Open a newspaper these days and you'll read things like 'When the dust settles, Michael Bryant will be able to return to politics'. When the dust settles... How dare you! How can anyone write things like 'charges against him in the death of a cyclist have been withdrawn'. So Michael Bryant is Michael Bryant and not 'a yuppie in a car' while Darcy Allan Sheppard is 'a cyclist' or 'the drunk cyclist'. How about the Globe and Mail's 'Michael Bryant and Darcy Allan Sheppard:victims of circumstance'. How Bryant turned into a victim? So Darcy Allan Sheppard was drunk. And he ran after cars in the past. Now, who has never been yelled at by some drunk guy, occasionally grabing you or otherwise tried to physically impress you? Are these guys ever dangerous? No. Do you feel entitled to pull out your gun and shoot him? No. But apparently it made sense that Mr Bryant dragged this guy from Bay to University. Why? Because he was afraid. So we were told -only at the beginning of the case because after it kind of went off the radar- that Mr Bryant was a trained boxer. And he was afraid -more than afraid, apparently, in a state of panic- because he was attacked by a drunk guy. Mr Bryant was attorney general, and thus probably aware that these guys are never a danger, except for themselves and their family. And actually, at the end of the story, the cyclist dies, his family gets nothing but awful investigations about the past and the all white Mr Bryant -Brillant?- walks out free as the dove he obviously is, without a single day spent in prison, a single cent spent as retribution and is getting ready to resume a political career that was on the descending slope before the 'accident' and apparently could be reboosted because of what happened! A propos, the life of Mr Sheppard has been over-investigated, but what about the life of Mr Bryant. Who paid a detective to check if he had not an history of violent driving back in the days in BC or in Harvard. He was a boxer? That seems to be a violent sport. Was he ever involved in a fight? Why bother. Apparently, in the Ontario law system, the only past worth being investigated is the one of the victim. The real one.