 1.4 million euros a year by riding for a continental team, just to illustrate.

However, the fact that Armstrong cannot be found guilty doesn't mean that we cannot make up our own minds about whether he injected himself with EPO or his own red blood cells. Unlike a judge, I don't need to be 100% sure to say: 'I think such-and-such happened'. It's a bit like Al Capone; most people believe he did more wrong than just evade taxes, but that was the only thing he was actually found guilty of.

Edit: BTW, I'm sorry for these rants, I've been writing a lot of them lately. It's just that if you look at how doping has probably influenced the podia of the last three GTs before this Tour, it's just such a big issue. I find it difficult not to think about it and join in these debates.

This is a dangerous road..to my knowledge besides Operation Puerto, only Jan's recreational drug use is known ..for that he was suspended for 6 month. To me, his association with Pavenage is as difficult to swallow as Lance's with Ferrari.

Now, regarding Vrijman report. I read it few times and analyzed it extensively..

As solid as it looks up on review, it can not be considered a conclusive evidence.

The report brings up extremely important questions about HOW the lab maintained its chain of custody and it asks core questions as too how some deliberately spiked samples were kept apart.

No one ever provided a satisfactory answer, except LNDD repeated that they stand by their original conclusions .

The report also quite deliberately ignores much of technical landscape that could have been useful to WADA's case. It also contains obvious inaccuracies. Both technical and procedural.

Vrijman was clearly given initial very brisk cooperation by LNDD and he was later stonewalled as the lab quickly concluded that Vrijman and UCI did not behave as genuine truth seekers but rather as biased parties looking to embarrass WADA by using them. Vrijman was NEVER independent. I'm absolutely conviced of that. He performed a professional one-sided investigation.

i'm not advocating solving these issues in cycling (inequities of defense due to finances), i'm just trying to put the riders' guilt into a proper perspective -- judge hue's energetic defense of hamilton and armstrong would apply to any rider and be equally or more effective.

There was a double peak in Hamilton's blood that existed under scientific analysis and transparency of process.Hamilton was invited to attend the re-test and although the science was newer, his attacks never adressed how that second peak existed in his blood sample. Totally different deal with the 1999 urine test "experiments" in the Armstrong case. Make what you will, and you will I recognize, of the paid testimony of Emma, the observations of Swart, the speculations of LeMond and the out of context testimony of the Andreau's. I have formed two different conclusions about the credible evidence presented against these two riders.
I have mentioned that the conditions under which samples were stored, chain of custody, scientific accuracy and equipment calibration are all pivotal pieces in evaluating "results" as it relates to the 1999 sample "experiment".
Now, you can say the independant investigator was doing a hatchet job. Fine. But then, the Lab, WADA and French Ministry should NEVER have signed on to his appointment and granted him investigative powers. Or, they should have asked for a review of his authority if they suspected after they signed on that he was not going to be fair to them. Providing chain of custody information, equipment calibration documentation, storage of sample certification and certification that the sample were not "spiked" is fairly simple stuff and its hard to turn that certification or transparancy of process into an indictment. Rather, the entities refused to coopereate in their own sanctioned investigation. Even the investigator admits that his opinion might change if this information was shared. I'm waiting for it to be shared, and nothing prevents release of the methodologies outside of UCI's investigation. If the samples were properly stored, if the science is peer reviewed and accptable, if someone will put their reputation on the line and certify the samples were not spiked and can provide histories of sample location, then there wouldn't be so many questions left out there.
I conclude that nobody at that Lab intended this "experiment' to be subject to this kind of scruitiny. So, why is it being used stripped of any guarantee of trustworthiness?

This is not a rant, this is an excellent post. Thank you for putting your thoughts into words. You seem to think these difficult, emotional, subjects through very linearly and I really enjoy reading the results. Armstrong had a great story and fired imaginations around the world. But, to me it is obvious - there is no way for me to come to the logical conclusion that he was clean. I just can't find any path that leads to a clean Lance. I'm afraid my view on it is that you'd have to willfully close your eyes to believe any of the top echelon guys are or were clean. In the whirlwind of some doping controversy or another, a lowly domestique commented in an interview that if you see guys doing things that seem unreal, unbelievable - they are. Sounds like nothing - but it always stuck in my mind. That extra 5% that doping gives is enough to make some look like superheroes. I mean it was fun while it lasted - in a way. But once your eyes are opened, its pretty much impossible to close em again.

but in the meantime, why not engage in a little french bashing?

No lets not bash those guys. They have enough grief with the loss at the World Cup.

It may not be the case.

I went back and re-read the Vrijman report and the WADA responses.

There are two aspects here - acceptance of Vrijman authority by WADA and acceptance by the French.
They are different entities.

It is clear that WADA never denied that UCI was the proper authority for conducting the investigation but it at the same time had nothing but problems with both Vrijman and UCI regarding the OBJECTIVES of the investigation. There was a whole string of letters going back and forth (acknowledged by both sides)
that basically NEVER resolved the issue. I could not find WADA's official statement recognizing Vrijman specifically. In fact WADA never stated that it entirely accepted the terms of reference and the mandate.

Regarding the French players, they NEVER accepted Vrijman authority despite initial LNDD cooperation.
Both the lab and the Ministry referred to French civil law requiring court order and recognizing only investigations appointed by the court as independent.

It is also clear from the descriptions by Vrijman himself that he and the Lab could not agree on the lab's request to review his draft report - lab wanted to make sure it was not misrepresented - when Vrijman refused , cooperation seized.

The problem was all along that neither party had the slightest trust in each other. So, the report turned out to be a thorough investigation of incomplete picture because the investigator was never trusted by those he investigated.

Nor does it appear that Vrijman's mandate was EVER accepted by LNDD.

CAMPYBOB, what if it was Jan Urlich that won 7 tours on the trot after having a near death experience and finishing only one TdF in prior years in midfield?



Would you be as defensive against suspicions of doping? Or does your objectivity suffer only when the suspected rider shares the same nationality as yourself?

Good point. Jan is more talented than Lance (Lance has admitted repeatedly), but Lance's training and hunger well outdid Jan's and so he won. Did Lance dope? No one knows. Did Jan? We'll see.

Lance's body changed after his bout with cancer, however, how much did it change? I can't tell. He looks the same to me. He attributes his climbing ability to his new body... Go figure.

I agree with your analysis, and I wonder why so many people still seem to represent the Vrijman report as "independent" and "completely exonerating Lance [Armstrong]". I felt the report was very biased towards the conclusions that the UCI and Armstrong wished - mainly that WADA, the "French Laboratory" and the L'Equipe in particular were on a witch-hunt against one rider. The UCI had some serious egg on their faces in allowing the reporter access to the codes and also seemed to have paid only lip-service to anti-doping measures between the 84 and 04 Olympic years and really did not want serious investigation of that...

Both parties had a huge interest in having the 1999 questions nullified so they and other hard questions did not get asked by a truly independent body. They did this in the most political of fashions, by throwing out red herrings, and by attacking any party they deemed contrary to their interests. The other parties I think smelled a rat and were uncooperative as could be expected when the agenda was fairly clear from the outset (the WADA rebuttal to the Vrijman report was quite clear on this).

Unfortunately we know little more than when we began. One side takes comfort that they were "totally exonerated" and that the other guys were the bad guys (including some bizzare hints of conspiracy). The other side keeps their cards close to their chests just saying "we know it when we see it, and we saw it".

I'm not afraid of my view on it. I have a much higher opinion of the riders than you do. And I have a higher opinion of the anti-doping professionals who test and monitor the riders, at least the (former) ones who follow the rules.

BTW, I found it interesting that Armstrong said he will attend the Tour to support the sport in light of the Fuentes affair. Perhaps that's why Leblanc said what he did. It has been reported that Armstrong saved the Tour and professional cycling in 1999. Now that Armstrong is a 7 time Tour champion, Leblanc has even less control over the powerful influence that Armstrong exerts over cycling.

and you'll continue to be proven wrong, little by little.

The same was said after the 2001 Giro raids. I prefer reason over fear. Facts rather than speculation.

Bill he went out with Pevenage on their own in 03. hint.

some users really have a bad track record.

CAMPYBOB, what if it was Jan Urlich that won 7 tours on the trot after having a near death experience and finishing only one TdF in prior years in midfield?

that would be cool. the french would freak even more! to think, a GERMAN, king of paris for seven straight years! hinault and fignon's color commentary might be too risque for even french television, no?

personally, i would have sent jan usps money orders for him to buy fuente's services in order to maintain his supremacy over the french...but that's just me.

i like the germans. they build much better crappy little cars than the french, are much more effiecient and far more friendly.

Would you be as defensive against suspicions of doping?

you betcha. the 'evidence' against el hijo de rudicio is (at this point) non-existant...other than some blurbs carried in spanish tabloids...which carry about as much weight as blurbs in a french tabloid imnsho.

Or does your objectivity suffer only when the suspected rider shares the same nationality as yourself?

no way, jose. jan is as pure as the driven snow UNTIL proven guily. besides, he doesn't even have a dog name "birillo".

if it were my call, jan would be leading the tour this very minute...and humiliating the field by grinding the mountains to dust beneath his mighty german wheels. basso would be 'in', too.

i'm so fed up up with this "guilty until proven innocent" crap (so and so's wife said rider x admitted he did dope while recovering from a traumatic divorce blah, blah, blah...i tossed away his dirty needles...blood in the freezer...blah blah, blah...).

i could care less if they did dope, do dope and will continue to dope. i could care less if they race while eating big macs and freedom fries.

i'm just here to watch a bicycle race. the hills start soon, so let's sit back and see which riders have blood that carries the most oxygen. thank god operation puerto has made the racing clean for us and our children to watch.

but in the meantime, why not engage in a little french bashing?

ah! at last an activity we could raise to a high art form! sadly, folks here frown upon it for some indesfensible reason.

bartender! peugeots for everyone!

Now that Armstrong is a 7 time Tour champion, Leblanc has even less control over the powerful influence that Armstrong exerts over cycling.

for some reason i get a warm, fuzzy feeling just reading stuff like that.

hmmm? i wonder if lance armstrong could buy the tour of france? that would be perfect!

shouldnt you be shimanobob?
or is it because the italians make fancier sports cars?
wait...i'm getting confused.

As to "...reason over fear." Persistent and frequent, circumstantial and direct evidence that certain riders have doped, even though there have been no positive tests and no raids by authorities or even non-scheduled OOC tests certainly cause a reasonable person to have doubts. A fearful person would probably continue to believe.

As to "...facts rather than speculation." Unless you prefer to ignore the facts, it is hardly speculation. The 2001 Giro raids showed that a significant number of riders doped, and at least a significant number of those who did, were not very careful. Operation Puerto may show the same thing, especially about the "being careful" part. Well here I am speculating, but it is very reasonable to think that riders who are very careful, or who are part of a systematic in-house program will not get caught - unfortunately.

i don't care how you feel about it, CAMPYBOB's post was damn funny. made me laugh

good post Jonathan.

I think there is a difference in proof to incarcerate, in a criminal sense, and on the basis of probabilities in a civil sense.

Hence, I don't think there is evidence to sanction Armstrong, but I am of the opinion he doped, with the amount of circumstantial evidence. There is also contra circumstantial evidence (exculpatory) that needs to be acknowledged, however I weighed that.

Bill, what is your opinion on this? You want a sanctionable truth, and this supercedes an informed opinion, using many sources? I dont infer therefore the truth is uninformed, just a narrower requirement.

edit: saw your later reply Bill

There you go Chris! That's it in a nutshell for me.

Since when do the courts have a corner on the "truth"? I have seen numerous abuses of the courts that have nothing to do with giving people a fair shake. Especially where any kind of money is in the picture. Money can buy you quite a bit of power and "truth", and power can buy you even more power. You can get reports written by experts to suit your goals, gee, if you are powerful enough, you can even get laws written to promote your objectives. THis goes for both sides of course, so I'm not letting either side off the hook. Of course we need courts and judges - and good judges, as I am sure most are. But lets be real! If I learned anything in school it was that history is how it is written, usually by the victor- and we've got some battles going on in this little segment of history as to whose version will be 'official'.

shouldnt you be shimanobob?

friends don't let friends ride shimaNO.

or is it because the italians make fancier sports cars?

have you ever owned an alfa or fiat? good lord! if crappier little cars were ever made i wouldn't know who made them. the old trabant perhaps...or anything made in england and having lucas electrics.

back on topic...FREE JAN!

and he startet to work with Cecchini that year

Take our notions about Courts out of it, then. People can and do bypass courts in favor of all sorts of private systems designed to get at the truth. But what they all have in common is fairness that all disputing parties can buy into. Parties in union negotiations develop sytems of "appeal" to deal with contract issues that are not courts. The UCI and WADA and others have systems in place to adjudicate "truth" that aren't courts. But all of them are Court-like, in that they have groundwork rules/proceedures, designed to give all parties a fair and unbiased place to contest issues within a known framework.
If the "truth" is paramount, why have groundrules/proceedures to guarantee "fairness"? Why not just adopt any proceedure that confirms the decision makers reality? Why ban lies, torture, set-ups, forgeries, cheating, sensationalism etc when often they actually often result in confirmation of the world view of the decision makers? Maybe we are all gods of our own reality and that when we become convinced that something is or is not the truth, the only things that matter are those things affirming our world view. Fair enough, but I'D be hard pressed to get YOU to buy into allowing ME to make conclusions binding upon you absent the attempted "guarantees" I just talked about.
So here is the challenge, set aside cynicism and anecdotal failures of known conflict resolution systems and devise a system of conflict resolution that is fair, that its conclusions will be accepted by its participants and that will result in truth.
I can't think of a better one than courts, although they sometimes spectacularly fail in their aspirations. Unfortunately, we all do, sometimes.




Very interesting, indeed. Thanks for the insight.