You could read in "The team" on 23 July, the Tower o rance 2007 was thrown into doubt and suspicion, was that its organizers had not applied the "precautionary principle" during the registration o Danish Rasmussen (then yellow Jersey). Understand that because o doubts that weighed on him it would be better that the organizers do not take the risk o let run a runner who could pro e to be cheating or liar.
This property is an area where it was not imagined that the precautionary principle could extend its jurisdiction. The thing was yet written most e ident, as i the concept by elsewhere so contro ersial was amiliar to any reader o "The team". An editorial in the "world" o 28 July con irmed this new extension o the precautionary principle. Accused, always "branch o the great loop": "She knew that the kazakh education and its leader, Alexander inokouro , were strongly suspected o doping." or the show, she arenoncÚ a precautionary principle which would ha e sa ed an announced scandal.
One wonders howe er whether the precautionary principle, rather than sa e the rance Tower, the not lead to its loss. The precautionary principle is a principle o suspicion. The principle o precaution, all runners become power cheats, one who gains such as the one who loses. Doubt generalises. No one knows who belie e. It no longer possible race, e en to win by isiting suspect. Unless you apply the word o the Gospel: "the last will be irst." And much.
We understand the reasoning o those who stick to the rules, what appears to be the case o the International Cycling Union (UCI). As long as he is not satis ied o doping, any runner must be presumed innocent, otherwise the race stopped. One must assume good aith o the runner, and guidance, until e idence to the contrary. This does not excuse the laxity which appears to ha e shown the UCI in the application o its own regulations, except that it is directed against the Tower o rance.
But this position allows, and may e en encourage some, on the issues, to take e erything what is possible in the regulations, in particular rom the medical point o iew. Also, in a world without ethics, may ear that shelter regulations not to rame what is prohibited. So that the presumption o innocence is re ersed in a presumption o guilt. The world splits: e erything becomes suspicious, the true world is hidden. It is the world o the precautionary principle.
A uni erse that, see the, gi es the power to these same media, who accuse the organizers o the Tour not in ha ing application. It is that the precautionary principle establishes them as Supreme judges. What are media that ha e and can circulate the in ormation beyond what the regulations require to know. The media are the masters o suspicion. There are, in principle o precaution inter ening in a position to say to the organizers who are good runners, i.e. those which they will speak without suspicion. In a world o precaution, the media are masters o hierarchies.
The organizers o the Tour are trapped. To make again credible test, they may not stick to the legalism o the UCI, with what it allows. They must deal with the new power that doping, with the regime o suspicion that he introduced to the media. Where no doubt the idea that should exclude runners only suspected o doping at the risk o injustice. There ore, Rasmussen was excluded rom his own team or his lying. It must be beyond reproach. The line is the re ersal o the burden o proo . The idea would be that it is more in the sports power to e idence the lie that the runners to pro e their innocence. Re erse the pre ious position, equally di icult, so it will remain in the power o any Launcher alarm or a competitor to run the bad rumor.
All the principles o precaution o the world will not sa e the rance Tower rom the lack o ethics shared between all players, ery many, who are the Tower o rance.
Re-read the "mythology" o Roland Barthes. They open onto a chapter de oted to the distinction between boxing and wrestling. "Wrestling is not a sport, it is a show. The risk o the Tower o rance is: be more a sport, but only a show. As the Tower o rance has a alue elsewhere. It's the annual story o a popular epic, where heroes are deri ed rom the people, where the people in su ering and e ort, mani ested that it is also a hero. We li e there, as a runner, and is celebrated as a spectator, his hope o social promotion. The rance Tower is a Republican epic, where must o ercome a orce, intelligence, character. That is an ethic. This is also what the public, always many, no doubt continues to pick up along the mountain passes: the nostalgia o an epic which he wished that it will not disappear but has perhaps already more its place at the time o "Star Ac".
It said that these are the sponsors and money which destroyed the Tower o rance, their greed. It should be noted that, in a world dedicated to pleasure, which attaches e erywhere to deny the su ering and pain, which culti ates more than the means to achie e the result, test something anachronistic. It requests additional ethics. Will she come back to the miraculous principle o teams again " Or is it not the responsibility o the sponsors, who would ind this e en their names associated with ethics Sponsor-accountability, it is the same word, which co ers one which, in principle, is guarantor.