Tour de France Peter Sagan’s Attempted Homicide Medical Bill

[johnkarls]

.
My apologies to anyone who thinks that this issue is too unimportant to be included in our discussion on July 12.

However, Yours Truly does believe it warrants a discussion point. In addition to which, there is involved a non-healthcare issue that we seem to encounter constantly -- THE DISHONESTY OF THE MEDIA.

**********
Background

For many years (if not decades), Yours Truly has watched the Tour de France on TV (and the final day once in person) because the TV coverage offers a free “European vacation” featuring so many beautiful areas of France, many of which are “old friends” from ski trips or from opera trips to the hinterlands to see/hear favorite divas perform obscure operas.

And before yesterday (July 4), I have never witnessed an incident in any sport that, under English-American common law, comprised AN OBVIOUS CASE OF ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE!!!

It involved two of international bicycle racing’s two greatest stars -- current World Champion Peter Sagan of Czechoslovakia and the sport’s premier sprinter over the last decade, Mark Cavendish of The U.K.

As all of the sprinters were racing for the finish line, with 200 yards to go after more than 100 miles, Peter Sagan FOR NO LEGITIMATE REASON WHATSOEVER veered to the right to cut off Mark Cavendish who was about to pass him. And as Cavendish was passing, Sagan threw a vicious elbow FULL EXTENSION to Cavendish’s body, sending him crashing into the barrier on the right side of the course.

At least three other riders crashed, two of whom actually rode over Mark Cavendish, one over his head and shoulder.

Cavendish was lucky to escape with a broken shoulder blade and other less-serious injuries.

**********
Sagan Disqualification For “Malicious Intent”

Peter Sagan was thrown out of the Tour de France by the “jury” of the Union Cycliste Internationale (“UCI” oversees all international competitive cycling events and convenes “juries” under such circumstances) after the “jury” found “Malicious Intent” in Sagan’s veering off line!!!

NB that the UCI “jury” threw Sagan out of the Tour de France for “Malicious Intent” in merely veering off line -- without even taking into account the vicious elbow blow!!!

There have been many recent instances, at least in American sports, where such actions have led to criminal prosecutions.

Though I have never seen a sports incident that was criminally prosecuted that was as vicious as Sagan’s actions.

Sagan is lucky that France, like most European-continental countries, follows the “Napoleonic Code” rather than English/American Common Law under which Sagan would be GUILTY OF HOMICIDE if Cavendish had been killed and, because of the “Malicious Intent,” is indeed GUILTY OF ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE since Cavendish survived.

[Under English-American Common Law, it is only necessary to prove “intent” to do the act that causes death, as distinguished from “intending” that the act in fact cause death. Consider, for example, intentionally driving a car over a person and then piously claiming that you didn’t intend for the victim to die as a result of your action.]

Though perhaps Sagan’s “malicious intent” was based on knowledge of the famous Code promulgated by the historic figure who is often called by historians “France’s Hitler” so that luck was not involved.

**********
The Disgusting Behavior of NBC

The Tour de France is televised by NBC’s Sports Channel (Channel 220 on, for example, Direct TV).

Bob Roll is NBC’s principle pre-race and post-race commentator.

Even though Bob Roll is a former world-class bike racer so he should have known better, he immediately launched into an extensive rant which could only be characterized as “Don’t Believe Your Lying Eyes”!!!

Because NBC’s film crew, which did not immediately catch on, was replaying tapes of the incident taken from several vantage points including an overhead helicopter.

The overhead shot clearly showed that Sagan violated the rule that a rider is required to maintain his line. Sagan veered sharply to the right in order to cut off Cavendish who had had more-than-ample room to get through. [Indeed, the UCI “jury” ruled that Sagan’s “Malicious Intent” related to his motive for veering sharply right in order to cut off Cavendish.]

And the overhead shot showed that there was considerable room (about two bike widths) of space to Sagan’s left, so he had no reason to veer right OTHER THAN “MALICIOUS INTENT.”

And, of course, the overhead shot showed just how vicious was the full-extension elbow that Sagan threw at Cavendish to send him crashing into the right-side retention barrier.

IT IS TRUE THAT SAGAN’S VEERING SHARPLY TO THE RIGHT IN ORDER TO CUT OFF CAVENDISH IS OBSCURED IN THE OVERHEAD SHOT BY TREE BRANCHES. HOWEVER --

(1) THE OVERHEAD SHOT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT CAVENDISH HAD MORE-THAN-AMPLE ROOM TO GET THROUGH JUST BEFORE HE AND SAGAN WENT UNDER THE TREE BRANCHES;

(2) THE OVERHEAD SHOT CLEARLY SHOWS THE RESULTS OF SAGAN’S VEERING SHARPLY TO THE RIGHT;

(3) THE OVERHEAD SHOT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT SAGAN HAD ABOUT TWO BIKE WIDTHS OF SPACE TO HIS LEFT BEFORE VEERING “MALICIOUSLY” (AS FOUND BY THE “JURY”) TO THE RIGHT;

(4) AND THE SHOTS FROM DIRECTLY IN FRONT AND DIRECTLY IN BACK, NEITHER OF WHICH WERE OBSCURED WHILE SAGAN AND CAVENDISH WERE UNDER THE TREE BRANCHES, SHOW HOW VICIOUS WAS SAGAN’S VEERYING SHARPLY TO HIS RIGHT AND HOW VICIOUS WAS HIS ELBOW BLOW THAT SENT CAVENDISH SPRAWLING INTO THE RETENTION BARRIER.

A COURT OF LAW WOULD NEVER ACCEPT BOB ROLL AS AN “EXPERT WITNESS” VIS-À-VIS ANY BICYCLE RACING INCIDENT BECAUSE OF HIS “DON’T BELIEVE YOUR LYING EYES” RANTS WHICH DEMONSTRATE HIS INCOMPETENCE AS AN “EXPERT” WITNESS.

INDEED, BOB ROLL REPEATEDLY DURING HIS RANTS ATTEMPTED TO “PROVE” THAT CAVENDISH WAS AT FAULT BY POINTING OUT THAT ROLL'S SEVERELY-EDITED VIDEOTAPES SHOWED THAT CAVENDISH’S WHEELS WERE UNDER SAGAN’S!!!

EVERY AMERICAN PARENT KNOWS THAT WHEN HER/HIS CHILD RUNS OVER SOMETHING, WHATEVER HAS BEEN RUN OVER IS UNDER THE CHILD’S WHEELS!!!

WHICH MEANS, OF COURSE, THAT ROLL’S REPEATED “FACT” PROVED THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO CONVINCE THE TV AUDIENCE HAD BEEN PROVED!!!

It would appear that Bob Roll’s “Don’t Believe Your Lying Eyes” performance was designed to preserve the reputation of Sagan in order to protect the TV ratings for future Tours de France IF NOT TO INTIMIDATE THE UCI “JURY” THAT BOB ROLL MUST HAVE KNOWN WOULD SOON BE CONVENED IN ORDER TO PRESERVE CURRENT TV RATINGS!!!

At least NBC had the integrity, after almost 10 minutes of ranting from Roll, to cut him off so that their two commentators who call the actual races, could report that (A) Sagan, who had finished second in that day’s race, had already been eliminated from the results, and (B) a UCI “jury” was being convened to determine whether he should be thrown out of the 2017 Tour de France.

But did that stop Bob Roll???

And the NBC marketing department???

Of course not.

They began this morning’s pre-race show a few minutes ago with Bob Roll repeating almost verbatim his 10-minute rant from yesterday!!!

But this time Roll did NOT have to suffer the embarrassment of such an obvious “Don’t Believe Your Lying Eyes” performance.

Because he and the film crew had severely edited the tapes of the incident!!!

In addition, NBC and Bob Roll had the gall to include an interview of Sagan claiming that he did nothing wrong!!!

**********
The Healthcare Issue

Technically, although Mark Cavendish is often called British, he is actually a citizen of the Isle of Man which is a “British Crown Dependency” and a well-known tax-haven island between England and Ireland.

[He was born there, so he should NOT be accused, like so many international sports stars, of being a tax dodger.]

The Isle of Man has its own National Health Service which is similar to the British National Health Service (indeed, there is an agreement between the two National Health Services regarding treatment of each jurisdiction’s citizens who fall ill while traveling in the other jurisdiction).

Issues/Questions --

1. Yes, Mark Cavendish is entitled to free medical treatment from the Isle of Man National Health Service for injuries caused by Peter Sagan’s “Malicious Intent”!!!

2. But does the Isle of Man Health Service have a policy of seeking reimbursement from WEALTHY CRIMINALS who have caused the medical expenses (assuming the expenses are substantial enough to warrant pursuing reimbursement legally)???

3. NB: Obtaining reimbursement from WEALTHY CRIMINALS is NOT the same issue as eliminating the American “medical tort bar” (i.e., all of the attorneys and other resources that are wasted in litigating medical malpractice) since the “medical tort bar” focuses on the malpractice of doctors and other healthcare providers -- not medical costs caused by WEALTHY CRIMINALS.

**********
NBC’s Successful “Brain Washing”

During today’s telecast of the actual race, NBC conducted an on-line poll asking viewers to vote yes/no whether Sagan should have been ejected from this year’s Tour de France.

No surprise, 85% voted “no.”

Which only shows the effect of Bob Roll’s “Don’t Believe Your Lying Eyes” rants of yesterday and today.

And the ATROCIOUS EDITING of the tapes of the incident for today’s telecast.

So why didn’t NBC follow standard legal practice by providing in its TV contract adjustments to the fee if certain riders were eliminated from the race???

Or purchase insurance for the same purpose???

[After all, another segment of the entertainment industry has been famous for almost a century for insuring against the incapacitation of its movie stars during shooting!!! And Lloyds of London has based its reputation for more than a century on being willing to insure anything under the sun!!!]

**********
For The Curious

No, Yours Truly was NOT previously a fan of either Mark Cavendish or Peter Sagan.

Though my view of Sagan is now that he “is beyond the pale.”

Just like Bob Roll, whose commentary I used to enjoy, is now “beyond the pale.”

[Pat]

.
---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Bob Roll’s Role In Protecting Peter Sagan
From: Pat
Date: Thu, July 6, 2017 7:24 pm MDT
To: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear John,

I have just read the comment you posted on http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org entitled “Tour de France Peter Sagan’s Attempted Homicide Medical Bill.”

It closed with the statement -- “Though my view of Peter Sagan is now that he ‘is beyond the pale.’ Just like Bob Roll, whose commentary I used to enjoy, is now ‘beyond the pale.’”

Could you elaborate vis-à-vis Bob Roll.

Regards,

Pat


---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Bob Roll’s Criminal Guilt As An “Accessory After The Fact”
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Sat, July 8, 2017 2:54 am EDT
To: Pat
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Pat,

Thank you very much for your query.

And sorry not to have responded sooner, but I am attending a family reunion in Michigan and a severe thunderstorm Thursday evening knocked out electrical power for the surrounding area.

Yes, my original posting entitled “Tour de France Peter Sagan’s Attempted Homicide Medical Bill” explained why the current World Cycling Champion Peter Sagan was guilty of Attempted Homicide in the Fourth Stage of this year’s Tour de France.

He was thrown out of the race by the “jury” convened by the Union Cycliste Internationale (which oversees all international competitive cycling events) for “Malicious Intent” in veering sharply to the right to cut off the sport’s premier sprinter over the last decade, Mark Cavendish.

While “maliciously” cutting off Mark Cavendish, Peter Sagan threw a vicious elbow FULL EXTENSION to Cavendish’s body, sending him crashing into the barrier on the right side of the course.

Two other riders rode over Cavendish while he was sprawled helplessly on the ground, one riding over Cavendish’s head and shoulder at more than 60 kilometers/hour.

Cavendish was lucky to survive with only a broken shoulder blade and other less-serious injuries.

**********
Bob Roll’s Role

My posting went on to describe Bob Roll’s immediate 10-minute “don’t believe your lying eyes” rant claiming that Cavendish was at fault.

Roll’s rant was obviously aimed at preserving the popularity of Peter Sagan whom NBC obviously viewed as an attraction for its TV audience.

And Roll’s rant was also aimed at intimidating the UCI “jury” that Roll must have known was about to be convened to determine whether Sagan should be tossed out of the Tour de France for his “malicious intent” in cutting off Mark Cavendish and “endangering the lives” of both Mark and other racers.

The following day, NBC’s telecast opened with another 10-minute “don’t believe your lying eyes” rant from Bob Roll, this time accompanied by videotapes that had been severely edited in a sophomoric attempt to support Roll’s fatuous claims.

**********
Bob’s Roll’s Guilt as an “Accessory After The Fact” of Attempted Homicide

Under English-American Common Law, Bob Roll’s actions were intended to protect Peter Sagan from being tossed out of the Tour de France by the UCI “jury.”

And Roll’s intent probably extended to protecting Peter Sagan from any criminal prosecution such as the recent criminal prosecutions of participants in other sports for even-less-egregious behavior.

Since Peter Sagan was obviously guilty of Attempted Homicide (please refer to the example in my original posting that if you intentionally drive your car over someone, it does you no good to argue that you did not intend to kill the person because you only intended to drive over her/him!!!), Bob Roll’s attempts to protect Peter Sagan obviously make Roll an “Accessory After The Fact” under English-American Common Law.

And as we have studied on several occasions, being an “Accessory After The Fact” makes you guilty of the crime to which you are an “Accessory After The Fact.”

**********
Application of English-American Common Law To Bob Roll For Actions in France

Even if the Napoleonic Code, which is the basis of the legal systems of most Continental European Countries including France, permits such egregious behavior as was exhibited by Peter Sagan, American courts faced under such circumstances with a “choice of law” (the “law of the forum” --i.e., the court, or the “law of the jurisdiction” in which the action occurred) typically choose “the law of the forum.”

Moreover, Bob Roll is a U.S. citizen.

So the “choice of law” issue for Bob Roll would be similar to the case of U.S. Army Lieutenant William L. Calley, Jr., who was convicted of murdering 22 unarmed South Vietnamese civilians when he ordered on 3/16/1968 the torching of the village of My Lai.

No American court (or U.S. military court martial) would have accepted an argument based on what South Vietnamese law provided.

Will Bob Roll be prosecuted???

Probably not.

Unless he wanders into a part of the U.S. where a young District Attorney wants to make a name for himself with a high-profile case involving a celebrity.

Or unless Roll wanders into a part of the U.S. where an aging District Attorney would like to finance his own retirement by accepting a hefty bribe.

[Which would only help prove the well-known American principle that “you are only entitled to as much justice AS YOU CAN AFFORD!!!]

**********
Thank you again for your query.

If you have any questions or comments, please let me know.

Your friend,

John K.


************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
July 12 Addendum

On this morning’s 5-hour “live coverage” telecast of Stage 11 of the Tour de France on the NBC – Sports Network channel, NBC showed viewers FOR THE FIRST TIME an honest video-clip of Peter Sagan’s ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE during Stage 4 on July 4th.

It was a view from the front showing how Peter Sagan had broken the rule to maintain a straight line and had veered sharply to cut off, with only yards to go to the finish line, his greatest threat to beat him to the finish line and capture the prestigious “stage win.”

The clip began just before Peter Sagan veered sharply to cut off Mark Cavendish.

As can be seen clearly, Peter Sagan had been traveling along a lane marker on the road that had been closed off for the race.

And as can also be seen clearly, the right-side barrier to restrain the crowd is positioned just OUTSIDE the lane marker ONE LANE OVER FROM the lane marker on which Peter Sagan had been racing.

Accordingly, Peter Sagan cut sharply THE WIDTH OF A MARKED CAR LANE ON A REGULAR HIGHWAY in order to cut off Mark Cavendish.

And then, when it was obvious to Peter Sagan that he had not cut sharply enough to cut off Mark Cavendish, he launched a VICIOUS “ROUND-HOUSE” RIGHT ELBOW to Mark Cavendish’s body, sending him crashing into the restraining barrier at more than 60 km/hour!!!

The previous clips that NBC – Sports Network had shown on July 5th of the crash from an overhead helicopter camera clearly showed that Peter Sagan had no reason to veer sharply to the right except to cut off Mark Cavendish.

In other words, as previously mentioned in the original posting above, all of the other riders in the proximity of Peter Sagan were at least TWO BIKE WIDTHS to his left, so the proximity of other riders did NOT cause him to veer to the right.

For techies who would like to calculate the angle that Peter Sagan veered sharply to his right MORE THAN A CAR LANE ON A REGULAR HIGHWAY to cut off Mark Cavendish, I can testify that the NBC – Sports Network video clip finally released earlier today shows the racers pedaling 6 complete 360-degree revolutions during the time that Peter Sagan veered more than a car lane to his right.

So the techies will have to be bicycle-racing aficionados to know the chain sprockets used during the “sprint to the line” in order to calculate the distance travelled during each complete 360-degree pedal revolution.

But it is obvious from the VICIOUS “ROUND-HOUSE” RIGHT ELBOW TO THE BODY that Peter Sagan was doing his best to minimize the angle that he was veering sharply to the right MORE THAN A CAR LANE to cut off Mark Cavendish, that Peter Sagan had obviously MIS-CALCULATED HOW SHARPLY HE WOULD HAVE TO VEER in order to cut off Mark Cavendish SO HE HAD TO LAUNCH THE VICIOUS “ROUND-HOUSE” RIGHT because he had mis-judged the angle necessary to cut off Mark Cavendish.

**********
NBC’s Legal Department

Obviously, FINALLY SHOWING THE INCRIMINATING VIDEO-CLIP AFTER DELAYING A WEEK was decreed by the NBC Legal Department.

[It is sad to see how badly the NBC Legal Department has deteriorated since the days when it was headed by one of the Harvard Law School roommates of Yours Truly, Stephen Stander. Steve was in charge of NBC’s Legal Department when Tom Brokaw took over as Anchor and Managing Editor of NBC Nightly News 1982-2004 -- Tom Brokaw disagreed with Andrea Mitchell on her 5/11/2017 MSNBC show, saying that during Watergate, the Mainstream Media dealt with facts, not with speculation the way today’s Mainstream Media does 24/7. You can be certain that Tim Russert, the legendary moderator of NBC’s Meet the Press 1991-2008, is rolling over in his grave.]

It is also obvious that the NBC Legal Department decreed the telecasting of the INCRIMINATING VIDEO-CLIP because they EXCLUDED BOB ROLL AND HIS TWO COLLEAGUES!!!

[Bob Roll, Christian Vande Velde and Paul Burmeister handle the 30-minute pre-race show each day, while the actual 5-hour “live coverage” is handled by Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen. The telecasting of the INCRIMINATING VIDEO-CLIP occurred 1 hours and 58 minutes into the 5-hour “live coverage” segment.]

It is also obvious that the NBC Legal Department decreed the telecasting of the INCRIMINATING VIDEO-CLIP because of the LIMITED “LEGALESE” WITH WHICH PHIL LIGGETT was permitted to describe (or not) the INCRIMINATING VIDEO-CLIP as – “very debatable and controversial but we’re not here to discuss that right now”!!!

Yes, typical legalize -- do NOT admit any wrong-doing (“very debatable and controversial”) WHILE CUTTING BOB ROLL OFF AT THE KNEES!!!

[In order to argue that NBC had nothing to do with what Roll did, even though NBC is responsible under the Law of Agency for anything done by an employee within the scope of her/his employment -- NBC is obviously setting the stage for arguing that, in legalese, Roll was on “a frolic of his own” -- in ordinary English, NOT acting within the scope of his employment!!!]

**********
The Dishonest Mainstream Media

The second paragraph of my original posting stated that the DISHONEST MAINSTREAM MEDIA would have been a sufficient reason to call attention to Bob Roll’s “don’t believe your lying eyes” rants, even absent the question of whether a SINGLE-PAYER HEALTHCARE SYSTEM should attempt to recover the healthcare costs caused by a WEALTHY CRIMINAL such as Peter Sagan.

And yes, whenever we discuss THE DISHONEST MAINSTREAM MEDIA, we usually do so in terms of a sports example (the MYTH PERPETRATED AND PERPETUATED BY THE DISHONEST MEDIA about New England Quarterback Tom Brady when the official NFL Report (aka Wells Report) proved scientifically that Tom Brady was innocent if the news media had bothered to read it WITH THEIR BRAINS IN GEAR).

And we have always done so in terms of a sports example so that the participants in our public-policy study group aren’t distracted by thinking “their own ox is being gored.”

Now we have another sports example of THE DISHONEST MAINSTREAM MEDIA!!!

**********
The Mainstream Media’s FALSE BELIEF That They Can Defame With Immunity/Impunity

Whenever we discuss the issue of the DISHONESTY OF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA, we always marvel that the Mainstream Media obviously believes that it can DEFAME “PUBLIC FIGURES” because of the Supreme Court decision in NY Times vs. Sullivan that authorizes defamation of “public figures” unless the defamer is motivated by “actual malice.”

In the case of the Tom Brady Myth, we have discussed how Syndicated Columnist Charles Krauthammer made a snide remark on Fox News’ “Special Report With Brett Baier” based on the myth.

And we concluded that since it is well known that Charles Krauthammer is a notorious sports fan about everything Washington DC, especially baseball’s Washington Nationals, it should be relatively easy to prove to a jury that Krauthammer’s snide remark about Tom Brady was INDEED BASED ON “ACTUAL MALICE”!!!

Similarly, it should be relatively easy to prove to a jury that Bob Roll’s repeated and lengthy “don’t believe your lying eyes” rants were INDEED BASED ON “ACTUAL MALICE”!!!

**********
What Yours Truly Would Do If He Were A District Attorney and Bob Roll Strayed Into His Jurisdiction

I would prosecute Bob Roll for --

(1) CRIMINAL DEFAMATION, AND

(2) ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE AS AN “ACCESSORY AFTR THE FACT” (since “accessories” whether “before the fact” or “after the fact,” are guilty of the crime to which they are accessories).

It is long past time to SOBER UP THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ABOUT THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES.

Would this be fair to Bob Roll???

Perhaps not.

But it is STANDARD PROCEDURE for prosecutors to EDUCATE THE PUBLIC with a HIGH-PROFILE CASE!!!

But just like you and I would complain if we were in a mass of cars traveling 20 mph over the speed limit and you or I were the only driver pulled over and ticketed, it is really NOT unfair!!!

After all, we were guilty of speeding!!!

And Bob Roll is guilty of CRIMINAL DEFAMATION and ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE AS AN ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT!!!