Floyd Landis Sentenced For Hacking Test Lab

McGruber writes with some news that slipped by in December: "Floyd Landis won the 2006 Tour de France, but was later stripped of his title after testing 'positive for an unusually high ratio of the hormone testosterone to the hormone epitestosterone (T/E ratio).' In February 2010, Slashdot covered the news that Landis had been accused of hacking into the laboratory that detected the unusually high T/E ratio. Since then, Landis was 'convicted in absentia by a French court for his role in hacking into the computers of a French doping lab,' according to National Public Radio. Landis and his former coach Arnie Baker both received 12-month suspended sentences, according to USA Today."

Comments

Oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

So did he spoof his results to convict himself?

The important part is missing from the summary

[EmagGeek]

"Judges said that although no evidence directly linked Messrs. Landis and Baker to the hacking of the antidoping lab, both men benefited from the illegal intrusion."

So, basically, anyone who benefits from a crime is somehow culpable whether or not they actually had anything to do with it.

Gotta love that French "justice" system...

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[d4fseeker]

The reasoning is more like that he wouldn't have doped with such a trivial method if he had known he would be found in the test.
And you can't honestly believe he hoped for "some luck" to make his test results look normal...

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many things about France which are shocking to anyone who has not spent much time in France. To take three examples:

In the field of education, medicine involving taking in over ten times the number of people you expect to graduate then expelling all but the top tenth in first year exams.

In the field of business, I was surprised at the number of government-owned or government-propped French businesses which have taken over following privatisation in other EU countries.

In the field of justice, the lack of jury availability except in the most severe cases means some absurd rulings from a weak judiciary.

They have a very classist approach to society and they're even more hypocritical than England with their good-sportsmanship-equality-under-the-law bullshit.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Brett Buck]

Can't let lack of evidence interfere with how the French feel about themselves. They're still pissed off from Lance Armstrong.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

> We shall assume his guilt on the bases that he would have benefitted from committing the crime and we are already prejudiced against him over other stuff.

The French have a history of judging people like that. People living under common law systems don't realise how good they've got it until they try engaging with the authorities elsewhere.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Peter H.S.]

"Judges said that although no evidence directly linked Messrs. Landis and Baker to the hacking of the antidoping lab, both men benefited from the illegal intrusion."
So, basically, anyone who benefits from a crime is somehow culpable whether or not they actually had anything to do with it.
Gotta love that French "justice" system...

So some clueless blogger totally misrepresent the case and the submitter gives it a flat out wrong headline.

Landis, a known lying doper and cheater, hasn't been convicted for hacking, but for being in possession of stolen documents. Landis, when he was still lying about his doping, was showing these documents to everyone interested, claiming that they showed his innocence, so there is no arguments about him being in possession of these documents.

So Landis escaped a hacking charge and mere got a sentence for being in possession of stolen documents. I am sure that any US citizen publicly showing medical lab records stolen in an hacking accident, would get into trouble with US laws, and rightly so.

--
Regards

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[hedwards]

Unfortunately because of the debacle that surrounded the last tests of Lance's samples it's hard to say what the truth is. Without testing both samples you can't rule out contamination, which is why they have an A and a B sample to begin with.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Peter H.S.]

Can't let lack of evidence interfere with how the French feel about themselves. They're still pissed off from Lance Armstrong.

The French media just loved Lance Armstrong, as anybody who actually knows anything about the subject can attest. But of course when it turned out that he was just a cheating doper, some journalists began to write critical articles about him and the entire doping circus he represented.

Lance Armstrong is a cheating doper, no doubt about that; he has simply failed too many doping tests that anybody can deny that. But for technical reasons he can't get a doping sentence because retro-testing can't be used as evidence.

--
Regards

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[davester666]

No, you just claim that you're a reporter and can't divulge your sources!

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

At least someone intelligent on slashdot. I have lived for many years in France *and* in the US and I have grown extremely tired of the constant misrepresentation of what happens in France by US media (and vice versa, unfortunately). The unavoidable subsequent avalanche of xenophobic comments by people who obviously do not have a clue is no less appalling. It generally takes me no more than 5 minutes to debunk 95% of lies spreads about France/US in the media, too much work apparently. Sigh.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Lance Armstrong is a cheating doper, no doubt about that; he has simply failed too many doping tests that anybody can deny that. But for technical reasons he can't get a doping sentence because retro-testing can't be used as evidence.

If this were a cycling forum, everyone would know that they are all doping and that beating the tests is part of the competition. Lance was the best cyclist in part because he was the best doper.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Aighearach]

That's what happens when you refuse to show up for your trial. It is presumed that whatever evidence the prosecution introduces is as they say it is, as nobody says otherwise.

In civil court that happens every day in the US.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the first time a Frenchman has used "intelligent" as a synonym for "agrees with me".

Peter H.S. stated:

I am sure that any US citizen publicly showing medical lab records stolen in an hacking accident, would get into trouble with US laws, and rightly so.

In doing so, Peter H.S. has shown, not unlike the French legal system, a fundamental disregard for justice.

Holding information which might originally have been obtained through a criminal act is absolutely not proof that the holder has committed a crime. Can you understand why it is impossible to have a free, just nation if you assume otherwise?

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[hedwards]

There was one positive test and there wasn't the normal second sample to validate against. The French paper managed to dig up results that weren't supposed to be released of a B sample that tested positive. The reason he wasn't charged was that there was supposed to be a second sample that could be used to verify that the sample hadn't been contaminated.

It has nothing to do with a ban on retro testing and everything to do with the poor quality of evidence.

Personally, I think he probably did it, but in civilized society you can't randomly lower the bar because you didn't get the result you wanted.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Baloroth]

Ever heard of circumstantial evidence? Doesn't directly link them, but can easily be enough to land a conviction in many cases. Hard to say much without more information, of course. Quick check at the WSJ link for that quote shows that Landis' trainer, a Mr. Baker, had stolen files up on his website from the lab, given to him by Landis' attorneys. Pretty damning evidence.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

I fear you do not understand. Landis never got condemened for hacking. *Never*. He got condemned for the "receipt of stolen goods" which, mind you, is also a crime in the US http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2315.html .

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[drinkypoo]

That doesn't make sense either, unless someone physically broke in and took something, which then later fell into his hands.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

No, what happens when you refuse to show up for a criminal trial is that it's adjourned. If you were absent without good reason then you can enjoy being charged for failing to turn up. If you don't make yourself known then you'll be arrested and forced to turn up.

Nothing else is presumed about your absence because it goes against natural justice to convict you without the opportunity to defend yourself.

Civil trials, where the purpose is to provide specific compensation for loss rather than to protect society, are a completely different matter.

I can't speak for non-common-law jurisdictions. Some of them deliver something very much unlike justice.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation gotcha: they were convicted because they knowingly benefited from information they got through fraudulent means.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people convicted of it thought the same thing, but "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignorance of the law may be no excuse but you still need a guilty act and a guilty mind to be guilty. And knowingly receiving stolen goods is very different from knowingly hearing/seeing naughty information.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Nimey]

...and here in the States we have radicals who want to do away with the common-law system. They're the idiots who howl about "activist judges"; no doubt most of them don't understand what the end result of their desires would be.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were absent without good reason then you can enjoy being charged for failing to turn up.

And...

[...] it goes against natural justice to convict you without the opportunity to defend yourself.

If you're absent without good reason, as you so helpfully pointed out word for word, then you HAD the opportunity to defend yourself and you chose to pass on it. Else "not showing up" simply becomes "get out of jail free".

There is a reason "convicted in absentia" actually exists as a real legal thing.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a reason "convicted in absentia" actually exists as a real legal thing.

You're probably looking for Federal Rule 43 of Criminal Procedure, clarified by the Supreme Court's opinion after Crosby in 1993. You can sometimes excuse yourself from a trial after it has commenced and it might be inferred that you're still in the courtroom but simply not saying anything, i.e. the trial continues as if you're there. But if you refuse to show up for a trial then, like I said, you will not be convicted in your absence.

Excusing yourself after the trial has begun, a voluntary decision made after you have been fully informed of proceedings, is completely different from simply not showing up. To lose the right to defend yourself without knowing what is going on, or because your excuse for being late wasn't quite good enough to satisfy a judge, would be to deny natural justice. The only way the court can be satisfied that you have had the chance to defend yourself is to require you to turn up - no number of snotty, officious French letters form an acceptable substitute. I'm not surprised that anyone defending the French system doesn't quite understand this.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta love that French "justice" system...

Who cares? He cheated for a title and for profit - he should be hung the same as every corrupt CEO, drug dealer and board member doing similar within their fields.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Why exactly do you think that switching from a common law system would automatically require a system where the judges are required to be complete morons such as in this case?

The french justice system is garbage. No one is saying that the USA should emulate them. I think that perhaps we could come up with something better than what is currently out there. This country is supposed to be an innovative one.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Nimey]

Nowhere do I say so.

I say that the idiots who cry about judicial activism are asking for a system where we don't have the protections of common law.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[russotto]

There is a reason "convicted in absentia" actually exists as a real legal thing.

Usually it's to facilitate injustice.

When Ira Einhorn was being extradited from France, they objected to the fact that he'd been convicted in absentia and insisted that Pennsylvania grant him a new trial. So they understand it's unjust too.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[LordLimecat]

It was "in abstentia", which cant help your case.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Motes and beams, dude.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Runaway1956]

The United States is innovative. Congress is finding innovative ways to usher in an Orwellian nightmare. Have you protested SOPA today?

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Na, justice? Seriously? How about some banksters who cooked their books justice? This guy shouldn't have a damn thing done to him unless every god damn bankster and the officials who enabled him/her is also in handcuffs!

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[HuguesT]

To add to your remarks

1- The medical education example is kind of an extreme case, and is due to the fact that medical education is in the hands of the "order" of medical doctors, who want their profession to remain a societal elite. They have a history of making some poor decisions such as favoring some specialists fields over others, leading to long-term dearths in some fields. At present for instance it is hard to get an appointment with an eye specialist in France, because there are not enough of them. Also there isn't enough doctors in France in general, so many are clamoring for the "order" (in effect like a guild) to be a bit less conservative.

However, this first-year selection process is kind of unique to medicine. Also note that the first year medical exam is a normal exam, one only need an average score to pass, but getting an "average" score is extremely tough.

2- There is way too much involvement of the State in business affairs in France, this is very true. This has led to a small number of large corporations who very much depend on state intervention to survive: EdF, Thales, Dassault, the car manufacturers, etc. This to the detriment of the small-to-medium enterprises. I'm not positive things are all that much better in the US, but they are much better in Germany for instance.

3- In the field of justice, indeed only the most severe cases are judged by a popular jury, and even then the jury is only made of a majority of non-professionals. I don't know whether this is good or bad. This is not the most vexing problem regarding justice in France though, there are many others. For instance, only very recently were lawyers allowed at police interrogation, after the EU intervened. The accusation part of the justice system is handled by the ministry of justice. Only the defense is independent! this has led to some very strange cases recently where old politicians (like Jacques Chirac) were accused of corruption, only to find that the non-independent accusation recommended acquittal. In spite of this, Chirac was recently found guilty by the tribunal and sentenced to two years suspended jail sentence. This, I repeat, even though both accusation and defense (of course) recommended acquittal.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[aepervius]

"In the field of education, medicine involving taking in over ten times the number of people you expect to graduate then expelling all but the top tenth in first year exams."

As opposed to what ? taking the right nubmer until the last spot is occupied, and refusing to take the rest ? If you do taht you will have a gaussian of "skills" over your year of people studying medicine. But if you take a whole lot more, but cream up the left side of the gaussian until 95% are thrown out you are left with people with a better results and skills. I will take over a system which search for the top one, over one which value fairness , for medicine, thank you.

"In the field of business, I was surprised at the number of government-owned or government-propped French businesses which have taken over following privatisation in other EU countries."

What's the problem ?

"In the field of justice, the lack of jury availability except in the most severe cases means some absurd rulings from a weak judiciary."

BFD. Weak judgement happens also with jury. It is an other philosophy of justice systems. Important is innocent until proven guilty (presomption d'innocence). The rest is fluff whether you want to better trust a jury or a judge.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Libtardianism is a disease, not a philosophy. It's the norm in which Progressives label and attack critics as Fascists - the New Urban Euro-worship arm of the Democratic Party.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, but France has health care, free college for all (I couldn't be in college I am right now if I had to pay what people in the US pay), good public transports (TGV), a justice which is often more just than the American one. Oh, and what about the Free Speech zone ? The day the US would have that, maybe you can criticize our system :).

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

They obviously cheated if they beat the traditional French supplements of wine & smokes.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Flipstylee]

It's no different here, or anywhere else for that matter. Haven't read TFA yet, but i'll bet "It's not who you know,
it's who you blow" would be in the right direction, as long as folks are still putting their money where their mouth is.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[ArcherB]

Nowhere do I say so.

I say that the idiots who cry about judicial activism are asking for a system where we don't have the protections of common law.

I don't think you understand what us idiots call "activist judges". An activist judge is one who uses his/her own opinion to base rulings on instead of the law. For example, Prop 8 in California was passed by a majority of Californians, but was struck down by a judge citing "The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples". I use this as an example because there is nothing in either the US or California Constitutions that say a law may not be based on moral and/or religious views. There is, however a federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act that bans gay marriage. This is an "activist judge" because he used his personal views to strike down a law. In addition, he effectively made gay marriage legal, which was illegal even before Prop 8 passed, even though no law had been passed by the state legislature nor signed by the governor allowing it. This judge literally made law all by himself, even though he has absolutely no authority to do so.

Now, I'm not passing judgement on gay marriage. Personally, I don't care. I was simply using this as an example. There are many others out there where judges will make policy from the bench, by passing both the legislative and executive branches of government. Judges may not create law. Their job is to JUDGE laws passed by a local, state, or federal governments.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Nimey]

Of course judges can create law, and they've done so since the founding. It's called "case law".

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Libtardianism is a disease, not a philosophy. It's the norm in which Progressives label and attack critics as Fascists - the New Urban Euro-worship arm of the Democratic Party.

Paranoia is a disease, which you seem to have.
As for the stupid, well you can't fix that, so you're stuck with the rest of your viewpoints.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[theNAM666]

Oh come on.

#1 is true of much of the US (private law schools, some of which give scholarships for the first year but take them away if you're not in the top 10%).

#2 is true of much of the US (heard of Ford Motors?).

#3... ha. Ever been in a courtroom outside a metro area, in the US.

Oops. Just noticed you're an AC. Figures.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[theNAM666]

Hmm. You are aware that the US is not primarily a common (as opposed to civil law) system, right, the majority of states being mixed jurisdictions? Didn't think so.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Nimey]

Oh really? I'm aware of Louisiana having its own system derived from France's law code a couple centuries back, that New York law has a few remnants of Dutch civil law, and California having codified its laws (civil law style) but keeping the common law system.

I'd say it's you who are blowing smoke out your ass.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[theNAM666]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

There's also a flip side to that... What were the French using as a baseline for testosterone levels? If using French people, then of course anybody else is going to look like they have "too much" testosterone...

The french need to just admit it.

[outsider007]

They suck at riding bikes.

Re:The french need to just admit it.

[larry bagina]

But they're great at anal hygiene.

Cultural misunderstanding

[Anonymous Coward]

He's Amish. Not sure what that implies, but it's interesting.

Re:Cultural misunderstanding

[Anonymous Coward]

He's a Mennonite, not Amish. There's a difference. Up to you to figure it out for yourself.

Re:Cultural misunderstanding

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I think he's from some other sect of Mennonites. It's a square-rhombus subset relationship thing. Whatever you're implying may or may not still hold as various sects of Mennonites have different levels of restrictions on technology ranging from severe to none at all.

Re:Cultural misunderstanding

[Anonymous Coward]

Something like this?

Re:Cultural misunderstanding

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I wasn't implying anything. I thought I'd throw out a random innocuous fact and see what happened.

You left one out:

[Shakrai]

No freedom to practice your religion without interference from the state. Muslim women can't wear the burqa in public. Jewish schoolboys can't wear the yarmulke in public schools while Christians are prohibited from wearing "large" crosses. In the name of secularism French society has crossed the line into intolerance and forced compliance with the tyranny of the majority.

Re:You left one out:

[Brett Buck]

Crossed the line - try POLE-Vaulted the line. And unfortunately the same applies to parts of America. Try wearing an American Flag shirt to school in California. We are tolerant of all viewpoints, as long as they are the *correct* viewpoints.

        Brett

Re:You left one out:

[bmo]

>Try wearing an American Flag shirt to school in California. We are tolerant of all viewpoints, as long as they are the *correct*

Why, because people in California are more educated about flag etiquette and everyone knows you should not wear Old Glory as a clothing item?

Since when is it OK to desecrate the flag by wearing it as a shirt, cupcake?

--
BMO

Re:You left one out:

[Anonymous Coward]

It is perfectly okay, yet tacky, to do so. The Flag Code has no penalties and is non-binding.

Re:You left one out:

[icebraining]

Etiquette is just a word for controlling people's behaviors. Not allowing "flag desecration" simply because you find it offensive is just censorship.

Re:You left one out:

[Howitzer86]

I had an American flag shirt that I got one 4th of July. I wore it a lot, and it was one of my favorite shirts (not because I was overly patriotic or anything, just because it was comfortable). Granted, my high-school tenure was between 2000 and 2004, and it was in Arkansas, I was able to do it without any problems. In fact, at the time I didn't even think that it might ever become an issue... anywhere

If kids are being stopped for doing something so innocent... wow... What a crazy state.

Re:You left one out:

[drinkypoo]

Since when is it OK to desecrate the flag by wearing it as a shirt, cupcake?

December 15, 1791.

Re:You left one out:

[obarthelemy]

Since always, the fag is not sacred.

Re:You left one out:

[Anonymous Coward]

It also would show such a shirt-wearer's disrespect for the US flag. It's offensive to the people who've given their lives so that an American can be free to be a douchebag.

Re:You left one out:

[DarkOx]

When did free speech require flag etfiquette be observed, you can burn the thing if you like I don't see a legitimate argument against issuing it as a shirt or panties for that matter. I also don't agree that attending public school should mean checking your civil liberties at the door.

Re:You left one out:

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that its not a flag. Its a t-shirt paying homage to the flag.

Re:You left one out:

[bmo]

You should read my post back there in this thread.

I implanted my tongue firmly in cheek and pointed out, that if you're going to be patriotic, you really don't wear the flag as a shirt, as that's what the actual flag etiquette says.

That's totally ignoring the fact that there is no actual ban on wearing a flag shirt to school in California as the previous poster stated and further implied that it's banned because somehow patriotism in California is banned (apparently he hasn't been to Orange County) because it's not politically correct.

--
BMO

Re:You left one out:

[SomePgmr]

I don't think of it as disrespectful... more just unintentionally offensive.

I find it distasteful for someone to wear the flag as clothing, but I appreciate that those folks don't mean to be disrespectful. They think they're showing everyone how much they love their country.

Re:You left one out:

[Anonymous Coward]

No freedom to practice your religion without interference from the state. Muslim women can't wear the burqa in public. Jewish schoolboys can't wear the yarmulke in public schools while Christians are prohibited from wearing "large" crosses. In the name of secularism French society has crossed the line into intolerance and forced compliance with the tyranny of the majority.

You're an idiot. Study the word laic before writing nonsense.
French institutions are laic, and that includes the public school system.
On the other hand you can bloody worship whoever or whatever you want in your private sphere.

In the US on the other hand, you mix religion and politics like ice and whiskey.
So you're the last people that should speak about the benefits of a laic state.

Re:You left one out:

[MrLint]

I am strongly for the advance of secularism, however part of that core is that people are allowed to choose. Thus, this kind of 'secularism' is incompatible with that.

Re:You left one out:

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong.
In California, the 'fag' is indeed sacred. ;)

Re:You left one out:

[jd2112]

I don't think of it as disrespectful... more just unintentionally offensive. I find it distasteful for someone to wear the flag as clothing, but I appreciate that those folks don't mean to be disrespectful. They think they're showing everyone how much they love their country.

Personally I am against flag burning except for when people wrap themselves in one.

Re:You left one out:

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely nothing wrong with wearing the flag as part of clothing -- even the military do it. Are they desecrating the flag by having it sewn onto the arm of their uniform? Thinking this is someone offensive and disrespectful is moronic.

Re:You left one out:

[Nimey]

This. It boggles my mind that the average loudly patriotic type is OK with utterly disrespecting his flag by wearing it as an item of (ratty) clothing, or by flying it in all weather without a spotlight, or by never replacing it once it gets torn and faded. I see that all the time in my area.

Re:You left one out:

[Nimey]

You're looking for "legal", not "OK". It's true that the Flag Code has no legal force (and I'm happy that it doesn't), but if one is going to be obnoxiously patriotic then one should treat the flag with respect.

Re:You left one out:

[Nimey]

A small tasteful patch != a T-shirt whose design is an enormous flag.

It's a bit like pornography, though; you know it when you see it.

Re:You left one out:

[Anonymous Coward]

Not allowing people to come to school in a bikini is also "just censorship." Like it or not, institutions have a dress code.

Re:You left one out:

[chaboud]

I'm not going to deify the flag to the point of trying to determine what is okay for others. That you can wear the American flag as a diaper is what makes that flag so special in the first place.

Nationalism is a disease. Reverence for a symbol is religion. Be careful how you project your values onto others.

Re:You left one out:

[bashibazouk]

Some of can appreciate the meaning of a symbol without the brain washed devotion to it.

I much rather people understand what the US flag stands for even if they wear, burn, make cake out of or whatever than exercise devotional purity and in doing do completely miss it's meaning...

Re:You left one out:

[hcs_$reboot]

Muslim women can't wear the burqa in public. Jewish schoolboys can't wear the yarmulke in public schools while Christians are prohibited from wearing "large" crosses

All of this is pretty new: was set recently by president Sarkozy.
That should change from May 2012...

Re:You left one out:

[Nimey]

Oh, don't get me wrong. The sort who wear the flag would probably think me unpatriotic because I don't ape the usual ways of "proving" to all and sundry that I love my country. I just expect them to walk the walk.

Re:You left one out:

[Anonymous Coward]

Try wearing an American Flag shirt to school in California. We are tolerant of all viewpoints, as long as they are the *correct* viewpoints.

Are you aware that the one day flag shirt banning was a racist gang color situation?

Are you against anti gang color policies in schools in general?

Re:You left one out:

[Nimey]

I doubt kids are really stopped from wearing "patriotic" shirts. More likely it's one of those memes from the conservative commentariat designed to keep their listeners afraid and angry, and thus more easily led.

Re:You left one out:

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're getting bent out of shape over such a trivial issue, perhaps it is you who is the Jingo.

Re:You left one out:

[Ravon Rodriguez]

http://hyenacart.com/cuties/st/3448/91172/Onesize-American-Flag-Fitted-Pocket-Diaper-w-insert

and for that matter...
http://www.etsy.com/listing/50473469/american-flag-reusable-cloth-maxi-pad

Re:You left one out:

[Nimey]

No, I expect people who are all LOOK AT ME I'M SO PATRIOTIC to walk the walk.

Re:You left one out:

[jensend]

Whatever you may think the core of the cause you're espousing is, if you really want to allow people the freedom to choose, "secularism" is the wrong word. Secularism as an ideal was born out of the French Revolution's persecution of Catholics; ever since then secularism has involved a government hostility towards religion which at least tries to bar religious peoples' voices from the public sphere (extremely anti-democratic) and usually extends to various other kinds of persecution.

I'll give a little background by quoting a previous discussion:

If you think the French Revolution was about "the dignity of human life, rejecting oppression and supporting freedom and free will" then you need to go back to high school history class and try again. How much did the revolutionaries care about the dignity of human life? Enough to guillotine ~40,000 people without trial. How much did the revolutionaries care about freedom of thought and free will? Enough to outlaw public and private worship and religious education, to beat women in the streets for trying to attend Mass, and to outlaw the word "Sunday", the ringing of church bells, and displays of the cross; enough to force priests to give up their vows and to simply kill thousands of them; enough to institute the "Cult of Reason" and then the "Cult of the Supreme Being" as established religions; enough to kill ~400,000 people in the Vendée for refusing to provide 300,000 conscripts to fight for a cause the citizens of the Vendée almost universally opposed (this has been called the first modern genocide). The atrocities were far too numerous for me to list here.

The revolutionaries paid lip service to the so-called Enlightenment values, but people enjoyed more human dignity, less oppression, and more freedom of thought and speech during just about any other period of French history than they did during 1789-1799.

That's laïcité for you.

Re:You left one out:

[Ravon Rodriguez]

I believe, in fact, he was speaking against the practice of Laicism (though he didn't call it that by name), not speaking "about the benefits of a laic state." Very few people in the U.S., including atheists, would preach against being able to publicly display symbols of your religion. Laicism at its core is intolerance for religion; as long as its not state sponsored, and its not inconveniencing anyone, me displaying symbols of my religion (or lack thereof -- are atheist bumper stickers illegal in France?) shouldn't be any of the state's business.

Re:You left one out:

[EdIII]

Well you're a hypocrite sweet cheeks.

A true patriot will shed his own blood to defend the freedoms for other people to scream at the top of their lungs, that which you would scream at the top of your lungs in opposition to.

Freedom is not selective. You either fight for all freedoms, or for none at all. Fighting for just those you agree with makes you an enemy of freedom, and in this case just a hypocrite.

You're love of freedom is not represented by a simple symbol, but your actions. Get over it.

Re:You left one out:

[bmo]

And you're oblivious.

Many of the ones who have been hopping up and down about being patriotic in the last 10 years have not been ones for freedom of speech. Opposition to the wars mean that you're nearly a traitor. Just ask any of the current Republicans except for Ron Paul running for President.

Although a lot of the "love it or leave it" rhetoric has disappeared as many have figured out how we've been bamboozled by our politicians into two worthless wars.

But then there's the hard-core who are left.

It's funny those who are most vociferous about their patriotism don't know anything about how to express it without looking like complete, utter morons to the rest of us. Wearing a flag shirt thinking it's somehow proper and shouting "USA USA" only proves that you're a fool.

Actions, indeed.

I am free to point out the idiocy to the guy I replied to, and your opinion means absolutely squat.

--
BMO

Re:You left one out:

[bmo]

It's this post and others like it that changed your status. Welcome, friend.

I am not a flag waver myself, and some might call me unpatriotic, but I do expect those who profess to be patriotic to know a few things about how to express their patriotism without looking like morons.

--
BMO

Re:You left one out:

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll translate "freedom to practice your religion" from bullshit to modern psychology for you:

"A law that not only acknowledges the delusions of people with a schizotypic illness, but makes it illegal to even act in a way that goes against those delusions. Even if they cause mass-mutilation of genitalia of children, brainwashing people who are in a bad time to become your slave and give them all your money, and spreading lies and bullshit. Even if we all know that it always ends in hate, murder and destruction, when those delusions are threatened."
This video should be very "enlightening" about the dynamics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU

It is NOT OK to "practice your religion". It is completely irrelevant which one that happens to be. It is NOT OK to let anyone run around like that with such a severe disease.

Schizophrenia is complicated to "get", because the ill person does not think he likes, what he actually likes... But you can't just go and "guess" what he likes and force him into that, even if you are damn sure that what he does now is not what he likes... And I mean things that bring tears to your eyes to watch that person do to himself, without anything being illegal or evil per se. Like somebody ruining his whole life, becoming homeless and a beggar.
So what do you do? Do you force that person to what you think would be good, and risk hurting him a lot... let alone the war it will be to do it... or do you stand by and become scarred for life thinking about how he's nothing more than a zombie, with a small rest of his real self inside, screaming for your help?

You know how I know so much about this? Because I was that person inside. Nobody gave a fuck. I... the real me... nearly died. Everybody just argued "Well, that's what he wants... You can't force him. It's illegal anyway...".
And I would have screamed "FORCE ME! I'M DYING!" if I would have been able to.

That's the tragedy of severe religious schizophrenia.
And when it's not that severe, is still a really really bad thing.

So please go, and help those people. Instead of letting them harm themselves.
(What helps, is to create extremely intense experiences that show how the real world really is and how much more wonderful it is. It has to be on a level of what they would call "enlightenment". That makes it non-threatening, which is key to its success. If nothing helps, Use LSD as a last resort and be *very* careful with the input that person gets.)

Thank you.

Re:You left one out:

[Sique]

Laicism at its core is intolerance for religion; as long as its not state sponsored, and its not inconveniencing anyone, me displaying symbols of my religion (or lack thereof -- are atheist bumper stickers illegal in France?) shouldn't be any of the state's business.

That's exactly wrong. Laicism is about the state not sponsoring any religion. So the "as long as it is not state sponsored" itself is contradicting Laicism, because the state is explicitely forbidden to sponsor religion.

And that means that showing religious symbols in state operated buildings is considered advertisement of religion and this is frowned upon there (not in the public itself, just on governmental premises).

The case is differently with the burqa, because hiding your face in public is considering wearing a mask, and this runs afoul the ban on concealment. The same is valid for ski masks, or motorcycle helmets or whatever. The burqa is not any different from a legal viewpoint.

Re:You left one out:

[HuguesT]

This is frequently misunderstood. The principle is similar than in the US, but differently implemented. The idea is that one is completely free to practice whatever religion one wants (there are exceptions for sects who recruit people forcefully), but that in the public space proselytism and displaying outward signs of a religious nature is proscribed. Note that the "public space" does not mean the park or the street, it is quite restricted: it means teaching and being taught in the public system, and interacting with the public systems of law. You see women wearing burqas or crosses or yarmulke everywhere in the streets in France, this is no problem, and of course in private institutions like private schools or colleges or companies this is OK as well.

In the US and most western countries tolerance is in the eye of the beholder. You see someone wearing a burqa and you have to say nothing. In France the tolerance is in the behavior of the religious person: you have to accept that as a teacher or generally as a person interacting with the public for your job, your appearance must not be shocking to anyone, and you must keep your relationship to your deity outside your job. This makes some kind of sense, I think.

The required absence of religious symbols in the school system is restricted to minors. At (public) universities you do what you want as a student. The idea is that people in the school system are young and impressionable and so should be spared religious discussions and segregation. This is more debatable, but the fact is that many religious obligations apply to girls only (burqa, etc) and this was found intolerable. Adult women can definitely do what they want.

Re:You left one out:

[whatever3003]

viva la France!

At least they don't have Freedom Fries and designated Free Speech Zones. You need to lighten up and realise your government has you bent over the bench just as much.

Re:You left one out:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I heard stories about that and find that strange. We've been wearing any dress imaginable at University, nobody gives a shit.
If I were to wear a specific dress just because someone else says I must, wouldn't I let him define part of what I'm like, i.e. my image?
Can't fathom how weird that would be...

Re:You left one out:

[xenobyte]

No freedom to practice your religion without interference from the state. Muslim women can't wear the burqa in public. Jewish schoolboys can't wear the yarmulke in public schools while Christians are prohibited from wearing "large" crosses. In the name of secularism French society has crossed the line into intolerance and forced compliance with the tyranny of the majority.

You are very wrong here! - The state does not interfere with your right to practice your religion. You can believe what you want and go to church/temple/mosque as you please. You can dress how you like with a few limitations which shouldn't bother anyone. The so-called 'banned symbols' are not essential to the practice in any way - you can wear what you like at home or at your place of worship.

The reason for imposing restrictions especially when it comes to burqa and nijab is to liberate those women who are expected to dress like that, and to make it possible to see the face of the people you interact with. This form of dress has absolutely no foundation in religion or scriptures, and there's even a lot of discussion on whether head scarves are religious or not. They are not mandated in Islamic scriptures and appears only in passing reference in the life of Mohammad the prophet, most likely because it was the way women dressed at that period of history.

Most experts agree that the true purpose of religious symbols is to advocate the faith they symbolize. In a secular society this is highly undesired as it already is a problem that parents indoctrinate their children into their faith, abusing the power parents have over their children from a time long before the child is able to form its own opinion and question the teachings. Additional advocacy from your teacher or just people on the streets is something that can be avoided if you remove the symbols. Last but not least most countries have seen what you can call 'informal religious police' in certain areas where especially men assault verbally or violently those women not 'properly dressed' and similar, and the only way to stop that (apart from a massive police presence) is to remove all symbols so those fanatical men cannot tell the difference from mere appearance.

Re:You left one out:

[Anonymous Coward]

They're dead, yet they're offended?
Fear the undead, for they are not amused?

Re:You left one out:

[drinkypoo]

You're looking for "legal", not "OK".

You're looking for a way to project your obsolete morality onto others. Any flag worth fighting for was born from fire in the first place.

Re:You left one out:

[drinkypoo]

It's funny those who are most vociferous about their patriotism don't know anything about how to express it without looking like complete, utter morons to the rest of us. Wearing a flag shirt thinking it's somehow proper and shouting "USA USA" only proves that you're a fool.

And yet, railing against people who wear a flag shirt thinking that there's something wrong with it when the ability to do such things is what makes this country great and shouting "you're immoral" only proves that you're a fascist idiot.

Re:You left one out:

[drinkypoo]

Well, you're right, a torn and faded flag doesn't adequately represent this country. You have to patch the tears with the logos of corporations like Coca-Cola (has its own private armies in latin america) or Halliburton (chosen to rebuild the stuff we're bombing in the middle east by the same people who were bombing it, who also worked for Halliburton and owned big pieces of it... Or how about the big 3 automakers for whom we continue to pass ostensibly illegal protectionist laws so that they may continue to exist in the face of their overwhelming incompetence. While we're at it, we can refresh the red in the flag with the blood of brown people. Perhaps we can ask Monsanto for the chlorine to re-bleach the white. The blue will come from the blood of the people we supposedly elect to run our nation.

Your patriotism is beyond ridiculous. The flag doesn't mean one fucking thing any more, and you know it. Bravery? Honesty? Are you fucking kidding me?

Re:You left one out:

[Anonymous Coward]

"No freedom to proselytize for your individual choice of sky-fairy in public"

There, I fixed it for ya

Re:You left one out:

[drinkypoo]

A small tasteful patch != a T-shirt whose design is an enormous flag.

No, no it really isn't. Wearing the flag to make yourself more grand is what you're railing against, right? Putting the flag on your outfit to make yourself seem more patriotic is a misuse of it by your own standards.

It's also more than a little pathetic. I own an australian outback coat and wear it in the season, as we often get sideways wind and rain. My dad bought me a little flag pin for it so people would think I'm a patriot. Great, now if they think I'm concealing a shotgun, they'll think I'm planning to blow up some Iraqis with it. I don't wear it. I'm not particularly proud of my country. In fact, it hasn't done anything I can be proud of since WWI. Our timing entering WWII and our actions once we got there prove that our motivation for delay was financial gain, which means we can't really feel good about finally entering the conflict. Meanwhile, about five of our first ten naval actions involved bombarding central american towns with cannon fire to force them to sell to United Fruit Company, which is known as Chiquita down there, and known as Bonita up here because we finally noticed that they were evil. When we notice again, they'll change their name again, but they're still Chiquita to the latins because even though they know their country and their selves are being poisoned, they need the work.

This country is predicated upon the suffering of others. Our colors should really be black, blue, and blood.

Re:You left one out:

[ravenshrike]

It violates the flag code to make clothing out of a flag, NOT to display a PICTURE or other representation of the flag on a piece of clothing. Do try to get it right if you're going to be anal about the flag code. It makes life so much less vexing.

Re:You left one out:

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why they should dump the pledge of alliegence to the flag and replace it with a pledge of alliegence to the Constitution. Except that no politician would take it. It's easier to jail people if you have the masses in a lather about something irrelevant.

Re:You left one out:

[bmo]

My saying certain speech should be illegal would make me a fascist.

My pointing out that I don't like something and expressing my opinion does not make me a fascist.

Learn the difference, sir.

--
BMO

Re:You left one out:

[drinkypoo]

Learn the difference, sir.

You would seek to bring about your changes through societal and not legal pressure. A fascist can be "a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views." Frankly, the idea that wearing the flag is somehow wrong is, today, an extreme right-wing view. Most of us are rather more interested in freedom than in bullshit symbology.

Re:You left one out:

[drinkypoo]

That's why they should dump the pledge of alliegence to the flag and replace it with a pledge of alliegence to the Constitution. Except that no politician would take it.

Politicians regularly place their hand upon the bible and swear to uphold the constitution as part of the ceremony of acceptance of their office. You can see how seriously they take that, though.

Re:You left one out:

[Hatta]

If you're appalled by the way the "patriotic" types treat the flag, wait until you see what they've done to the Constitution!

Re:You left one out:

[RedShoeRider]

" The flag doesn't mean one fucking thing any more, and you know it. Bravery? Honesty? Are you fucking kidding me?"

There is a reason why every fireman, every officer and every solider wears one on their shoulder. They still believe in what it stands for, as imperfect as that idea may have become in recent years. Call them brave, call them stupid, but they still believe those colors are worth defending, and sometimes dying for.

History is cyclical; either the country, as a whole, will learn what that flag means, or it will pass out of existence entirely. I would like to think that we'll learn.

Re:You left one out:

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh.. what's your point? This is not an effective counter argument for "Eitquette is just a word for controlling people's behaviors." ... since you are, in fact, conceding that institutions want to control behavior.

Re:You left one out:

[Ravon Rodriguez]

And how exactly is a private citizen displaying a symbol of his or her religion considered "state sponsored?" It's not like they have state officials coming up to them and saying "I'm happy to see a crucifix around your neck." Those who are offended by others displaying pride in their religion (or lack thereof) are not very strong in their own beliefs and need to do some soul-searching.

Re:You left one out:

[Darinbob]

The requirement that religion can only be practiced in the home or place of worship is a restriction. The purpose of religious symbols is not advertisement; if someone truly believes that they must wear a yarmulke then it is a severe discrimination to ban this person from attending schools or to require him to deny his religion in public. This is the state becoming big brother in that they claim to know better than anyone else and have decided what is or is not religion and how it should and should not be practiced; it is arrogance pure and simple.

The problem with pure secular societies is that they become as rigid and dogmatic and illogical as pure religious societies. Secularism has become the religion.

Next up: let's prevent violence from gangs, religious fanatics, political fanatics, and so forth by requiring everyone to wear grey overalls. No more flags, symbols, colors, beards, long hair, etc. Everyone looks alike and therefore can worship the state in harmony.

What I mean is, if there are problems attack the source of the problems; if there's violence figure out how to solve the violence instead of using it as an excuse to restrict a religion.

Re:You left one out:

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut your cockhole you ignorant hippie faggot wetback.

Re:You left one out:

[Anonymous Coward]

Goes both ways. Try wearing a burqa to school in Arkansas and see how that works out for you.

Re:You left one out:

[uninformedLuddite]

I am just glad I live in a country that isn't so fucked up over its national identity that I can go to the beach and lie on my Aussie flag beachtowel.

Re:You left one out:

[uninformedLuddite]

Let's not forget that they also made anti-semitism an capital offense. Make of that what you will.

Re:You left one out:

[drinkypoo]

Shut your cockhole you ignorant hippie faggot wetback.

You forgot "commie" and "jew"

Re:You left one out:

[EdIII]

Learn to read your own posts. You supported the restrictions on free speech and expression by another party and justified it through your references to proper etiquette.

Those are your own personal values, that quite possibly are shared by a majority of Americans. Including myself.

However, I support free speech and expression, even when I disagree with it and it deeply offends me.

While I may cherish the flag, only because of the values it represents, not the government it represents, I don't force that value upon others in the name of the very freedom I am trying to protect.

Does not make much sense.

Kind of like killing for Jesus.

Re:You left one out:

[sco08y]

It also would show such a shirt-wearer's disrespect for the US flag. It's offensive to the people who've given their lives so that an American can be free to be a douchebag.

I like to think I did my 6 years of service in large part so people can be idiots, douchebags, fat, lazy, crass, rude, craven or whatever they please. If you want to honor my small contribution, please drive really slowly in the fast lane, or tear ass on an elevator, or take a full cart through the express checkout, or misspell 'lose' and 'loose.'

Re:You left one out:

[syousef]

Since when is it OK to desecrate the flag by wearing it as a shirt, cupcake?

--
BMO

I'm confused. Are you saying you prefer wearing the flag as a cupcake? :P~~~~~

Reminds me of another joke based on nationality: What do you call a greek parachutist? Con descending.

Re:You left one out:

[bmo]

Restrictions on free speech? What?

No, he's perfectly free to look like an idiot if he wants to wear a flag shirt. And I am entirely free to call him an idiot. I am absolutely free to use flag etiquette to do it with.

This all started out because the poster I replied to claimed that you can't wear a flag shirt in the state of California because it's not politically correct. This false assumption bruised his inflated sense of patriotism in which he thinks that wearing a flag shirt demonstrates it. Those of us who actually know the actual (non binding) flag code know that he's a douche nozzle. And I decided that beating him over the head with the (non binding) flag code was fitting.

But whatever. It's obvious that certain people will not wrap their minds around this because they couldn't spot hypocrisy or irony even it it came up and kicked them in the 'nads.

--
BMO

Re:You left one out:

[Sique]

The public building gives you room to advertise your religion - you are leeching an opportunity the state gives to all citizens to interact with the state to propagate your beliefs. If you would start to put up advertisements for your business in a governmental building, you also would be complimented out of the door. How is the religion you adhere to any different?

Re:You left one out:

[Ravon Rodriguez]

We're not talking about putting up advertisements, we're talking about wearing a pendant or a shirt. Would I get kicked out for wearing a shirt from Mike's hardware store?

Re:You left one out:

[Sique]

No, because the French State never vowed to be completely neutral to business.

Old news?

[FPCat]

This happened 2 months ago, really slashdot editors? It's sad when a dead tree newspaper has more current info

Re:Old news?

[Aighearach]

Your news isn't any newer.

Re:Old news?

[icebraining]

So, where was your submission two months ago?

Re:Old news?

[Anonymous Coward]

The editors ignore it, five times, if you bother to look.

Re:Old news?

[FPCat]

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3220968 Nuff said....

Re:Old news?

[hutsell]

This happened 2 months ago, really slashdot editors? It's sad when a dead tree newspaper has more current info

The obligatory knee-jerk reaction: It isn't News until it's posted on Slashdot (including the obligatory smiley--if necessary). However, after putting aside the kidding and giving it some thought, it does bring about an idea that might be worth questioning based on the generally accepted definition of News.

News: A noun referring to newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent or important events and made public through a broadcast or published report.
Synonyms: Tidings, Information, Report, or Message.

It appears the generally accepted definition of News is usually considered to be time sensitive with its value declining when one or more additional sources report the event. So ...

Does /. agree with this definition of News? Should the criteria for relevant News having any useful value be an all-or-nothing time sensitive proposition? Are there situations when dated News should be posted on Slashdot--allowing others to make comments and discuss the information? Did the creation of Ask Slashdot (unintentionally) resolve the previous questions?

When the last question applies, perhaps a tweak interconnecting /. FireHose & Ask /. could minimize undesirable variations of the problem.

Lance has passed every test.

[Anonymous Coward]

He is the most tested man in history, and he passed them all. Give up your jihad.

Re:Lance has passed every test.

[Anonymous Coward]

Passed, as in tested positive, of course.

Re:Lance has passed every test.

[Anonymous Coward]

He is the most tested man in history, and he passed them all. Give up your jihad.

No he isn't, he just says he is.

Re:Lance has passed every test.

[toriver]

Doubting Lance's claims of purity is like doubting Kim Jong-Il's 11 hole-in-ones in his first golf match. It is not proper!

Sadly, Lance Armstrong has been elevated to an American icon, and allegations of doping are treated as lèse-majesté by his fans.

I like doping!

[bartoku]

Why does doping get such a bad rap?
The anti-doping groups are terrified of new doping methods they cannot detect.
This is great, if the doping has no adverse side effects and is not detectable then I want some!
I want these athletes testing out drugs and the long term affects and me benefiting from watching their performances and some day using safe versions of the drugs

Anti-doping is a waste of money. They should be putting money into making doping safe.

Fairness is pointless, some people are born taller, stronger, faster. Some have more money for better training, coaching, and equipment.
No reason we cannot level the playing field or push it beyond its current limits with chemistry.

Plus if your sport requires such little skill that doping can help you win it, then it is not much of a sport anyway

Re:I like doping!

[kamapuaa]

Plus if your sport requires such little skill that doping can help you win it, then it is not much of a sport anyway
Please. I'd love for you to name a single sport that wouldn't be assisted by the use of steroids. Strength is a fundamental basis of every sport and if it isn't, it's an activity, rather than a sport. In which case, there's also drugs for that - beta blockers, caffeine, etc.

Also, there's a huge difference between "undetectable" and "no adverse side effects."

Re:I like doping!

[Anonymous Coward]

golf?

Re:I like doping!

[Anonymous Coward]

darts

Re:I like doping!

[bartoku]

I agree strength is important in about every sport i can think of, and sure steroids would assist an athlete in obtaining greater strength; but in most highly skilled sports it would never make or break a winner.

I do not care how strong or fast you are, if you cannot dribble and shoot a basketball doping is going to do nothing to make you an NBA star.
A little doping may make an NBA star faster or jump higher, but then we would expect the younger stronger players to always dominate.
Instead we watched Jordan, well into his thirties past his physical prime, lead the Bulls to multiple championships.

The same with baseball, sure some bigger arms might help you crank the ball a few more feet.
However you have to have the hand eye coordination to make the connection of ball to bat first, and then you need to apply that strength in a smooth coordinated fashion at the right angle to achieve a home run.
On top of that you need to read the pitch, curve ball, fastball, what not.
Pumping up on beta blockers, caffeine, etc...will still not make you a home run king, otherwise we would have seen more than just McGwire, Griffy Jr., Sosa, and Bonds competing for the record.

Beyond that I would say sports like golf or tennis as other examples were skill beats strength in victory by a long shot, the list could go on.

But we do have track records set by steroid pumped woman that cannot be touched today.
100 meter dash, you just run, it takes some skill, but nothing like basketball, golf, baseball, and the like.

I am not convinced doping hurts the real skilled sports.
The ones based purely on feats of strength, it will. But that is the point of those sports, to see how fast a man can run and jump; let them dope.

Also, there's a huge difference between "undetectable" and "no adverse side effects."

Agreed. But the reason new doping techniques are getting harder to detect is because they seem to be more natural and occur safely in nature.
Myostatin inhibitors are very exciting across the board.
The way I understand it is that there are people out there who do not have the ability to break down their own muscles.
So if these people sit on their butts, their muscles do not atrophy like a normal person.
Of course normal humans atrophy their muscles because maintaining muscles is expensive to the body, so we naturally break them down.
But most of us Americans are quite well feeds these days and could use a bit more muscle mass instead of fat.
As far as I know those people who naturally lack mysotatin have lived happy healthy long lives.

Re:I like doping!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it is dangerous and these are role models for the future athletes? Maybe you should look into history of sport, or even history of doping in cycling before making ignorant comments. 22 year old died last year because their blood was consistency of jello. Or another former pro cyclist died because of complete failure of his cardiovascular system.

It's not about some retarded baseball player that takes steroids to hit home runs. It's about those hundreds and hundreds of 16 year olds that get a message that the only way they can ever compete is by screwing up their entire endocrine system.

Look at the olympics from 1960s (eg. weightlifting) and see what real doping gets you.

Cycling was a mess a decade ago. But today, with blood passports, they have made more progress than any sport in getting rid of the cheaters. Today you can say that cycling is as clean as any sport out there.

Re:I like doping!

[kamapuaa]

Instead we watched Jordan, well into his thirties past his physical prime, lead the Bulls to multiple championships.

Well he's retired now, right? And if he attempted a comeback this year, it would be a weird joke, he couldn't even play bench. He hasn't lost the skill and the NBA hasn't overtaken the skill level Michael Jordan once had. So obviously skill is a contributing factor, but athleticism is also a good part of it.

There's millions of kids who aspire to the NBA, and tens of thousands of very skilled basketball players. 300 make it to the NBA. With such a large talent pool, there's plenty of player who are 98% as good, but just not quite there. I sincerely believe that these players who didn't make the NBA, if given unfettered access to steroids, would be better than Kobe Bryant. Even if they didn't, Kobe would no longer be such a dominating player, unless he also started juicing. Steroids are just that effective, and strength that important.

Think about Barry Bonds, who at the age of 37 had a sudden power surge and shattered batting records. A hundred years of baseball history tells you, baseball players don't dramatically increase their power in their late 30s. They do what A-Rod is doing in his mid 30s, getting dramatically less powerful and with less ability to recover sufficiently. Or look at Jose Canseco, who was always the worse player to his twin brother Ozzie. Jose got more into juicing and won unanimous AL MVP and had a near Hall of Fame career, Ozzie Canseco was never a regular starter.

Really all legalizing steroids would do is mean, every single professional athlete would have to use steroids. This would surely filter down to college athletes and just amateurs who want to get good. I think steroids deserve more study than they receive, maybe in the future all old people will take HGH, but I don't think we're at a point that the general population should be using them.

Re:I like doping!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Plus if your sport requires such little skill that doping can help you win it, then it is not much of a sport anyway"

Skill? Bud...I'd love to even see you attempt one stage of the Tour de France. I guarantee you couldn't average 24 mph for one stage. They avg. 24 mph for 2000+ miles. I'd love to see you attempt Alpe D' Huez http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d%27Huez#Tour_de_France

Re:I like doping!

[bartoku]

So obviously skill is a contributing factor, but athleticism is also a good part of it.

I am not disagreeing there, and no amount of doping will bring Jordan back; nor am I convinced it would have given Charles Barkley one of Jordan's rings.

would be better than Kobe Bryant.

Kobe, not unlike Jordan has been fairly consistently at the top of the game from his 20s into his 30s.
Naturally his body is now in decline, I would bet the 2000 champion Kobe could out run the 2010 champion Kobe; but I am not convinced he would beat him in the play-offs.
I am certainly not convinced that any amount of doping would bring one of the millions of kids who cannot even make the 300 cut-off to Kobe's level.
In addition the game of basketball, as seen in college, is won by more than one man's strength.
As players change out, the coach remains a constant, and teams like Duke keep winning fairly consistently.
No amount of doping on Krzyzewski's part is going to make his team better, but he is vital to Duke's performance.

Think about Barry Bonds

It seems juicing was pretty much the norm in baseball, I would expect every 37 year old to 27 year old was doing it.
At best Bonds sustained his physical abilities on into his late 30s, cheating aging a bit with the doping.
But without his experience and skill he would still have fizzled like most the other 37 year old juicers who it did nothing for because they were just never as good as Bonds anyway.

Or look at Jose Canseco, who was always the worse player to his twin brother Ozzie.

Now this one is really fun, twins!
But you seem to be asserting that their twin status makes them entirely equal and only the juicing allowed Jose to excel.
That could be, but I would argue that Jose's martial arts training was the real factor, or that Ozzie was drafted as a pitcher in the MLB.
Plus Ozzie still holds a home run record in the Atlantic League, so he did not do so bad for himself.
Ozzie and Jose sound pretty close, getting in fights together and everything.
I am not convinced that Jose would not have shared some juice with Ozzie, they apparently shared Ozzie's wife.

Really all legalizing steroids would do is mean, every single professional athlete would have to use steroids. This would surely filter down to college athletes and just amateurs who want to get good

I am not exactly saying steroids should be legal, the health side effects are to dangerous.
But if there were no huge negatives to steroids, then I see them as no different then how every athlete, professional or amateur, now has to lift weights or consume whey protein to boost performance and compete.

but I don't think we're at a point that the general population should be using them.

I agree, there needs to be a lot more study.
But I worry this anti-doping sentiment is out of control and is slowing down research and will hinder acceptance by the public.
If I can safely take some myostatin inhibitors and not lose muscle mass so quickly it would be awesome!

Re:I like doping!

[mvar]

THIS. Anti-doping is a joke. Every single athlete that competes in word-class level is on drugs one way or another. Or if he isn't NOW, he will be in a few years when another scandal erupts and he gets stripped of his medals (Marion Jones is the brightest example). This anti-doping hypocrisy must stop, if the athletes want to risk their health for world records and money, well let them have it, its their choice.

Re:I like doping!

[bartoku]

Do I get a carbon fiber bike with disc wheels and one of those helmets that makes you look like a smurf?

I have completed three Ironman races, they have a good bike ride in them.
Unfortunately I only averaged about 16-18 mph, not quite 24 mph, but I was saving something for the marathon afterwards.

But dope me up and maybe I could ride Alpe D' Huez in the pack!

Re:I like doping!

[bartoku]

Your examples only proves my point though.

Doping has come a long way thanks to those brave souls who are making it safer for 16 year olds.

The more we suppress doping, the longer it will take to get safe.

Re:I like doping!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does doping get such a bad rap?

Because taking doping automatically sets the bar higher for everyone, and other athletes must use it as well to remain competitive. This would be fine if we are 100% sure that taking the doping has no adverse effects, but good luck proving that messing with the body's chemistry is completely safe in both short and long term.

Fairness is pointless, some people are born taller, stronger, faster.

That's the point. Deciding who is better is why we compete in the first place, remember?

No reason we cannot level the playing field or push it beyond its current limits with chemistry.

Athlete A takes "ultra x-power 3000" and gains n% increased performance.
Athlete B takes "ultra x-power 3000" and gains n% increased performance.
Net result: the field has been evened... somehow.

Plus if your sport requires such little skill that doping can help you win it, then it is not much of a sport anyway

News flash, anything that increases your performance will help you win. That doesn't mean a total beginner using substances would win against a pro, but when it comes to two people/teams of near equal skill, doping can allow the lesser competitor win in nearly anything.
But more to the point, if a tiny advantage does not translate in a significant chance to win against someone of equal ability to yours, then that "sport" has a lot of randomness involved. A slightly better player should win most of the times in a completely ability dependent competition.

Re:I like doping!

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus if your sport requires such little skill that doping can help you win it, then it is not much of a sport anyway

The real problem here is that people are irrational when it comes to sporting success, and that leads to a ridiculously steep relationship between being perceived as "#1" versus "#1000", even if the final level of performance is statistically indistinguishable. That means small improvements cause a disproportionately large change in the wealth/glory someone gets.

Re:I like doping!

[HuguesT]

The illusion of choice. Right, look up the story of the various athletes in the history of sport who were forced to use performance enhancing drugs through their federation. Most obvious are the former Eastern Germany female swimmers. I doubt they are very happy now. Maybe in a couple hundred years when the world is everywhere a democracy. Even then, people would have to start using drugs very early on, when they are minors. What *choice* would they have ?

The simplest and sanest choice is to ban all performance-enhancing drugs now, and to continue coming up with tests, with retroactive action if somewhere down the road some test shows unambiguously that drugs were used..

Re:I like doping!

[Anonymous Coward]

They screw up their endocrine systems because they're doing it wrong. Their doing it wrong precisely because it's illegal and taboo. Doping in sports is not about some guy turning pro and then having to juice to compete on that level; it's about systematic doping throughout an entire career which begins in childhood. We treat athletes as we treat livestock. The same technique that can grow a chicken in 3 months that would otherwise take 3 years is applied to human athletes.

Re:I like doping!

[Lost Race]

Skill? Bud...I'd love to even see you attempt one stage of the Tour de France. I guarantee you couldn't average 24 mph for one stage. They avg. 24 mph for 2000+ miles.

Exactly: skill is a very minor factor in that sport compared to strength and endurance.

Convicted for embarrassing the WADA

[wanax]

Landis is being punished for daring to defy the anti-doping authorities, insist on his rights to a public hearing (no longer allowed), and embarrassing the hell out of the USADA and WADA by absolutely demolishing their scientific credibility with regard to the testosterone case (after they had to dig in their heels because they had already illegally released the preliminary reports, pre-B sample test to the media). I would note that in the original (and appealed) decisions, the panels through out the initial T-E ratio test as being hopelessly compromised. The mass spectrometry tests were allowed to stand, despite being the quality of lab work that would get laughed out of a college chemistry class, because both panels chose to totally disregard the testimony of John Amory. (see: http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=383 or http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2008/12/winnowing-john-amory.html)

Now, as it turned out, Landis later admitted to doping with HGH that season, and testosterone in previous seasons. But I really think that's incidental to this case. He's being punished because he showed the WADA and UCI are just as corrupt as the cyclists, and the Chatenay-Malabry lab technicians are too incompetent to run a mass spectrometer that undergraduates successfully use thousands of times a day in research labs.

12-month suspended

[frovingslosh]

Let this be a lesson to anyone considering doing this. If we convict you then absolutely nothing will happen to you.

Re:12-month suspended

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to America, where the prosecutor would have asked for 50 years. America: we lock you up!

As in positively found to not...

[Anonymous Coward]

......use drugs, you are correct.

Re:stolen goods are *his* medical records...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the "stolen goods" are *his* medical records, information about *his* body...which in any civilized society, he should have every right to possess...

Jack of all trades

[Anonymous Coward]

If he'd been a better cyclist, he wouldn't have needed doping; if he'd been a better hacker, he might not have been caught. This is what happens when you dabble instead of specializing. :P

Re:Jack of all trades

[Anonymous Coward]

"If he'd been a better cyclist, he wouldn't have needed doping ..."

You don't know shit about professional cycling.

All the riders dope. You cannot beat a rider who dopes if
you do not dope. That's the truth, and whether you are ignorant
of it or not it remains the truth.

Ryan Braun is disputing a similar result

[0WaitState]

Recently Ryan Braun (rookie of the year, Major League Baseball) has been disputing a positive drug test that appears to be the same one Floyd Landis disputes, namely an abnormally high epitestosterone/testosterone ratio. In Braun's case, it appears that MLB's testing protocol involves doing a cheap but prone to false-positives first test, then a more costly and accurate second test if the first is positive. In Braun's case, what has gone horribly wrong is that the results of his first test (positive) were leaked BEFORE the second test was run. Now everyone has lawyered up and the assclowns who run MLB have some explaining to do. This is discussed at length with all available public info here:

Braun Banned for PEDs

What does this have to do with Floyd Landis? Just that epi/natural testosterone comparisons aren't cut and dried, and that the French do like to find winning non-French bikers to be dopers, and under the French Napoleonic code of justice you are guilty until proven innocent.

Re:Ryan Braun is disputing a similar result

[Anonymous Coward]

In Braun's case, what has gone horribly wrong is that the results of his first test (positive) were leaked BEFORE the second test was run. Now everyone has lawyered up and the assclowns who run MLB have some explaining to do.

This is not true.

Re:Ryan Braun is disputing a similar result

[CAIMLAS]

Just goes to show you that the New Orleans variant of Frenchness is vastly superior...

Re:Ryan Braun is disputing a similar result

[rve]

What does this have to do with Floyd Landis? Just that epi/natural testosterone comparisons aren't cut and dried, and that the French do like to find winning non-French bikers to be dopers,

You do know that he has admitted doping, right? He has since described how it happened: The suspicious blood levels and performance spike were the result of a transfusion with blood carelessly taken too shortly after taking testosterone during training. Blood transfusions can be detected by the presence of blood preservatives and plastic weakeners from the blood bag, but tests for these are not considered conclusive evidence on their own, if i understand correctly from the Alberto Contador case last summer.

Another sign is a skewed balance between mature and young red blood cells. Floyd Landis described how this was masked by taking small doses of EPO immediately after the doping test, to give the body enough time to break down the evidence before the next test.

and under the French Napoleonic code of justice you are guilty until proven innocent.

I thought the code mainly concerned itself with mandating death by anal rape for speaking French insufficiently fluently, but I wasn't sure, so I looked it up

Re:Ryan Braun is disputing a similar result

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for posting this well-formatted and invaluably informative post. Slashdot needs more people like you in the comments sections!

Re:Ryan Braun is disputing a similar result

[HuguesT]

Hello,

Unde the French Napoleonic code of justice you are guilty until proven innocent.

Did you learn that in school or did you vaguely hear about it on the internet somewhere? This is completely false. Presumption of innocence is *more* enshrined in law in France than in the USA:

In France, article 9 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen 1789, which has force as constitutional law, begins: "Any man being presumed innocent until he has been declared guilty ...". The Code of Criminal Procedure states in its preliminary article that "any person suspected or prosecuted is presumed innocent for as long as their guilt has not been established"[13] and the jurors' oath repeats this assertion (article 304).[19]

Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States and In re Winship.

(source wikipedia)

Maybe he drank whiskey?

[Anonymous Coward]

Floyd drank some whiskey which caused his abnormal level. Maybe it happened here too.

Hacking a test lab? Really?

[VortexCortex]

Sounds like he was testing a hacked lab to me...

Who cares ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares about a liar and a cheat ?

If by some miracle Landis gets his doping conviction overtuned the damage is already done - he's already known the world over as a bald-faced liar and a cheat. All this superflous discussion about the merits of anti-doping technology and whether doping should be controlled is stupid. Doping will always exist in sport and many athletes will exploit new measures to evade detection. People are greedy, stupid and will never learn.

About justice

[Sudline]

I have heard of some persons condemned to pay millions $ for downloading some songs in USA, that is definitively a better justice.

Wrong. Not informative. Presomption of innocence.

[aepervius]

"under the French Napoleonic code of justice you are guilty until proven innocent." there is a "presomption of innocence" in the french system, and has been so for a loooong time, maybe 2 century. See article 9-1 of the French penal code. See wiki "Le principe est affirmé par l'article 9 de la Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen du 26 aoÃt 1789 (auquel fait référence le préambule de la constitution actuelle) :" note the year please. Heck they went as far as in 2000 to change "accusation" to "instruction".

Except for the part where...

[Tatarize]

Dead people do not take offense or breath.