Talk:Dick Pound

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Why was this page moved? He is almost always known as Dick. - SimonP 00:32, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Pound has taken on a lot of criticism lately and yet recent results have proven that he is justified in the statements that he has made. You cannot realistically claim that he has lost credibility based on the NHL tests seeing as the players had more than 6 months notice to clean up their act if they were cheating. More and more "athletes" are being found guilty of doping (see the Tour de France 2006 debacle as well as Gatlin in Track) as Pound has indicated (including more Americans). Pound has been extremely vigilant in drawing out the cheaters in all sports and his track record prior to WADA has indicated that this is not a man who is in the habit of making cavalier statements that are potentially harmful to those that he is accusing. I think we should shine a brighter light on the man as I feel that there will be even more proof going forward that he is absolutely correct in his assessment of the sporting world and will make a significant impact in helping to clean this industry up. Louhabs 23:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


He may indeed be “correct in his assessment of the sporting world” however, making false, baseless, damaging,and unsubstantiated accusations is not only inappropriate, but smacks of McCarthyism and to say the least, is very damaging to not only himself, but the very agency he represents. His latest oral indiscretion has landed him in hot water in Austria were he is facing libel proceedings that could apparently land him in jail for up to one year. http://www.eurosport.com/alpineskiing/torino/2005-2006/sport_sto945840.shtml

What is libelous is the article. That everyone and his mother accused of doping bitches and moans is no surprise. Fact is that more likely than not, it's because they know WADA is correct in its findings. The fact that he faced a libel suit means precisely nothing. I think there's just a bit too many people on Wikipedia who buy any crap Armstrong and Landis tell them. --84.46.9.51 05:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies?[edit]

I suggest cleaning up the so-called controversies. By the "standards" applied now, we could include just about every case of doping Pound presides on, taking the bitching and moaning of the culprits as "Controversy". This really is a seriously POV section. --84.46.9.68 05:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be cautious about major changes. The thing is, he is probably best known for taking on Armstrong and Landis, and the reader would be badly informed if info on them is not there.--Wehwalt 12:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's more than Armstrong and Landis in there. The Mayer part is absolutely ridiculous, suggesting that there actually might have been substance to the lawsuit when in fact, Mayer was just slinging mud in a clear case. As for Armstrong and Landis, it's unfortunately that their fanboys are running amok on Wikipedia -scientifically, both cases are pretty much clear. --84.46.9.199 05:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I try to avoid those article. I do keep this article neutral in tone.--Wehwalt 10:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cracked.com[edit]

Will the editor who keeps posting the cracked.com entry please explain why, in his view, it does not violate WP:TRIVIA? It is completely irrelevant to Pound himself. It might be relevant to an article about Pound as a last name, but it is meaningless here. I'm not going to get into an edit war, but I am confident if I call in a third opinion, the opinion will be that it should go.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he were an adult film star or something like that, I could see it, but this is just a humor article collecting an assortment of men with strongly (in their estimation) male names. Yes, it should stay out. There's no particular reason Cracked.com seems to be a reliable source, either. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hopefully the anon editor will respect your opinion.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the editor, but I have to agree that the Cracked article deserves at least a mention. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

most people who search dick pound come after reading the cracked.com article.--201.230.3.70 (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

The 2006 winter olympics took place in Torino not Turin Skiracerdude (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same place, and Turin is the most common English name for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is more commonly said, as on all merchandise, torino Skiracerdude (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Pound is no longer the Chancellor or McGill. A new Chancellor (Arnold Steinberg) was appointed 1-July-2009 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Arnold_Steinberg)--63.64.43.102 (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming career[edit]

{{expand article}} Can someone add his swimming career? The article is protected -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Altering a dangerously unsubstantiated claim[edit]

At the time of writing this, the World Anti-Doping Agency section says, in pertinent part, "The commission released its report in November 2015, accusing Vladimir Putin of being complicit in illegal doping...". A quick scan of WADA's November 2015 report for Putin's name shows it was used only once in the report and twice in footnotes; none of these references, nor anything else in the report, accuse Vladimir Putin of being complicit in illegal doping. In addition to the names of many athletes and officials, the report levels accusations at the "Russian state", "the FSB", "Russian law enforcement agencies" and uses the phrase "state influence", but never accuses Putin of any complicity in illegal doping (or any other wrong doing). The media source cited in support of the offending Wikipedia paragraph does not use Putin's name at all (except in a caption to a picture which does not accuse him of being complicit in illegal doping). The article does say WADA issued "a devastatingly critical report accused the country’s [Russia's] government of complicity in widespread doping and coverups" and also that "[t]he commission accused the Russian state of complicity", but does not accuse Putin of being complicit in illegal doping. I am therefore changing the Wikipedia article to "The commission released its report in November 2015, accusing the Russian state of being complicit in illegal doping..."79.76.126.240 (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously did not use the cited source, since it was cited to CNN and properly referenced. Go and watch the TV episode. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did use the National Post source that was properly cited, but you are correct that I did not watch the CNN TV episode - because simply citing "CNN Newsroom. CNN. 10 November 2015" is not specific enough to be able to FIND the material referenced. Quickly perusing CNN's vast website, it looks like a program called CNN Newsroom is on seven times a day here in Europe, and perhaps five times a day in the US (and I suspect there are other editions for Asia). Which one was cited? Even if past episodes are available on-line (which I have yet to find), it's not practical to wade through twelve hours (or more) of video. If it's un-findable, and therefore unverifiable, it's a totally useless citation. If a link to a specific video or a transcript were provided it may be a verifiable citation, but as is, it's only slightly more useful than "As seen on TV." 79.76.126.240 (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CNN (and not CNN International, etc) has one CNN Newsroom, and the others are CNN Newsroom with Poppy Harlow or CNN Newsroom with xyz, etc. CNN Newsroom repeats the same episode over and over again on the same day. And per the references guidelines, there is no requirement for any reference to be online. You can call CNN up for a transcript. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article text in question is compliant with the policies of WP:BLP and has a citation to an accessible source. I'm happy to leave it there. 79.76.126.240 (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dick Pound. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dick_Pound&oldid=1194423039"