# Dick Pound - Head of CAS?



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

We finally got Pound out of WADA, and now he has been nominated to be the new head of the Court of Arbitration for Sport? With his severely biased views and penchant for breaking rules, I can't think of a worse position for him to be in. The people who serve on the CAS have to be as impartial as possible, and Pound has proven many times that he isn't. Zealots have no place on court of last appeals.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/feb08/feb04news


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

w00t? not surprisingly I don't have a problem with this.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

blackhat said:


> w00t? not surprisingly I don't have a problem with this.


You agree with me or disagree?


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> You agree with me or disagree?



what I meant was I don't have a problem with Pound at CAS. But after actually considering it I'd agree with you-Pound's too much an advocate (or zealot if you prefer) to lead what should be a neutral forum. Im not going to lose sleep if he does though.


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

Pound should get out of sports. He has no objectivity.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Could you give an example of something he has said that is not correct?


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

mohair_chair said:


> We finally got Pound out of WADA, and now he has been nominated to be the new head of the Court of Arbitration for Sport? With his severely biased views and penchant for breaking rules, I can't think of a worse position for him to be in. The people who serve on the CAS have to be as impartial as possible, and Pound has proven many times that he isn't. Zealots have no place on court of last appeals.
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/feb08/feb04news


+1 million. He has proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that he is an unscrupulous zealot. He would personify the appearance of impropriety were he named to the court.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

harlond said:


> +1 million. He has proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that he is an unscrupulous zealot. He would personify the appearance of impropriety were he named to the court.


 
one man's "unscrupulous zealot" is another's aggressive advocate. he has a position and he's put it forth without tire. although I think he's probably too divisive to do CAS much good, I'd echo what pink said-show me where he's wrong.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

harlond said:


> +1 million. He has proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that he is an unscrupulous zealot. He would personify the appearance of impropriety were he named to the court.


Could you give an example of this supposed impropriety? 

The head of WADA is supposed to kick A$$ and take names, it is not a popularity contest.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Pound has always operated on the idea that an athlete is guilty until proven innocent. There is no way that appealing to CAS will be a worthy effort on the part of the athlete if Pound is in charge. If athletes can't dispute charges that are less than conclusive than you can bet that more and more such charges will occur. Pound continually displays terrible ethical practices by discussing un-resolved cases and trying athletes in the media. I really can't see how any governing body would allow someone with such poor professionalisim to to be a part of their organization. I guess it's just a job nobody else wants?

bigpinkt, I love your signature! lol


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

davidka said:


> Pound has always operated on the idea that an athlete is guilty until proven innocent.


I can understand how this it appears this way, but it is more then Dick Pound who has this position. With WADA and the UCI the rule is that a positive A/B sample equals guilt, so in their eyes everyone with a positive test is guilty.

Many riders/dopers complain about Pound, and he can be abrasive, but I have not seen him say much that did not turn out to be correct down the road.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

He commonly ignores the rules of the WADA and UCI by breaking confidentiality. The problem isn't only him. There have been too many dirty cases out there (Floyd, Mayo) that operated far outside the rules written by the UCI and WADA. That comes from the top down.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> Many riders/dopers complain about Pound, and he can be abrasive, but I have not seen him say much that did not turn out to be correct down the road.


Exactly, how could someone go after the dopers without also ruffling a few feathers whilst he's at it.

It takes someone like Pound to do the job, and it is not a popularity contest with the riders/dopers.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> I can understand how this it appears this way, but it is more then Dick Pound who has this position. With WADA and the UCI the rule is that a positive A/B sample equals guilt, so in their eyes everyone with a positive test is guilty.


What test was he relying on when said most hockey players were doping? 

Let's look at the Marion Jones case. We know she was a doper, so that's not the issue. The issue is whether Pound conducted himself appropriately when her B sample come back negative. Here's what CBC Canada reported:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2006/09/10/pound-jones-investigation.html?ref=rss

That's some nice objectivity--B sample comes back negative, automatically he assumes there must be a problem with the testers, notwithstanding the fact that his own organization's rules specifically contemplate the possibility that A samples and B samples can test differently and declare it to require a finding of not guilty. Significantly, the only evidence he had at this point of problems in the testing is that the B sample acquitted the athlete--but for Pound, that's all the evidence he needed.

Especially look at the last paragraph of this story. Here's what Pound says: "We are going to see how that happened, learn from it, _*and try to make sure it doesn't happen in the future*_." Remember, at this point, Pound didn't have any evidence that the B sample testing was flawed; all he had done is asked his people to review. So on the basis of what, under WADA's own rules, does not qualify as evidence of testing inadequacies, Pound concluded he must take steps to make sure athletes aren't acquitted by the B sample. That ought to give us all confidence in his objectivity. This conduct cannot be excused because Jones later confessed to doping (though I'm not sure whether she has confessed she was doping in this instance), because Pound had a duty to respect the rules and results mandated by his own organization irrespective of whether the athlete is guilty. It simply won't do for him to say that if his own rules permit acquittals, then the rules be damned.

The plain and unambiguous message here is that Pound doesn't care about following his own organization's rules. Why would anyone want to appoint as a judge someone who has made it so clear that he doesn't care about following the rules he is sworn to uphold? It's a different matter if you want Pound to be the prosecutor; in that case, his frequent fatwas against athletes indicate zeal, perhaps excessive, but there are arbitrators and CAS judges to keep him in check. To be a judge, however, you should have objectivity and respect for the rules, two things Pound does not have.



bigpinkt said:


> Many riders/dopers complain about Pound, and he can be abrasive, but I have not seen him say much that did not turn out to be correct down the road.


If, at your criminal trial (and let's hope you never have one), the judge announced at the outset that you were guilty, and you subsequently were convicted, I doubt if you would agree that the eventual outcome justified the judge's lack of objectivity. The process by which the verdict is obtained is critical to your (and everyone else's) acceptance of the validity of the outcome, and Pound has exhibited no understanding of that fundamental fact.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

davidka said:


> He commonly ignores the rules of the WADA and UCI by breaking confidentiality..


what statements of his are you referring to as breaking confidentiality in violation of uci and wada rules?


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Pound has repeatedly talked about doping cases and naming athletes before the B-samples are tested. Look it up, you will see it everywhere his name is mentioned. He turns a blind eye towards poor lab practices (the french lab is a joke and is relied upon to bring back the "desired" result, Landis' and Mayo's cases are good examples).

It is not a popularity contest but if he were an American he would be dis-barred for his lack of ethics.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

davidka said:


> Pound has repeatedly talked about doping cases and naming athletes before the B-samples are tested. Look it up, you will see it everywhere .



I would prefer you look it up, could you provide an example of his talking about an athlete prior to it being out in the public?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

harlond said:


> If, at your criminal trial (and let's hope you never have one), the judge announced at the outset that you were guilty, and you subsequently were convicted,


It appears you are unaware of the WADA process, if you fail the A/B test you are guilty so it is perfectly fine for for Pound to say someone is guilty.

As for Marion. There was actually other evidence at the time, including sworn statements, that she was using EPO.

I see nothing wrong with Pounds statements in that article. Of course you are going to review the the procedure if you have different A/B results, especially with the EPO test that has some subjectivity.




harlond said:


> What test was he relying on when said most hockey players were doping?


 He actually said "You wouldn't be far wrong if you said a third"....Most would be over 50%, not 33%. I would agree with his appraisal, perhaps it is even a bit low.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

While written well after the statements in the article, this New York Times article quotes some of Pound's typical statements, notably one about Landis' testerone level of 11/1 (which took the french lab 4 tries to arrive at). His statement is incorrect and irresposible. He states that Floyd "should have been voilating every virgin..." when this ratio was not an indication of hit testosterone being high, his epitestosterone was in fact very low. Probably irrellivant since the lab tested incorrectly .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/magazine/07Antidoping.t.html

The statements were made before the B-Sample was tested, during the time that the rules state the athlete shoul remain anonymous. While it was already out because of someone else, Pound should have adhered to WADA's rules and refrained from comment, let alone making inflamitory comments about an unconvicted rider.Floyd was outed buy the UCI president who's excuse was "we know there is a leak from the lab to L'Equipe" magazine anyway".
All of this slop existed under Pound's watch. He's incompetent.

Here's Floyd's rebuke:

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=2724874
He explains it pretty well.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

davidka said:


> While written well after the statements in the article, this New York Times article quotes some of Pound's typical statements, notably one about Landis' testerone level of 11/1 (which took the french lab 4 tries to arrive at). His statement is incorrect and irresposible. He states that Floyd "should have been voilating every virgin..." when this ratio was not an indication of hit testosterone being high, his epitestosterone was in fact very low. Probably irrellivant since the lab tested incorrectly .
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/magazine/07Antidoping.t.html
> 
> ...



pound didn't "out" landis, landis did. this had been covered at length in the archives.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> I would prefer you look it up, could you provide an example of his talking about an athlete prior to it being out in the public?


There is no loophole in the confidentiality rules about "it being out in the public." The tail doesn't wag the dog. Dick Pound knows that, but his ego is so big, he can't keep his mouth shut. When the leader of your organization plays fast and loose with the rules and abandons all pretense of impartiality, it's no surprise when the rest of the organization follows suit.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> There is no loophole in the confidentiality rules about "it being out in the public." The tail doesn't wag the dog. Dick Pound knows that, but his ego is so big, he can't keep his mouth shut. When the leader of your organization plays fast and loose with the rules and abandons all pretense of impartiality, it's no surprise when the rest of the organization follows suit.


Could you please give us some example of this "Fast and Loose"?....or any of your other assertions?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

davidka said:


> While written well after the statements in the article, this New York Times article quotes some of Pound's typical statements, notably one about Landis' testerone level of 11/1 (which took the french lab 4 tries to arrive at). His statement is incorrect and irresposible. He states that Floyd "should have been voilating every virgin..." when this ratio was not an indication of hit testosterone being high, his epitestosterone was in fact very low. Probably irrellivant since the lab tested incorrectly .
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/magazine/07Antidoping.t.html
> 
> ...


sorry, but op-ed pieces written by the Landis fan club do not count. Espcially when they add nothing to your argument. You might as well provide a Sally Jenkins article.

The "Low level of Epi" is a standard Flandis smoke screen. What Floyd really means is he forgot to take his Epi shot to balance out his levels before the test.....was the presence of artificial testosterone in his sample because of a low level of Epi?

for the record, Phonak announced Flandis was positive, not Pound

Pound does not have any control over what the UCI president says, who BTW did not "Out" Floyd.

The ESPN story you link to was written after Floyd's A and B were tested. At this point he was a CONVICTED rider so Pound was correct....and he will remain as such despite his smoke screen and wasting money on appeals.

There have been plenty of debates about if Flandis is guilty or not, but this thread is about Pound. If you have some evidence to support your opinion of him being a unethical dirtbag then please supply.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Whatever, if you want to believe that Pound is an upstanding citizen of sport you may. It does not matter who outed Landis, he should have retained the right to remain anynomous. Phonak did not out Landis, the UCI did. Pound's comments afterwards were a direct violation of the rules.

The presence of artificial Testosterone was established by someone that didn't even know how to properly execute the test. Maybe Floyd cheated, maybe he didn't. The bust was dirty (why was the A-sample teated 4 times?) and so full of errors that the WADA and UCI have lost their credibility at this point.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

davidka said:


> Whatever, if you want to believe that Pound is an upstanding citizen of sport you may. It does not matter who outed Landis, he should have retained the right to remain anynomous. Phonak did not out Landis, the UCI did. Pound's comments afterwards were a direct violation of the rules.


I do not believe that Pound is a great guy, but I do believe that dopers and their followers have twisted and misrepresented him in an effort to cover their own misdeeds. When you are in trouble they attack Pound, the French, etc.

So far nobody has come up with anything to support your position, you would think that a super bad guy like Pound would have mountains of evidence against him....but so far nothing.

If you firmly believe that the UCI outed Landis to the press then please provide evidence. The worst I have seen it that they said there was a positive and it was the worst possible...some could take that as Flandis but my first thought was Boonan or Bettini...Phonak outed him, and Pound had nothing to do with it.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Pound speaking out against an athlete prior to his B sample being tested and condeming an athlete in the media is not evidence of his incompetence, it is proof. One cannot behave like that in the USA and not be held accountable. That he would behave that way outside of the USA doesn't excuse it, it just allows him to get away with it. 

When the UCI says "the worst possible", it does not mean Boonen, Bettini, or anyone else. There is only one "worst possible" at the Tour. Saying otherwise is lawyer speak and we're not talking about lawyers here, at best, just a guy who went to law school.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> It appears you are unaware of the WADA process, if you fail the A/B test you are guilty so it is perfectly fine for for Pound to say someone is guilty.
> 
> As for Marion. There was actually other evidence at the time, including sworn statements, that she was using EPO.
> 
> I see nothing wrong with Pounds statements in that article. Of course you are going to review the the procedure if you have different A/B results, especially with the EPO test that has some subjectivity.


The gratuitous and incorrect insult makes me suspect you are deliberately missing my point. Whatever. Explain, if you would, what Pound has done that qualifies him to be a judge on the CAS? How has he demonstrated that he has the objectivity and devotion to following the rules that will make a fair judge?



bigpinkt said:


> He actually said "You wouldn't be far wrong if you said a third"....Most would be over 50%, not 33%. I would agree with his appraisal, perhaps it is even a bit low.


And subsequently he admitted he made the number up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Pound#_note-2

What is it about this conduct that strikes you as judicious? The quality and quantity of evidence to support charges is a matter of great importance for those entrusted with the job of judging. Do you see anything in Pound's comments about the NHL that indicates those issues are matters of signficance to Pound?


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

davidka said:


> Pound speaking out against an athlete prior to his B sample being tested and condeming an athlete in the media is not evidence of his incompetence, it is proof. One cannot behave like that in the USA and not be held accountable. That he would behave that way outside of the USA doesn't excuse it, it just allows him to get away with it.
> 
> When the UCI says "the worst possible", it does not mean Boonen, Bettini, or anyone else. There is only one "worst possible" at the Tour. Saying otherwise is lawyer speak and we're not talking about lawyers here, at best, just a guy who went to law school.


why are you blaming Dick Pound for what the UCI does? you're aware UCI and WADA are 2 completely different organizations, no?


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Yes, I am aware of that. I am not blaming Dick for the UCI's actions. I am blaming him for his own actions. 

The post is two separate paragraphs to reply to two separate statements from another poster.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

harlond said:


> The gratuitous and incorrect insult makes me suspect you are deliberately missing my point.


My position is not incorrect, and it was not meant to be an insult. Landis B sample tested positive August 4th, from that point on he was guilty and there is no problem with Pound, or anyone else saying so. The articles you provide were from 4-6 months later



harlond said:


> And subsequently he admitted he made the number up:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Pound#_note-2


The problem when you use a source like wikipedia is that it often does not have a basis in fact, instead the entries are often written by those with a clear positive/negative slant. You have pointed out a great example. He did not admit to making it up he said he based it on conversations with Players, Ex-Players, GM, and trainers. He also clarified that this doesn't mean they are all doing steroids and that stimulants were a large part of the problem. The NHL's drug testing program is perhaps the worst in pro sport....2 tests a year, that is a joke


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> My position is not incorrect, and it was not meant to be an insult. Landis B sample tested positive August 4th, from that point on he was guilty and there is no problem with Pound, or anyone else saying so. The articles you provide were from 4-6 months later


Huh? My posts don't mention Landis at all.



bigpinkt said:


> The problem when you use a source like wikipedia is that it often does not have a basis in fact, instead the entries are often written by those with a clear positive/negative slant. You have pointed out a great example. He did not admit to making it up he said he based it on conversations with Players, Ex-Players, GM, and trainers. He also clarified that this doesn't mean they are all doing steroids and that stimulants were a large part of the problem. The NHL's drug testing program is perhaps the worst in pro sport....2 tests a year, that is a joke


Well, if you don't like Wiki, here's the source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/m...1197609359-5RKnZuxvpfLhlWg/TyTaOw&oref=slogin

And here's the paragraph:

_Take the ruckus he caused when he charged that one-third of players in the National Hockey League, or about seven per team, were using illegal performance enhancers. Sitting in his office, I asked him how he came up with that estimate. He leaned back in his chair and chuckled, completely unabashed to admit that he had just invented it. “It was pick a number,” he said. “So it’s 20 percent. Twenty-five percent. Call me a liar.”_

He made it up, just like I said.

I noticed you didn't answer my questions about how Pound has demonstrated why he should be a judge, as opposed to a prosecutor. It's all very well to rebut the charge that Pound is an unscrupulous zealot, but being a scrupulous zealot is still no qualification for a judgeship. Not disqualified or not unqualified--which seems to me to be the only issue your posts have addressed--is not the same as qualified. Nor have you addressed the very important issue of whether his history precludes the appearance of propriety and impartiality that judges must evince.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

harlond said:


> Huh? My posts don't mention Landis at all.
> 
> Well, if you don't like Wiki, here's the source:
> 
> ...


Pound does not say he made it up, he says it was an estimate that has a possible variance. The Interviewer, who by the article is clearly slanted against Pound, says that Pound invented it.

In this interview with ESPN he talks again about his talks the trainers, doctors and players
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2246982

Is he wrong? The NHL testing is a joke and it is an athletic arena that would benefit more for PED then baseball. They have an issue and refuse to address it. 




harlond said:


> I noticed you didn't answer my questions about how Pound has demonstrated why he should be a judge, as opposed to a prosecutor. It's all very well to rebut the charge that Pound is an unscrupulous zealot, but being a scrupulous zealot is still no qualification for a judgeship. Not disqualified or not unqualified--which seems to me to be the only issue your posts have addressed--is not the same as qualified. Nor have you addressed the very important issue of whether his history precludes the appearance of propriety and impartiality that judges must evince.


You have yet to present anything that would preclude him being a judge or support your dislike for him. He has been involved in high level athletics as an athlete and administrator. He also has a recognized judical background. Why should he not be the guy?


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Sitting in his office, I asked him how he came up with that estimate. He leaned back in his chair and chuckled, completely unabashed to admit that he had just invented it. “It was pick a number,” he said. “So it’s 20 percent. Twenty-five percent. Call me a liar.”

This is not a biased journalist putting words in somebody's mouth, this is a direct quote of what Dick Pound said. 

In the ariticle bigpinkt posted, pound says "I have conclusive information from club doctors, coaches, trainers and some players."? So where are the busts? Conclusive information indicates no tests should be needed? What does that mean?

Every statement from pound that gets printed makes him look and seem like he has an axe to grind, not to mention the dismal job he did of running the WADA. Everything the man says and does serves as reason he should not be the guy. 

What had he accomplished to deserve the post?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

The reporter wrote that Pound invented it, Pound did not say it. He says it is an estimate, that is could have been 20%, 25%. In his original interview he said it was an estimate. 

The best line in the interview

_*He has heard himself compared to a sheriff in the Wild West, as if that’s a bad thing. “I don’t get that. Weren’t the sheriffs the good guys?*”_

The bad guys, and their followers who believe their BS, do not like Pound.

Is that the best you can do to bring him down is talk about how he called out the NHL? Most, who are not fans of Lance or Flandis, would say that he did a great job of building WADA from nothing. The UCI still would have been turning a blind eye if it was not for WADA. Most of the positive changes in cycling's fight against doping have come from having an INDEPENDENT agency to go after the dopers, instead of the governing bodies who just ignored it.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Creating a system that allows incompetent labs conduct tests outside of the protocol of the rules is success? Creating a system that places an impossible financial burden on an athlete that believes he/she has a right to defend themselves is a success?

The reason American ball sports are not cooperating with WADA is because they have seen how reckless the organization has been. These leagues believe in protecting their product. They know they have to clean things up, but not at the expense of the sport itself. 
Cycling is already several miles down a very ugly road where the riders have to give up their civil rights to participate in their sport. If a positive test comes in they haven't even earned enough money to defend themselves. Landis' case proved that an innocent athlete can have a botched test, completely prove his innocence and still go down for it.

In most cases, old west sherrifs were not the good guys. This is why it was called the "Wild West".

Why should Dick Pound be allowed to fill the position?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

davidka said:


> Creating a system that allows incompetent labs conduct tests outside of the protocol of the rules is success? Creating a system that places an impossible financial burden on an athlete that believes he/she has a right to defend themselves is a success?


It appears you have bought into the Lance/Flandis spin. 



davidka said:


> The reason American ball sports are not cooperating with WADA is because they have seen how reckless the organization has been. These leagues believe in protecting their product. They know they have to clean things up, but not at the expense of the sport itself.


You are joking right? The reason the American leagues have not become part of WADA is because they do not have to. UCI was forced into by the IOC. Do you really think that Baseball's "Head in the sand" approach "Protected their product"?? No, Their refusal to address the obvious issue of doping in Baseball clearly damaged the sport. The only way to solve the problem is to pro actively address it, not ignore it and hope it goes away like the NHL and, until recently, MLB




davidka said:


> Cycling is already several miles down a very ugly road where the riders have to give up their civil rights to participate in their sport.


More spin, if they do not like the rules they are free to try another profession.



davidka said:


> If a positive test comes in they haven't even earned enough money to defend themselves. Landis' case proved that an innocent athlete can have a botched test, completely prove his innocence and still go down for it.


The Landis case proved the Floyd was guilty, but if spun correctly with enough smoke and mirrors then some portions of the general public will believe anything. Landis did not come close to proving his innocence. 



davidka said:


> Why should Dick Pound be allowed to fill the position?


I have addressed this many times, you have chosen to ignore it.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Huh? You have not provided a single reason that Dick Pound is qualified to do the job. Not once. You have only reacted to things others have posted here. The only thing you have contributed to this conversation is to be a catalyst for argument. Maybe you mistakenly posted in the wrong thread?

No, I was not joking and yes, I am aware that US sports don't have to conform to WADA. They don't because the WADA is an inadequate system that is floundering and ruining some athlete's careers (and the sports they participate in) with zero accountability. MLB, NFL, NHL and others do not have their head in the sand, they do have to operate under a model of the US justice system where fumbled tests are not enough to go by. Contrary to what you've read in the papers Baseball is doing just fine. Unfortunately, baseball fans don't care if the athletes dope. They just want beer, hotdogs and home runs. They will address their problems without dragging themselves through the mud.

Have you read Floyd's case? Do you realize that the US' foremost expert on sports doping left his post at UCLA's drug testing lab to join his defense? He must be naive and bought the spin too? His case would've never seen the inside of a real courtroom for poorly contrived evidence. I am beginning to wonder who's head is in the sand. lol


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

davidka said:


> Huh? You have not provided a single reason that Dick Pound is qualified to do the job. Not once.


 I would expect that to believe in Flandis' innocence it is nessary to ignore the evidence. It appears you have ignored that I wrote that Pound did a good job creating and growing WADA, He has been involved in high level athletics as an athlete and administrator. He also has a recognized judicial background.



davidka said:


> Contrary to what you've read in the papers Baseball is doing just fine. Unfortunately, baseball fans don't care if the athletes dope. They just want beer, hotdogs and home runs. They will address their problems without dragging themselves through the mud.


 I suggest you go to a baseball game when the season starts, many people are not happy about the Steroid era and its effect on skewing the statistics of the game. It may not bother you but it bothered many fans.



davidka said:


> Have you read Floyd's case?


Yes, from other sources then Trust But.



davidka said:


> Do you realize that the US' foremost expert on sports doping left his post at UCLA's drug testing lab to join his defense?


 Really? Don Catlin was part of Floyd's defense? Paul Scott is a smart guy, but "foremost Expert" no. He has also said he regrets that he got involved with the case.


Floyd, and other who dope ruin their own careers, not WADA. Of course when they get caught they have to lie and spin. I have read Floyd's case, and I do not relay on Trust But for my only source of information. The seven failed tests, the lying about his HCT values, the pathetic excuse of "Testosterone is not performance enhancing" proved to me, the arbitrators, and soon CAS, that he is guilty.....but this thread is about Dick Pound, feel free to start another one about Floyd.


----------



## Slartibartfast (Jul 22, 2007)

The question boils down to whether we want a "hangin' judge" or the type judge we expect to see in a typical U.S. courtroom forum. My gut feel from reading Pound in the cycling press the past several years (and please Big Pink don't ask for quotes) is that he would be the former.

Is this what cycling -- and all sport, for that matter -- needs? Maybe it does, but how credible would he be?

Someone please educate me: If CAS brought judgment against a really big player in a really big sport, and it could be even suggested that the judgment was biased by Dick Pound's spouting off prematurely, and hundreds of millions of Euros or USD or GBP were at stake, would the judgment hold in a court of law -- because that's where it would end up.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Slartibartfast said:


> The question boils down to whether we want a "hangin' judge" or the type judge we expect to see in a typical U.S. courtroom forum. My gut feel from reading Pound in the cycling press the past several years (and please Big Pink don't ask for quotes) is that he would be the former.
> 
> Is this what cycling -- and all sport, for that matter -- needs? Maybe it does, but how credible would he be?
> 
> Someone please educate me: If CAS brought judgment against a really big player in a really big sport, and it could be even suggested that the judgment was biased by Dick Pound's spouting off prematurely, and hundreds of millions of Euros or USD or GBP were at stake, would the judgment hold in a court of law -- because that's where it would end up.


Yes, CAS decisions would hold up in court. Their decisions can be appealed to the Swiss Federal Tribunal on a very limited number of grounds, such as lack of jurisdiction, violation of elementary procedural rules (e.g. violation of the right to a fair hearing) or incompatibility with public policy. 

The process is confidential, so far there is no evidence presented that Pound is anything but.

CAS does not handle just cycling and doping cases are less then 50% of cases. They also handle contract and sponsorship issues for many, mostly Olympic, sports. They also handle many of the disputes for European Soccer (Football)


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

We'll have to agree to disagree than. Your reasons for his qualification are vague opinion at best. Would you vote for me if I said "Vot for me, I am qualified"? Dick Pound has done a very poor job of building WADA and cases like Floyd's are proof. A huge amount of evidence was ignored in order to find him guilty, in the case barely any of the points presented were contested. 7 failed tests? Which were those? The ones that were taken from samples that all tested negative the first time around but were then re-tested against protocol for USADA's case? The ones where Floyd's witness was locked out of witnessing (also against the rules)? It is literally impossible for Floyd to have doped in the way he was accused yet Pound's WADA and the USADA still burned him down. If Pound had done any kind of job then the WADA would have operated like any justice system should and rthey should have recognized all the flaws in the accusation and dropped the case instead of burning down the career of an innocent athlete. 

When I go to this baseball game and hear the packed house complaining about the steriod scandal I will be sure to remind everyone that the stadium is still full and unlike cycling fans, they pay lots of money to see their sport in person.

Slartibartfast, there has been plenty of speculation over just what you're asking about. In Floyd's case, USADA ignored two open and shut doping cases in other sports to concentrate on Floyd's case. Some think it was because the other athletes could afford to out spend USADA in their defense.

I think if Pound gets to CAS the effect on cycling will probably not be that great as he won't be directly in control of the anti-doping system any longer. He's still a terrible candidate for the job.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

davidka said:


> Your reasons for his qualification are vague opinion at best.


As are your reasons for not wanting, so far you have presented nothing of his actions that would disqualify him. It is the dopers and their fans that do not want Pound.



davidka said:


> 7 failed tests? Which were those?


I thought you followed the case?

Stage 17 A sample positive for high testosterone-Testosterone level

Landis response: The lab screwed up


Stage 17 B sample positive for high testosterone-Testosterone level

Landis response: The lab screwed up

Stage 17 B sample positive for exogenous testosterone

Landis response: The lab screwed up

Stage 10 B sample positive for exogenous testosterone

Landis response: The lab screwed up

Stage 15 B sample positive for exogenous testosterone

Landis response: The lab screwed up

Stage 19 B sample positive for exogenous testosterone

Landis response: The lab screwed up

Stage 20 B sample positive for exogenous testosterone

Landis response: The lab screwed up





davidka said:


> The ones where Floyd's witness was locked out of witnessing (also against the rules)?


 Guess you didn't follow the case. It was proven that the Flandis team made up this whole locked out story in an effort to enhance the confusion. It appears you fell for it



davidka said:


> It is literally impossible for Floyd to have doped in the way he was accused


 Not only is it possible, it is common practice. Ask Sinkewitz, Moreni



davidka said:


> When I go to this baseball game and hear the packed house complaining about the steriod scandal I will be sure to remind everyone that the stadium is still full and unlike cycling fans, they pay lots of money to see their sport in person.


 So attendance equals no doping scandal? The Giro's TV numbers were the best ever last year, does this mean that cycling does not have an issue with doping and the fans do not care?


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

The lab did screw up, numerous times. The re-testing of the samples (you listed 10b, 15b, 19b, 20b) was done why? The A samples came back negative, how did the B samples then later come back positive? That can only be one of two things; Lab screw up or sample tampering. You choose.

It is impossible for a athlete to test profoundly positive for Testosterone (well, profoundly on the 4th test attempt of the single sample anyway) on one day and negative two days before and two days after. Testosterone levels do not drop in someone's system quickly enough for that to happen.

The case demonstrated that no one was trained on the use of the instrument that tests the samples for exogenous testosterone. I guess it's not a screw up if the staff is not accountable for their own expertise or lack thereof?

I/we have presented many examples of Pound's lack of objectivity, unethical conduct and WADA's flaws to support his being turned away for the position. Your view does not make them invaild. You have not presented a single example of an actual action that Dick Pound commited to support his ability, just a collection of chairs he happened to have sat in.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

davidka said:


> The lab did screw up, numerous times. The re-testing of the samples (you listed 10b, 15b, 19b, 20b) was done why?


Ok, now I know you did not follow the case. The initial tests were for the ratio, the testing of the B was the IRMS test that looks for synthetic testosterone.



davidka said:


> The A samples came back negative, how did the B samples then later come back positive? That can only be one of two things; Lab screw up or sample tampering. You choose.


If you really followed the case you would know the answer to your question. The A sample were only tested for the ratio, not the presence of synthetic testosterone. The only attempted sample tampering came from the Landis team.
_
USADA p.23
Eventually, Mr. Scott and Dr. Davis disrupted Ms. Mongongu to the point that she requested that they not speak to her at all during her work, and requested that tape be placed on the floor to indicate the space around her that observers should not enter._

It should not come as a surprise
_
USADA Response p.24
Moreover, Dr. Catlin, for whom Mr. Scott worked at UCLA for two and a half years, stated in his declaration that Mr. Scott and he had a conversation about how an outside expert might "befuddle and foil B sample analysis." See Catlin Decl. @P9. According to Catlin, Mr. Scott is "very familiar with these tricks and techniques." _

http://www.usocpressbox.org/usoc/pressbox....ple Resul.PDF



davidka said:


> It is impossible for a athlete to test profoundly positive for Testosterone (well, profoundly on the 4th test attempt of the single sample anyway) on one day and negative two days before and two days after. Testosterone levels do not drop in someone's system quickly enough for that to happen.


You are incorrect, again. The A test is for a ratio, not a level. There are multiple ways the ratio can be off one day and not the next. The common practices are 

-The athlete can take a shot of Epi-Testosterone to bring his ratios back to "Normal"
-The athlete can use a patch or gel on his skin. This type of use results in a sudden spike in the ratios but return to normal by the morning



davidka said:


> I/we have presented many examples of Pound's lack of objectivity, unethical conduct and WADA's flaws to support his being turned away for the position.


No, you have not. Were are you examples of Pounds lack of objectivity, unethical conduct?


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

You're right. Everything about this case happened according to the rules. Pound's continual out of line comments and assumption that the tests are all happening with complete scientific accuracy are all invalid reasons to consider him unfit for a job like this.

I am not champoining Floyd's innocence for the sake of Floyd, one must always be suspicious if they see a "clean" athlete beat a known doper. It is just great for pointing out the shortcomings of the system now. 

When all the sponsors are driven out of the sport and the teams can not afford to pay into the system then how will it all go on? At the rate it's going this will be an amatuer sport before much longer. Thanks Dick.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

davidka said:


> You're right. Everything about this case happened according to the rules. Pound's continual out of line comments and assumption that the tests are all happening with complete scientific accuracy are all invalid reasons to consider him unfit for a job like this.
> 
> I am not champoining Floyd's innocence for the sake of Floyd, one must always be suspicious if they see a "clean" athlete beat a known doper. It is just great for pointing out the shortcomings of the system now.
> 
> When all the sponsors are driven out of the sport and the teams can not afford to pay into the system then how will it all go on? At the rate it's going this will be an amatuer sport before much longer. Thanks Dick.


that's just sad. I don't know what's moreso, the petulant sarcasm or blaming Pound for dopers in pro cycling.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Again, are you reading these posts? Where did I or anyone else blame Pound for doping in cycling? If the sport is going to be cleaned up, it has to be done with integrity. Right now it is not and the sponsors that bank roll the sport are leaving. All sports that have the opportunity for monetary gain have cheaters. That's a fact of life. Recklessly gutting the sport on questionable testing procedures is effectively burning down the sport and hurting the livelihood of everyone involved, clean riders included. Presumably clean riders are being forced out of work because of the actions of the sanctioning body and the WADA, not the individual doper.

nice avatar...


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

davidka said:


> You're right. Everything about this case happened according to the rules. Pound's continual out of line comments and assumption that the tests are all happening with complete scientific accuracy are all invalid reasons to consider him unfit for a job like this.
> 
> I am not champoining Floyd's innocence for the sake of Floyd, one must always be suspicious if they see a "clean" athlete beat a known doper. It is just great for pointing out the shortcomings of the system now.
> 
> When all the sponsors are driven out of the sport and the teams can not afford to pay into the system then how will it all go on? At the rate it's going this will be an amatuer sport before much longer. Thanks Dick.


It is clear by the multiple inaccuracies in your posts that your sources are the press releases and media spin that the dopers put out, not reality.

Sponsors are leaving the sport because riders dope, and DS's and doctors help them, not because WADA catches them.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

If I can just jump into this little lovefest...

Pound's CV would suggest he's qualified for the job. As Bigpinkt pointed out, he's been involved with sport at the highest level as an athlete, administrator, etc., and he's a lawyer. And WADA, while not a perfect system, has been a resounding success. It's global. It's got all the Olympic sports signed up. It's catching dopers, using a single set of rules and procedures for all (yes, it needs loads of improvement, but it's much improved from where we were five years ago).

Having said all that, I would not hire Pound for the CAS job if I had the responsibility. He has made himself a lightning rod for the anti-doping crusade. As such, his public comments and actions have the appearance of advocacy, as opposed to judicial impartiality. It's just not right for an athlete to feel that his appeal is in the hands of a "hanging judge".

Just MHO.

JSR


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

I understand how Pound's image could be a distraction. The challenge we have is how much of that image is based on fact and how much of it is based on media campaigns by various dopers who would prefer that there is confusion? So far there is no evidence that Pound broke any rules. You would think that with all the strong feelings against him that there would be strong evidence of his malfeasances....people seem to not like him because he called dopers what they are, dopers. 

I do not think that WADA would be able do it's job without being criticized by dopers no matter who was in charge. People do not like change, especially those that have been breaking the rules for years....suddenly someone comes in and tells them to stop, and actually has the power to make them. This is not going to be welcomed with open arms, no matter if you are Dick Pound or MLK.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

bigpinkt said:


> It is clear by the multiple inaccuracies in your posts that your sources are the press releases and media spin that the dopers put out, not reality.
> 
> Sponsors are leaving the sport because riders dope, and DS's and doctors help them, not because WADA catches them.


 There have been no inaccuracies in my posts, just differences between your view and mine. You are refusing to acknowlege the shorcomings of the testing procedures and the lack of diplomacy and integrity of Dick Pound. It is not a popularity contest but it (WADA) must be fair and impartial. It is not.

Maybe he'll do less damage in the CAS if elected.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

davidka said:


> There have been no inaccuracies in my posts, just differences between your view and mine. You are refusing to acknowlege the shorcomings of the testing procedures and the lack of diplomacy and integrity of Dick Pound. It is not a popularity contest but it (WADA) must be fair and impartial. It is not.
> 
> Maybe he'll do less damage in the CAS if elected.


You need to go back and read your posts, here are some of your inaccuracies

-The statements were made before the B-Sample was tested
-baseball fans don't care if the athletes dope
-riders have to give up their civil rights to participate in their sport
-US' foremost expert on sports doping left his post at UCLA's drug testing lab to join his defense
-7 failed tests? Which were those? The ones that were taken from samples that all tested negative the first time 
- Floyd's witness was locked out of witnessing
-It is literally impossible for Floyd to have doped in the way he was accused
-The A samples came back negative, how did the B samples then later come back positive? That can only be one of two things; Lab screw up or sample tampering. You choose.

All of these are incorrect


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

bigpinkt said:


> You need to go back and read your posts, here are some of your inaccuracies
> 
> -The statements were made before the B-Sample was tested
> -baseball fans don't care if the athletes dope
> ...


Davidka, I believe this is where the can came out. Sorry for you loss.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

bigpinkt said:


> You need to go back and read your posts, here are some of your inaccuracies
> 
> -The statements were made before the B-Sample was tested
> Landis' identy was known as the positive test before his team confirmed. How vague or not is of no consequence.
> ...


 Your name isn't Travis Tygart, is it?
I think I'm done here.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> The reporter wrote that Pound invented it, Pound did not say it. He says it is an estimate, that is could have been 20%, 25%. In his original interview he said it was an estimate.


Evidently you glossed over this quote of Pound: "It was pick a number." The statement, "Call me a liar" hardly is indicative of someone bragging about his methodology either. You can spin this all you want, but you can't change the fact that Pound himself admitted he made the number up. 


bigpinkt said:


> The best line in the interview
> 
> _*He has heard himself compared to a sheriff in the Wild West, as if that’s a bad thing. “I don’t get that. Weren’t the sheriffs the good guys?*”_
> 
> ...


Only a man of great faith could believe Pound was suited for the bench. Not even the other defenders of Pound here go that far.

BTW, I've never believed in the innocence of LA or Landis. I do, however, believe in due process and the rule of law. Hence my opposition to Pound.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

harlond said:


> Evidently you glossed over this quote of Pound: "It was pick a number." The statement, "Call me a liar" hardly is indicative of someone bragging about his methodology either. You can spin this all you want, but you can't change the fact that Pound himself admitted he made the number up.


He admitted the number was an estimate, an educated one. By saying that he made it up you are discounting his conversations with Players, Team Doctors, ex-players, and GMs. 

Pound often says what people do not want to hear.When he said 4 years ago that cycling has a dope problem that they need to address, the response from the UCI, and the dopers, was "No we do not". It is pretty clear that Pound was right. For speaking the truth he is attacked.



harlond said:


> BTW, I've never believed in the innocence of LA or Landis. I do, however, believe in due process and the rule of law. Hence my opposition to Pound.


How has Pound personally violated due process and the rule of law?


----------



## Slartibartfast (Jul 22, 2007)

bigpinkt said:


> Pound often says what people do not want to hear.When he said 4 years ago that cycling has a dope problem that they need to address, the response from the UCI, and the dopers, was "No we do not". It is pretty clear that Pound was right. For speaking the truth he is attacked.


With respect, I don't think folks on this forum attack Pound for speaking the truth. Most of us probably agree that when he speaks in generalities he's "correct." Many would even agree he's "correct" in specific instances. Not speaking for others, what rankles me is when he publicly preempts the process we all wish would work to limit doping. His heart's in the right place, but his mouth's not. I basically wish he would hush up and make the process work, behind the scenes.

He undermines his own ideals by taking a biased approach in public. (BTW, I agree with him much of the time, but he's decidedly unjudicial.) I won't claim he's violated any rules because I don't know the rules well enough -- maybe he hasn't. Still, if a judge in a court of law made his personal biases as well-known as Dick does, he would be first discredited and then disbarred.

I don't think CAS can stand such a polarizing leader -- I'm afraid Dick Pound would make the organization a laughingstock, as much as I agree with his instincts. He's absolutely spot on that doping is endemic to pro cycling and something MUST be done, but I fear he's too heavy-handed to succeed in the broader context of CAS's responsibilities. Maybe he could work at a different position in the organization??


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Nobody has been criticizing the new guy at WADA. I'll bet there aren't many people in or out of cycling who even know his name. Why is that? Is it because WADA has been beaten down and is now ineffective? No, it's because WADA lost it's biggest loose cannon mouthpiece and its biggest liability. Getting rid of Pound actually frees WADA to concentrate on their mission, rather than constantly defending themselves against criticism.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> Nobody has been criticizing the new guy at WADA. I'll bet there aren't many people in or out of cycling who even know his name. Why is that? Is it because WADA has been beaten down and is now ineffective? No, it's because WADA lost it's biggest loose cannon mouthpiece and its biggest liability. Getting rid of Pound actually frees WADA to concentrate on their mission, rather than constantly defending themselves against criticism.


Wrong

The new guy,John Fahey, has been in the job for about a month so you wouldn't expect much news yet, but of course there is....

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/01/16/ap.wada.ap/index.html

Fahey is right, MLB testing is a joke. Selig's "Head in the sand" approach has proven to be a mistake and will continue to hurt the sport.

Unfortunately the media image of WADA has been defined by the dopers and their apologist, Davidka's multiple accuracies in his posts are evidence that the public tends to believe whatever the dopers say in their efforts to spin the media and public opinion. There is little interest when the actual truth comes out. 

If you review what Pound has actually said over the last 4 years you will find he has said little that isn't correct and nothing that is unethical. Fahey will continue to call out sports that fail to recognize there is a problem, those who do not want change will continue to oppose them.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> How has Pound personally violated due process and the rule of law?


This question indicates (a) that you believe that Pound is qualified unless he is proved disqualifed, when in fact, for a position as important as judge, it's up to Pound and his supporters to prove he is qualified in every respect and (b) that you are not accounting for the importance of the appearance of impartiality and adherence to the rule of law where the qualifications of judges are concerned. Slartibartfast explains the latter point quite well.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

harlond said:


> This question indicates (a) that you believe that Pound is qualified unless he is proved disqualifed, when in fact, for a position as important as judge, it's up to Pound and his supporters to prove he is qualified in every respect and (b) that you are not accounting for the importance of the appearance of impartiality and adherence to the rule of law where the qualifications of judges are concerned. Slartibartfast explains the latter point quite well.


Pound will not be a judge, he will run CAS. This means he will be the administer of the agency and have the power to appoint arbitrators who rule on disputes, but he will not judge cases. 

I have already explained why I think that Pound is qualified. Amongst other achievements He has been an Olympic athlete, He has run multiple international sports agencys over the last 30 years and his legal credentials are well known. As for the appearance of impartiality it is my position that this appearance comes from the media spin of the dopers and their supporters rather then Pounds actions or statements.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Sure, it's all media spin of the dopers and their supporters. I'm trying to figure out where the IOC ethics committee fits in. Are they dopers, or are they supporters of dopers? Here's a clip from their findings, which you can read for yourself at http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_1127.pdf



> The Ethics Commission, like all the Olympic family members, can only approve of and support the unceasing fight against the scourge of doping conducted by Mr Richard Pound, WADA Chairman and IOC member.
> 
> Nonetheless, it recalls that, in accordance with the principle set out under point 4 of the Fundamental Principles of Olympism in the Olympic Charter, “the Olympic spirit, which inspires the whole Olympic Movement, requires mutual understanding, a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play” within the Olympic Family. In this regard, a degree of prudence is indispensable out of respect for the Olympic spirit.
> 
> As a result, the Ethics Commission recommends that the IOC Executive Board remind Mr Richard Pound of the obligation to exercise greater prudence consistent with the Olympic spirit when making public pronouncements that may affect the reputation of others.


Media spin. Right.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> Sure, it's all media spin of the dopers and their supporters. I'm trying to figure out where the IOC ethics committee fits in. Are they dopers, or are they supporters of dopers? Here's a clip from their findings, which you can read for yourself at http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_1127.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Media spin. Right.



Thank you for producing the perfect example of Media spin. This was nothing more then a failed attempt by Lance to spin the media. You will notice that the IOC took NO action. If you follow the logic of Lance in the SCA case or the Vrijman report this can only be seen as a victory for Pound 

While the IOC said that Pound should "exercise greater prudence" they also said

"the Ethics Commission may observe that its conclusions do not contain any incriminatingelement regarding the personal conduct of Mr Pound, IOC member."

"The Ethics Commission, like all the Olympic family members, can only approve of
and support the unceasing fight against the scourge of doping conducted by
Mr Richard Pound, WADA Chairman and IOC member."


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

The IOC took no action because they determined they were unable to take action. The only thing they could do was reprimand Pound. Which they did. 

Calling information you don't like "media spin" sure makes it easy to ignore just about anything you don't want to hear. "Cognitive dissonance" or "naivety" are more accurate and useful terms.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

Can't think of any reason we'd want the man running the CAS to exhibit prudence.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> Nobody has been criticizing the new guy at WADA. I'll bet there aren't many people in or out of cycling who even know his name. Why is that? Is it because WADA has been beaten down and is now ineffective? No, it's because WADA lost it's biggest loose cannon mouthpiece and its biggest liability. Getting rid of Pound actually frees WADA to concentrate on their mission, rather than constantly defending themselves against criticism.



give him time. He's not going to be able to sit back and issue "no comments", as you seem to prefer, when the next marion jones/lance/floyd gets a positive and goes on a PR Blitzkrieg. escalation of force is a two way street.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> The IOC took no action because they determined they were unable to take action. The only thing they could do was reprimand Pound. Which they did.
> 
> Calling information you don't like "media spin" sure makes it easy to ignore just about anything you don't want to hear. "Cognitive dissonance" or "naivety" are more accurate and useful terms.


It was clear that this was an attempt by Lance to take the heat off him for the 6 EPO positives. Any lawyer, or anyone that can read the WADA code, could tell that it would be unsuccessful. Despite the certainly of failure Lance went ahead with it as it was a way to tarnish Pound's name and insure that fans question the system. It appears some of his loyal followers bought into it, even though it failed.

*"The Ethics Commission, like all the Olympic family members, can only approve of
and support the unceasing fight against the scourge of doping conducted by
Mr Richard Pound, WADA Chairman and IOC member."*

That sure is a strong reprimand.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> It was clear that this was an attempt by Lance to take the heat off him for the 6 EPO positives. Any lawyer, or anyone that can read the WADA code, could tell that it would be unsuccessful. Despite the certainly of failure Lance went ahead with it as it was a way to tarnish Pound's name and insure that fans question the system. It appears some of his loyal followers bought into it, even though it failed.
> 
> *"The Ethics Commission, like all the Olympic family members, can only approve of
> and support the unceasing fight against the scourge of doping conducted by
> ...


Apparently you missed the reprimand part, so I'll repeat it:



> Nonetheless, it recalls that, in accordance with the principle set out under point 4 of the Fundamental Principles of Olympism in the Olympic Charter, “the Olympic spirit, which inspires the whole Olympic Movement, requires mutual understanding, a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play” within the Olympic Family. In this regard, a degree of prudence is indispensable out of respect for the Olympic spirit.
> 
> <b>As a result, the Ethics Commission recommends that the IOC Executive Board remind Mr Richard Pound of the obligation to exercise greater prudence consistent with the Olympic spirit when making public pronouncements that may affect the reputation of others.</b>


That is about as strong a reprimand as they could give. They haven't given out a lot of reprimands over the years, so it's pretty special when they bother to do it. But write it off however you like. Posturing, media spin, Lance, whatever. We know who Dick Pound is and what he is about, and no amount of denial from you is going to change that. He is a terrible choice to have anything to do with CAS.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> That is about as strong a reprimand as they could give.


maybe. but if Pound were truly the loose cannon that he's portrayed as, he would have cost WADA a ton of cases. that hasn't happened. to the contrary, the fact that he's even being considered for CAS indicates he has the respect of his peers.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

blackhat said:


> maybe. but if Pound were truly the loose cannon that he's portrayed as, he would have cost WADA a ton of cases. that hasn't happened. to the contrary, the fact that he's even being considered for CAS indicates he has the respect of his peers.


Anyone can be nominated for a Nobel Prize, but most nominations don't have a prayer of winning one. The CAS is no different. I'll bet I can nominate myself, but I'll certainly receive no consideration for the job.

The thing about Pound is that he plays fast and loose with the rules. He skirts and he stretches them. But because he works for WADA, it's almost impossible for an athlete to challenge him, just as it is almost impossible to fight a doping case and win. Even worse, there doesn't seem to be any punishment specified for members of WADA who violate the rules, so it's not worth pursuing. He's basically immune. And he can expect his supporters to look past his violations and generate positive spin by asking "when has he not been correct?" As if that were the point. It's all so Machiavellian.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> We know who Dick Pound is and what he is about, and no amount of denial from you is going to change that. He is a terrible choice to have anything to do with CAS.


It is pretty clear by the inaccuracies in your post's that you, and other posters, do not know what Dick Pound, WADA or CAS is about. There has been a concerted effort by Landis, Armstrong, Jones, the UCI, MLB, and NHL to paint Pound as irrational to get WADA off their back. It appears that the smokescreen has won some converts but luckily has failed in stopping the fight against doping.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

mohair_chair said:


> Anyone can be nominated for a Nobel Prize, but most nominations don't have a prayer of winning one. The CAS is no different. I'll bet I can nominate myself, but I'll certainly receive no consideration for the job.
> 
> The thing about Pound is that he plays fast and loose with the rules. He skirts and he stretches them. But because he works for WADA, it's almost impossible for an athlete to challenge him, just as it is almost impossible to fight a doping case and win. Even worse, there doesn't seem to be any punishment specified for members of WADA who violate the rules, so it's not worth pursuing. He's basically immune. And he can expect his supporters to look past his violations and generate positive spin by asking "when has he not been correct?" As if that were the point. It's all so Machiavellian.


+1 million


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> It is pretty clear by the inaccuracies in your post's that you, and other posters, do not know what Dick Pound, WADA or CAS is about. There has been a concerted effort by Landis, Armstrong, Jones, the UCI, MLB, and NHL to paint Pound as irrational to get WADA off their back. It appears that the smokescreen has won some converts but luckily has failed in stopping the fight against doping.


The inaccuracies and misunderstandings in your posts make it clear that you want there to be a kangaroo court or star chamber. To each his own.


----------



## flyboy50 (Mar 13, 2007)

> The thing about Pound is that he plays fast and loose with the rules. He skirts and he stretches them. But because he works for WADA, it's almost impossible for an athlete to challenge him, just as it is almost impossible to fight a doping case and win. Even worse, there doesn't seem to be any punishment specified for members of WADA who violate the rules, so it's not worth pursuing. He's basically immune. And he can expect his supporters to look past his violations and generate positive spin by asking "when has he not been correct?" As if that were the point. It's all so Machiavellian.


+1 

Also, correct me if this is an innacuracy Bigpinkt but I don't recall any cycling doping accusations EVER being proven innocent. Seems fair to me... Especially given the famed reliability of the tests they perform


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

flyboy50 said:


> +1
> 
> Also, correct me if this is an innacuracy Bigpinkt but I don't recall any cycling doping accusations EVER being proven innocent. Seems fair to me... Especially given the famed reliability of the tests they perform



Inigo landaluze?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

blackhat said:


> Inigo landaluze?


Bo Hamburger as well


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

flyboy50 said:


> +1
> 
> Also, correct me if this is an innacuracy Bigpinkt but I don't recall any cycling doping accusations EVER being proven innocent. Seems fair to me... Especially given the famed reliability of the tests they perform


There have been a number of names given already.

In addition there have been riders given reduced sentences when they were able to prove they tested positive via contaminated supliments.

The number of riders caught by tests is rather low, only the dumb ones mess up. "Non Analytical" positives like Puerto or Kayle are the direction things are going.


----------



## flyboy50 (Mar 13, 2007)

> There have been a number of names given already.
> 
> In addition there have been riders given reduced sentences when they were able to prove they tested positive via contaminated supliments.
> 
> The number of riders caught by tests is rather low, only the dumb ones mess up. "Non Analytical" positives like Puerto or Kayle are the direction things are going.


Hamburger admitted to doping; I'm not sure how that makes him innocent... but you got me with landaluze.

But generally, even if the evidence isn't conclusive, the cyclist gets blasted (suspension, ruined reputation, losing awards, etc. Landis is a perfect example). Iandaluze is the exception; unlike with Landis, they recognized that the evidence was awful and nothing could be concluded from it. I'm all for fighting doping, but not like this. 

The fact that most people agree that a huge fraction the whole peloton is doping is a good indicator that the anti-doping system in place is ineffective. The "dopers" who get caught wouldn't have any arguments if the doping labs actually did the tests correctly. There's something wrong with the system.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

flyboy50 said:


> Hamburger admitted to doping; I'm not sure how that makes him innocent... but you got me with landaluze.


Hamburger won the appeal in 2001 or 2002. That he last year admitted to be a doper does not change that fact. And it certainly does not change that what you wrote in your previous post was wrong. 

You might also want to read up on why he was cleared in the appeal.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

flyboy50 said:


> Hamburger admitted to doping; I'm not sure how that makes him innocent... but you got me with landaluze.
> 
> But generally, even if the evidence isn't conclusive, the cyclist gets blasted (suspension, ruined reputation, losing awards, etc. Landis is a perfect example). Iandaluze is the exception; unlike with Landis, they recognized that the evidence was awful and nothing could be concluded from it. I'm all for fighting doping, but not like this.
> 
> The fact that most people agree that a huge fraction the whole peloton is doping is a good indicator that the anti-doping system in place is ineffective. The "dopers" who get caught wouldn't have any arguments if the doping labs actually did the tests correctly. There's something wrong with the system.



Landis is not a good example because he is a doper.


----------



## ZENmud (Feb 21, 2008)

*my debut post here*

I'll just paste in the URL for my my long BLOG  comment re: Mr 453.52gr (smile)

"International House of POUND/CAS"
http://wadawatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/international-house-of-poundcas.html

excerpt:

There are a goodly number of reasons for which WADAwatch
could never support the nomination of Dick Pound for the
Presidency of the esteemed Court of Arbitration for Sport.


Never. Not from this keyboard.
+ + + + +

He's not the worst sports-doping attorney on the planet; but until I MEET the worst, he'll do the trick(s?)...

ZENmud


----------

