# What good does it do?



## toymanator (Dec 14, 2010)

With all of the recent allegations with Lance and Andy I have been in numerous conversations with people who aren't even involved with cycling about doping. A few people have posed this question to me and I was curious to see what everyone else's opinion on the matter is. From an outsiders perspective it appears that cycling has been a tainted sport for a long time, it has been overshadowed by doping and drugs. It is a sport that demands everything from the body and as a result everyone is looking for a competitive edge. Let's hypothetically come out and say that Lance did use performance enhancing methods that were illegal. Cheating is cheating, I get that, but at this point what good does it do to convict him? Does anyone really care where the 7 tour titles go now, it is all irrelevant. Again from an outsiders perspective it seems as though everyone in cycling has done some form of performance enhancement in order to compete in the big leagues. Maybe this is the pessimistic attitude that has revolved around my office lately. But shouldn't the focus now be on improving the methods and regulations that are currently being practiced? What do you think? What good will come from spending the millions of dollars it is going to cost to prosecute Lance, Andy, and the other cyclists that are currently being tried?


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

toymanator said:


> Let's hypothetically come out and say that Lance did use performance enhancing methods that were illegal.


I suspect this comment may have just caused instantaneous combustion in several places around this forum


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

How do we go about cleaning up the sport, it's image and public credibility if we let Armstrong off the hook?

What does it say about cycling if it's governing bodies shrug their shoulders and admit that some stars are just going to be above the law?


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

"What good will come from spending the millions of dollars..." 

Where does this come from? USADA has staff. Their salaries have been negotiated and those costs have been allocated and grant-funded. Deciding to look the other way because Wonderboy has expensive lawyers, or because, Gosh we just like him, or because your misunderstanding of reality facilitates a construct in which A- It's "costing millions of dollars" to carry out USADA's mission and B- that money would be allocated to whatever your personal version of anti-doping is neither factual or helpful.

It's not going to save anyone but LA "millions of dollars" to have USADA give him a pass. Stop suggesting otherwise.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

blackhat said:


> "What good will come from spending the millions of dollars..."
> 
> Where does this come from? USADA has staff. Their salaries have been negotiated and those costs have been allocated and grant-funded. Deciding to look the other way because Wonderboy has expensive lawyers, or because, Gosh we just like him, or because your misunderstanding of reality facilitates a construct in which A- It's "costing millions of dollars" to carry out USADA's mission and B- that money would be allocated to whatever your personal version of anti-doping is neither factual or helpful.
> 
> It's not going to save anyone but LA "millions of dollars" to have USADA give him a pass. Stop suggesting otherwise.


You're right. USADA has a limited number of staff (salaried, hourly, and intern I believe), is majority grant funded (limited $ available to them). Let's spend their manpower and $ proven limited resources on A- improving testing methods and frequency of testing for all athletes under their supervision or B- going after a guy who is majority of performance offenses are past their SOL and C- going after a guy who has the financial ability to fund their entire program for multiple years and D- who has survived a number of investigations, one US Federal, and at least one lawsuit. 
Stop suggesting LA is the only one who stands to lose $. At least he is spending his $ to protect only himself, the $ used by USADA to go after him could be used to protect all the other athletes currently under USADA's supervision. Let alone in a sport who's public support for professional racers ranks below figure skating (my opinion only, not a factual statement just have never seen a pro biker on a cereal box)


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*Life lessons....*



toymanator said:


> With all of the recent allegations with Lance and Andy I have been in numerous conversations with people who aren't even involved with cycling about doping. A few people have posed this question to me and I was curious to see what everyone else's opinion on the matter is. From an outsiders perspective it appears that cycling has been a tainted sport for a long time, it has been overshadowed by doping and drugs. It is a sport that demands everything from the body and as a result everyone is looking for a competitive edge. Let's hypothetically come out and say that Lance did use performance enhancing methods that were illegal. Cheating is cheating, I get that, but at this point what good does it do to convict him? Does anyone really care where the 7 tour titles go now, it is all irrelevant. Again from an outsiders perspective it seems as though everyone in cycling has done some form of performance enhancement in order to compete in the big leagues. Maybe this is the pessimistic attitude that has revolved around my office lately. But shouldn't the focus now be on improving the methods and regulations that are currently being practiced? What do you think? What good will come from spending the millions of dollars it is going to cost to prosecute Lance, Andy, and the other cyclists that are currently being tried?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPgn4yNmLXI

You either understand and have everything, or don't understand and are lost. That is all.:thumbsup:


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

SicBith said:


> You're right. USADA has a limited number of staff (salaried, hourly, and intern I believe), is majority grant funded (limited $ available to them). Let's spend their manpower and $ proven limited resources on A- improving testing methods and frequency of testing for all athletes under their supervision or B- going after a guy who is majority of performance offenses are past their SOL and C- going after a guy who has the financial ability to fund their entire program for multiple years and D- who has survived a number of investigations, one US Federal, and at least one lawsuit.
> Stop suggesting LA is the only one who stands to lose $. At least he is spending his $ to protect only himself, the $ used by USADA to go after him could be used to protect all the other athletes currently under USADA's supervision. Let alone in a sport who's public support for professional racers ranks below figure skating (my opinion only, not a factual statement just have never seen a pro biker on a cereal box)


Why improve testing and frequency if you set the example that you don't get punished for cheating?


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

roddjbrown said:


> Why improve testing and frequency if you set the example that you don't get punished for cheating?


Improved testing will lead to more positives, frequency of testing will build more accurate athlete profiles and produce positive results due your number being called more often. Look what happened when they developed a test for EPO Cera. How many current riders were caught using it in cycling let alone other sports? The fact is using LA as an example (they have since the SCA case) of what can happen to you in the future has not stopped doping in cycling. Bio Passport, new tests, amount of tests have in my opinion had a much bigger impact now and in the future. 
Busting LA for 2009, 2010 bio passport offenses, somewhat belated in my opinion, would do more for anti doping than going after EPO tests from 2001 which everyone knows will be positive. To me worst short term aspect, though the best long term solution of LA's case would be if he was busted for 2009,2010 bio passport offences and his ego forces his hand to get the UCI and in turn WADA to go after all the athletes who have suspect bio passport results not only for changes in blood values, but also blood values which do not show consistent natural decay over a 3 week tour. It will either show the teeth of the bio passport as evidence in doping cases or rule it out.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

SicBith said:


> The fact is using LA as an example (they have since the SCA case) of what can happen to you in the future has not stopped doping in cycling.


But as yet Lance has lost money in legal fees but not much else. I personally would think that there's little point in catching dopers if the incentive far outweighs the punishment.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

SicBith said:


> You're right. USADA has a limited number of staff (salaried, hourly, and intern I believe), is majority grant funded (limited $ available to them). Let's spend their manpower and $ proven limited resources on A- improving testing methods and frequency of testing for all athletes under their supervision or B- going after a guy who is majority of performance offenses are past their SOL and C- going after a guy who has the financial ability to fund their entire program for multiple years and D- who has survived a number of investigations, one US Federal, and at least one lawsuit.
> Stop suggesting LA is the only one who stands to lose $. At least he is spending his $ to protect only himself, the $ used by USADA to go after him could be used to protect all the other athletes currently under USADA's supervision. Let alone in a sport who's public support for professional racers ranks below figure skating (my opinion only, not a factual statement just have never seen a pro biker on a cereal box)


'Let's spend their manpower'? 

They're not a govt org. 'We' don't get to spend their resources. Beyond that, I'll say again--the resources are budgeted and allocated. Deciding to give LA a pass for whatever virtuous reason you come up with isn't going to lead to implementation of your other ideas. It's not a zero sum game. If you want LA to get a pass, don't hide behind fiscal restraint to make your case.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

What good would it do if WADA ignored over a dozen direct witnesses of doping? What good would it do to allow doctors like Celya, Marti, Ferrari, del Moral and directors like Bruyneel continue to poison the sport. 

Testing a key element to successful change in the sport but enforcement is also a key element that pushes the toxic element out of the sport. Ignoring it just enables these fools and insure the problem continues


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

What good does it do? Maybe the next gifted cyclist who comes along will think twice about cheating. Isn't that good enough?

Also, it's the USADA's job.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

blackhat said:


> 'Let's spend their manpower'?
> 
> They're not a govt org. 'We' don't get to spend their resources. Beyond that, I'll say again--the resources are budgeted and allocated. Deciding to give LA a pass for whatever virtuous reason you come up with isn't going to lead to implementation of your other ideas. It's not a zero sum game. If you want LA to get a pass, don't hide behind fiscal restraint to make your case.


USADA is funded by government (tax payers) and grants. Once again you are right "resources are budgeted and allocated" I would like to see more of those resources allocated to improving the ability to deter (through testing not publicity) those athletes who choose to try to cheat the system now, not a decade ago, and to have the resources to go after those cheating the system now. I'm sorry you don't believe in fiscal responsibility for the agency tasked with policing and protecting our athletes, but it is real and speaks to your argument.
Do your research and you'll see that I don't want or care if LA gets a free pass. I just don't believe the benefit of busting him is worth the cost. 
If I were an athlete competing in a sport policed by a USADA which had more money to spend on test development and testing I would be more concerned than knowing there is a possibility I would be caught 10yrs down the line and also knowing that if I didn't come out of retirement or if I had hired an old teammate I may never have been caught. In my opinion those who choose to dope are learning why to stay humble with your successes because of LA's case, not why not to dope.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

SicBith said:


> USADA is funded by government (tax payers) and grants. ... I just don't believe the benefit of busting him is worth the cost.


You're still not getting it. 

The cost, whatever it is, isn't going to impact the ability of USADA to undertake more proactive programs. If they wash their hands of the LA matter, it's not going to open up a revenue stream or free up resources that will then be applied to your fantasy testing program. It just doesn't work like that.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

I'm not saying you're wrong at all, but me personally if I knew I could still be busted years down the line, losing millions, I'd find the doping much less appealing. Criminals aren't scared of getting caught, they're scared of the punishment.

The punishment has to be the deterrent.


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

roddjbrown said:


> The punishment has to be the deterrent.


Exactly


----------



## toymanator (Dec 14, 2010)

Has the deterrent cleaned up other sports such as baseball?


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

toymanator said:


> With all of the recent allegations with Lance and Andy I have been in numerous conversations with people who aren't even involved with cycling about doping. A few people have posed this question to me and I was curious to see what everyone else's opinion on the matter is. From an outsiders perspective it appears that cycling has been a tainted sport for a long time, it has been overshadowed by doping and drugs. It is a sport that demands everything from the body and as a result everyone is looking for a competitive edge. Let's hypothetically come out and say that Lance did use performance enhancing methods that were illegal. Cheating is cheating, I get that, but at this point what good does it do to convict him? Does anyone really care where the 7 tour titles go now, it is all irrelevant. Again from an outsiders perspective it seems as though everyone in cycling has done some form of performance enhancement in order to compete in the big leagues. Maybe this is the pessimistic attitude that has revolved around my office lately. But shouldn't the focus now be on improving the methods and regulations that are currently being practiced? What do you think? What good will come from spending the millions of dollars it is going to cost to prosecute Lance, Andy, and the other cyclists that are currently being tried?


This is what is known as the bargaining stage of grief. Next comes depression.


----------



## old_fuji (Mar 16, 2009)

I've said it before...have an unlimited class of racing. Gloves off, balls out...dope up the wazoo, and technological innovation all around! Keep a traditional, non-doping class for those that care.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

blackhat said:


> You're still not getting it.
> 
> The cost, whatever it is, isn't going to impact the ability of USADA to undertake more proactive programs. If they wash their hands of the LA matter, it's not going to open up a revenue stream or free up resources that will then be applied to your fantasy testing program. It just doesn't work like that.


If the allocated budget for the LA case was lowered by any amount and those funds were reallocated to testing programs the USADA its athletes win. I get it. It does work like that if those who allocated the budget do so accordingly. At this point USADA cannot turn its back on the LA case it is going to happen. There is too much on the table for them to walk away. But if one line item on the USADA budget for LA's case is exceeded (like defending their position on the possibly unexpected lawsuit LA launched on them) it is money which could have been spent on other programs. "Fantasy testing program" ehh. Ask DF about the effects this "fantasy testing program" might have on bike racing or for that matter any endurance racing policed by USADA. It does work like that. I do allocate budgets. I do those allocations based on the current and possible success of the programs I allocate $ to. It does work like that.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

roddjbrown said:


> But as yet Lance has lost money in legal fees but not much else. I personally would think that there's little point in catching dopers if the incentive far outweighs the punishment.


He has lost a ton of public opinion popularity. Don't kid yourself he was not the only one leaking info to the press.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*Negative!*



old_fuji said:


> I've said it before...have an unlimited class of racing. Gloves off, balls out...dope up the wazoo, and technological innovation all around! Keep a traditional, non-doping class for those that care.


You need to stop saying it. It's a bad idea. Who'll run it? Joe Weider or Vince McMahon?:frown2:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

SicBith said:


> If the allocated budget for the LA case was lowered by any amount and those funds were reallocated to testing programs the USADA its athletes win. I get it. It does work like that if those who allocated the budget do so accordingly. At this point USADA cannot turn its back on the LA case it is going to happen. There is too much on the table for them to walk away. But if one line item on the USADA budget for LA's case is exceeded (like defending their position on the possibly unexpected lawsuit LA launched on them) it is money which could have been spent on other programs. "Fantasy testing program" ehh. Ask DF about the effects this "fantasy testing program" might have on bike racing or for that matter any endurance racing policed by USADA. It does work like that. I do allocate budgets. I do those allocations based on the current and possible success of the programs I allocate $ to. It does work like that.


over a dozen witnesses, wacky blood, pictures, tapes.....all should be ignored if you can spend more then WADA and more people believe your lies?


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> What good would it do if WADA ignored over a dozen direct witnesses of doping? What good would it do to allow doctors like Celya, Marti, Ferrari, del Moral and directors like Bruyneel continue to poison the sport.
> 
> Testing a key element to successful change in the sport but enforcement is also a key element that pushes the toxic element out of the sport. Ignoring it just enables these fools and insure the problem continues


The LA case at this point is going to run its course. There is too much at stake for USADA to drop it. WADA is not trying this case USADA is, so WADA has no say in it unless they are going to open their own case against LA. We need to move forward to what is happening now, not then.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> over a dozen witnesses, wacky blood, pictures, tapes.....all should be ignored if you can spend more then WADA and more people believe your lies?


What are you talking about? The last time I checked this is a USADA case not WADA, though you might be alluding that WADA is now financially involved. All I am saying is to spend money the limited resources available on programs which impact the riders now and in the future and not the threaten them with the skeletons in the closet which may or may not come out. If LA had not been so egotistical none of this would have come to light. That is something I think we can all agree on. If he never made the comeback he would have walked and none of you would have cared.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

roddjbrown said:


> I'm not saying you're wrong at all, but me personally if I knew I could still be busted years down the line, losing millions, I'd find the doping much less appealing. Criminals aren't scared of getting caught, they're scared of the punishment.
> 
> The punishment has to be the deterrent.


I agree completely. Punishment needs to be more stringent. Here's a question for you. If you knew you would be tested 30 times a year, the majority of which would come in one 3 week window, would you take that chance to make millions? Now throw in that you have no college degree, no future plans, only the dream that you can support yourself with cycling and you are a few strokes over par. Nothing special. Doping means millions, not doping means nothing. What do you do?


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

roddjbrown said:


> I'm not saying you're wrong at all, but me personally if I knew I could still be busted years down the line, losing millions, I'd find the doping much less appealing. Criminals aren't scared of getting caught, they're scared of the punishment.
> 
> The punishment has to be the deterrent.


I disagree.

Studies have shown that probability of getting caught is what is important.

Low chance of being caught, high reward, and harsh punishment will still induce lots of people to take the risk. Drug dealing has incredibly harsh punishment yet there is no shortage of drug dealers.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

old_fuji said:


> I've said it before...have an unlimited class of racing. Gloves off, balls out...dope up the wazoo, and technological innovation all around! Keep a traditional, non-doping class for those that care.


I don't think recumbents are under WADA, so your class probably already exists. Enjoy.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

trailrunner68 said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Studies have shown that probability of getting caught is what is important.
> 
> Low chance of being caught, high reward, and harsh punishment will still induce lots of people to take the risk. Drug dealing has incredibly harsh punishment yet there is no shortage of drug dealers.


Yes, but irrelevant. If Lance gets off scot free then he WAS caught, and DIDN'T get punished. It's a ridiculous argument to propose that someone is allowed to get away with it as the money was needed to test more people...who presumably therefore will also get away with it. 

Your posts in the Sky threads have repeatedly compared them to USPS. If they're doping should they also get off and spend the money on more testing? After all they're a team with a huge budget that could result in a protracted legal case. Or is just when it's Lance that you want it forgotten?

Yes you have to find the dopers - they found one. Now you make an example of them.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

toymanator said:


> Has the deterrent cleaned up other sports such as baseball?


I don't know squat about baseball, but it certainly seems by almost everyone's estimation has gone a good ways in cleaning up cycling.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any person knowledgeable on the subject who thinks the doping today is anywhere near the level it was before about 2005 when it was more or less do as you please, even seems a lot cleaner than it was just a few years ago. Largely because nearly all the top riders have been caught doping.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

SicBith said:


> What are you talking about? The last time I checked this is a USADA case not WADA, though you might be alluding that WADA is now financially involved. .


Do you understand the WADA/USADA relationship? Yes, WADA is highly involved and have been since the start. They are sharing some of the financial burden, including paying for some of the consultants


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

roddjbrown said:


> Why improve testing and frequency if you set the example that you don't get punished for cheating?


If these proceedings fail to prove guilt, how many more times and how much more of this guys' life should be pissed away defending himself. This entire procedure runs contrary to what Americans have developed as standard in determining guilt.

We can see by the lunatic fringe here on this forum that a large number of people want to cling to any kind of rumor as proof of guilt. They will never be willing to let go of their determination to destroy winners.

This should in no way indicate that I believe either way where Armstrong is involved. Until this case is heard by an actual jury, rational people without judgement. I suspect that the entire system will be placed on trial before this is over and that will be a good thing.


----------



## Samadhi (Nov 1, 2011)

trailrunner68 said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Studies have shown that probability of getting caught is what is important.
> 
> Low chance of being caught, high reward, and harsh punishment will still induce lots of people to take the risk. Drug dealing has incredibly harsh punishment yet there is no shortage of drug dealers.


I believe there's something to that.

There's obviously plenty of reasons to cheat and punishment - what punishment there is - isn't sufficient deterent.

It isn't just the riders. It's a corrupt system. Teams. Sponsors. Sanctioning bodies. Focusing on riders, which is what seems to be the case, won't change anything.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

SwiftSolo said:


> If these proceedings fail to prove guilt, how many more times and how much more of this guys' life should be pissed away defending himself. This entire procedure runs contrary to what Americans have developed as standard in determining guilt.
> 
> We can see by the lunatic fringe here on this forum that a large number of people want to cling to any kind of rumor as proof of guilt. They will never be willing to let go of their determination to destroy winners.
> 
> This should in no way indicate that I believe either way where Armstrong is involved. Until this case is heard by an actual jury, rational people without judgement. I suspect that the entire system will be placed on trial before this is over and that will be a good thing.


I completely agree the process and system seem wrong. My point though is that IF USADA provides sufficient evidence then it was worth it and punishment should follow


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

Did they find a couple more witnesses? I thought it was more than 10? Will it be more than 20 a few weeks from now?


----------



## PaxRomana (Jan 16, 2012)

toymanator said:


> Has the deterrent cleaned up other sports such as baseball?


Yes. Do you still see the home run derbies you used do see in the Bonds/Clemens/Sosa era?

No.


----------



## PaxRomana (Jan 16, 2012)

SwiftSolo said:


> We can see by the lunatic fringe here on this forum that a large number of people want to cling to any kind of rumor as proof of guilt. They will never be willing to let go of their determination to destroy winners.


What are you babbling about? The fact that Armstrong teammates have spoken on his doping behavior is a fact. Ashenden has spoken on Lance's blood profiles. An impartial panel has voted to move the case forward.


----------



## il sogno (Jul 15, 2002)

toymanator said:


> With all of the recent allegations with Lance and Andy I have been in numerous conversations with people who aren't even involved with cycling about doping.
> ...
> What good will come from spending the millions of dollars it is going to cost to prosecute Lance, Andy, and the other cyclists that are currently being tried?


There are allegations against Andy? What has he been charged with?


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

il sogno said:


> There are allegations against Andy? What has he been charged with?


The testosterone:epitestosterone ratio is limited to 4:1. If you go over the limit then you have too much testosterone. Andy has been charged with being under the little used 1:4 ratio. In short, he's been charged for failure to nut up.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

il sogno said:


> There are allegations against Andy? What has he been charged with?


Andy is obviously taking illegal estrogen.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Do you understand the WADA/USADA relationship? Yes, WADA is highly involved and have been since the start. They are sharing some of the financial burden, including paying for some of the consultants


From understanding WADA is a global and USADA is regional/national. USADA as far as I can find has brought the case against LA. Posts from this forum suggests that the USADA and the other national agencies handle cases from their respective nation. WADA seems to me to be the central agency tasked with collecting communication from all the nations and seeking to have all the agencies enforce rulings made be each nation. They also have task of development of method and procedure suggestions for each nation.

What is your understanding of the USADA/WADA relationship?


----------



## thehook (Mar 14, 2006)

The Tedinator said:


> Andy is obviously taking illegal estrogen.


Lmao!

So after we destroy Lance who will be the winners of his 7 tours? Were they clean? How far down the results do we go? Do we go down to the guy who was not tested on his big stage?

I'm not trying to bail out Lance. But when we get done roasting everybody over an open fire. Who will be our winners? Can we say with 100% assurance they won it clean?:mad2:

You want to go after him for abnormal blood values in the comeback. Go for it. But the rest???


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

thehook said:


> Lmao!
> 
> So after we destroy Lance who will be the winners of his 7 tours? Where they clean? how far down the results do we go? Do we go down to the guy who was not tested on his big stage?


Well...I don't want to put ideas in anyone's head but I definitely rode clean during all 7 of Lance's tours


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

toymanator said:


> With all of the recent allegations with Lance and *Andy* ... to prosecute Lance, *Andy*, and the other cyclists that are currently being tried?


Andy? Who is Andy?


----------



## toymanator (Dec 14, 2010)

55x11 said:


> Andy? Who is Andy?


I was referring to Andy Schleck, when I wrote the original post I was thinking Andy was the one who failed the test. However it was his brother Frank, but Andy is the one being vocal in the media about his brothers innocence. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## vfr (Jul 14, 2012)

Does anyone really think cycling is the only sport were cheating takes place? 

Try any kind of car racing, motorcycle racing, track, football, baseball, chess, polo, you name it. If there are rules, people are going to do anything they can to break them for advantage and not get caught. Now, let's just assume all cyclists are doping, the idiots that create and administer the tests can't catch them all the time and that politics is really the driving force in retro-actively trying to convict someone. Reality strikes again.....accept it.


----------

