Michael (et al) While I stand by my original questions re how the mysterious exogenous stuff got into Floyd's urine, it does appear that there were numerous violations of due process by the UCI in particular. Strangely enough they defend it by saying 1) they had been criticized for not doing it in the past (DOH? We didn't cheat before so we ought to this time!?!?!?), and 2) they knew the lab would leak the results so they did it first. What? Seems to bizarre to be true- read the complete (and LONG) legal explanation at:
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10679.0.html This is an explanation of what is supposed to happen with a positive (non-negative?) result and a detailed description of what actually happened (and the bizarre explanations offered). Now given behavior like this, just try to explain plagiarism to your students! Seems to me that the powers that oversee cycling are as guilty of breaking rules in their prosecution of the rules as they seem to think the riders are. :) Sigh. Tim _______________________________ Timothy O. Shearon, PhD Professor and Chair Department of Psychology Albertson College of Idaho Caldwell, ID 83605 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] teaching: intro to neuropsychology; psychopharmacology; general; history and systems
<<winmail.dat>>
--- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
