News Focus
News Focus
Followers 36
Posts 10005
Boards Moderated 1
Alias Born 08/01/2002

Re: Frank Pembleton post# 1764

Tuesday, 11/21/2006 10:26:03 AM

Tuesday, November 21, 2006 10:26:03 AM

Post# of 2381
The reason I asked

was because you felt the need to re-post the articles as though you thought I was arguing the headlines and characterizations of CyclingNews and a few other lapdogs had never happened. That wasn't what I was saying. I could care less what label (e.g. "cleared") one of those compromised "sources" elects to use to attract readers or deliver an editorial slant, I care about the reality -- and the reality is, those guys weren't "cleared". They were never at risk of prosecution by Spanish authorities, so for anyone to suggest they were "cleared" by the Spanish authorities as having any value in imputing guilt or innocence, just didn't understand the Spanish laws/process. More importantly, the UCI has not "cleared" any of them. Not one. They have elected not to forward any further requests to national federations for the purpose of seeking immediate sanctions, until they have all the documents and evidence in hand, which they Spanish authorities won't turn over until next late spring/early summer.

Should the UCI be denounced for the fact they are not doing anything to go after these guys until they get the full weight of evidence from the Spanish authorities? Should the UCI be denounced for not trying to apply more pressure on the Spanish authorities to get it sooner? Should the UCI be denounced for failing to construct a cogent communications message to explain precisely, logically and in orderly fashion exactly what the heck is going on and what the expectation of fans, riders, team directors and team owners should be? I certainly think they've done about as poor a job as possible on the latter account. I've no shortage of criticism for the UCI. But here are the bottom line truths:
(1) The uncontroverted evidence gathered in Operacion Puerto (in other words, even if you exclude the few documents that allegedly were forged) goes far past reasonable suspicion or substantial evidence. It's a mountain of evidence for which there has been absolutely no plausible rebuttal by any of the cyclists in question.
(2) There is no way the UCI can force the Spanish authorities to turn over the full set of evidence.
(3) Without that evidence, it would be improper, imprudent, and unfair to proceed with pursuing formal sanctions against riders in question.

So, however disatisfactory it is, we're stuck waiting.

Discover What Traders Are Watching

Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.

Join Today