Van Impe situation, by Magilla
MagillaGorilla
crematorium making an appointment to have his son cremated. How does
that change the rules? If he were pulled over by the cops for speeding
on the way to the crematorium, should the cop be barred by law from
issuing him a ticket just because he's on the way to a crematorium?
Does van Impe have to follow the driving laws when he's driving to the
crematorium? If the answer to these questions are yes, then I don't
understand why he can't be dope tested at the crematorium. Somehow you
people seem to think that the drug tester should have left. You are
wrong. The rules say you are to be tested 24/7, which by default would
include funerals, weddings, and parties. All cyclists agreed to these
terms when they took out a UCI license and no cyclists or team demanded
that funerals, weddings, honeymoons, or birthdays be eliminated. So
deal with it and stop acting like the riders are innocent victims. The
tester has no discretion to not test. And I support that policy - a
policy which no cyclist opposed.
I applaud the drug tester, who is just a courier and did his job well.
I commend the courier and van Impe needs to shut up and deal with it.
And all the riders who protested need to shut the fuck up and sleep in
the bed they made for themselves.
As for everybody in here, you are all stupid motherfuckers and
superficial thinkers. Every answer you give is so predictable and so
ill-thought out that it's pathetic. And 95% of you in here just repeat
what others say without so much as giving it any independent analysis.
I pray to God every night to please have a gigantic meteor hit this
fucking Earth just so it will thin out the herd in here.
So for the record, I am 100% against having riders make exceptions for
being dope tested. Not for funerals, for weddings, for honeymoons,
birthdays or any number of other 'special occasions.'
Besides, even if you made exceptions for a legitimate such case, riders
who wanted to dope would dope right before these special holidays and
know they woud not be tested - giving them a loophole to cheat.
So think about things carefully and in the context of life before you
post in here because I've about had it with all the fucking 900 SAT
scores in here.
Magilla
Carl Sundquist
"MagillaGorilla" <mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
news:fs1219$dnh$1...@aioe.org...
>I don't understand
> Magilla
Have you figured out the differences between a bike wheel rolling on a wet
surface and an ice skate on ice yet?
MagillaGorilla
>
> "MagillaGorilla" <mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fs1219$dnh$1...@aioe.org...
>
>> I don't understand
>> Magilla
>
>
> Have you figured out the differences between a bike and an ice skate yet?
An ice skate glides along the ice because it melts the ice due to
pressure of the blade and in fact glides on a very thin layer of water.
A wheel rolling on a wet road has a slightly decreased coefficient of
friction, but this factor is very small...maybe a percent or two.
Magilla
HC
Girl-Gone-Wild $5000 a pop chick or Odessa or gettin' into it with your
Fleshlight to save your soul and the vampires showed-up seconds before the
finale and you didn't have an orgasm pill, would you be so willing to give a
sample or would you be willing, then, to have some compassion for poor ole
van Impe and show some respect for the dead? By the way, are you the "OT -
Any Volvo 240 Owners?" spammer? If you are, put a four millimeter diameter
rubberband around your nuts for 2 weeks and don't send another spam until
you do.
"MagillaGorilla" <mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
news:fs1219$dnh$1...@aioe.org...
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> As for everybody in here, you are all stupid motherfuckers and
> superficial thinkers. Every answer you give is so predictable and so
> ill-thought out that it's pathetic. And 95% of you in here just repeat
> what others say without so much as giving it any independent analysis.
> I pray to God every night to please have a gigantic meteor hit this
> fucking Earth just so it will thin out the herd in here.
>
> So for the record, I am 100% against having riders make exceptions for
> being dope tested. Not for funerals, for weddings, for honeymoons,
> birthdays or any number of other 'special occasions.'
>
> Besides, even if you made exceptions for a legitimate such case, riders
> who wanted to dope would dope right before these special holidays and
> know they woud not be tested - giving them a loophole to cheat.
Ullrich doped for nightclubbing and look how much it
helped him.
Ben
P.S. Rules aren't laws.
WeaselPoopPower
Dumbass - Tyler Farrar answered the question correctly: "FUUUCK"
Fabrizio Mazzoleni
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
> > Carl Sundquist wrote:
>
> >>news:fs1219$dnh$1...@aioe.org...
>
> >>> I don't understand
> >>> Magilla
>
> >> Have you figured out the differences between a bike and an ice skate yet?
>
> > An ice skate glides along the ice because it melts the ice due to
> > pressure of the blade and in fact glides on a very thin layer of water.
> > A wheel rolling on a wet road has a slightly decreased coefficient of
> > friction, but this factor is very small...maybe a percent or two.
>
> > Magilla
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Still can't believe he tried to take that right had corner by hugging
the
right side of the road.
HC
"Fabrizio Mazzoleni" <edward_w...@stream.com> wrote in message
news:1c6e45c5-fb7e-4a05...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
HC
NONSURGICAL- ELASTRATOR or BANDING
A special very strong rubber band curtails circulation to the testicles
resulting in atrophy of the testicles and sloughing of the tissue below the
band. Different rubber bands and elastrators exist for different ages of
assholes. If you are going to use this method, it should probably be done
as soon as possible. New rubber bands are preferred over old or last year's
supply of bands because there is less chance of them breaking.
1.. Both testicles are pushed into the bottom of the scrotum.
2.. The rubber band is stretched and put above the testicles around the
neck of the scrotum and the applicator is removed.
3.. Both testicles should be below the band.
Go for it.
With All My Love, etc.
HC
"HC" <hchchc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LTWEj.44$VE...@newsfe05.lga...
Bill C
>
> Besides, even if you made exceptions for a legitimate such case, riders
> who wanted to dope would dope right before these special holidays and
> know they woud not be tested - giving them a loophole to cheat.
>
> So think about things carefully and in the context of life before you
> post in here because I've about had it with all the fucking 900 SAT
> scores in here.
>
> Magilla
Hey Dumbass, nice troll.
Besides probation/parole folks can, and do accomodate people under a
random testing scheme for these type of situations. They move the
testing a few hours, or maybe a day or two, and verify the event
actually happened.
Had this conversation quite a while ago with the head of probation
for our County.Known him since I was a kid. He's only been doing it
about 40 years so I guess he wouldn't know though.
Even folks on probation are still treated as humans.
Bill C
Amit Ghosh
dumbass,
i'm trying to understand the subtext of what you and sandy are
saying.
because van impe was visited for testing at a bad time the whole idea
of OOC testing should be scrapped ?
as mentioned in the other thread about this subject there are many
"real-life" situations where there are analogies. restaurant
inspectors don't announce their visits and there are other professions
where there are surprise checks because knowing about an audit would
allow you to conceal a fraud.
if you think privacy concerns trump OOC testing then you might as well
scrap all testing because the most sophisticated dopers won't test
positive in competition.
Carl Sundquist
The coefficient of friction goes up considerably if you try to ice skate on
wet roads.
Sandy
news:a6b87b54-0bd5-410c...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
Bill C <trito...@verizon.net> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
How kind you are, Bill, to still read the impy chimp's rubbish. Of course,
only a monkey would know about those evil drugs that have magnificent
performance improvement properties and which lose all detectability [sp?] in
minutes; about the strategy of waiting for a moment of grief to stealthily
plot to deceive all the testers in the world; to actually go to a location
where he could actually be found; to be straight with the testing authority
under the most exceptional circumstances. My impression is that the ape is
still sore about having voluntarily self-castrated all those years ago to
fit into neat white shorts that showed the nothing that is there. Nothing
is there. Nothing. Where was the cerebellum supposed to be in his
anatomical model. Another small nut, and absent, too.
But of course the sutpid comment was intended to be provocative, not to
represent either thought or opinion of merit. To solicit the dump of feces
that it deserves. "It" is the attribute of the neutered version of a
person. Believe what you will, this ape is still trying to go fast, but the
velocity downward is greater than the horizontal forward.
A reminder, nonetheless: all the riders are presumed not to violate the
rules. Presumed to be non guilty. Well, yes, that's how the rules read.
But the practice is the opposite.
--
Sandy
--
Il n'est aucune sorte de sensation qui soit plus vive
que celle de la douleur ; ses impressions sont sûres,
elles ne trompent point comme celles du plaisir.
- de Sade.
Bill C
> if you think privacy concerns trump OOC testing then you might as well
> scrap all testing because the most sophisticated dopers won't test
>
> - Show quoted text -
Agreed, but I haven't seen anyone suggest that there be NO ooc
testing, certainly not me. This wouldn't have even been a blip on the
radar, or even a positive for Wada if they'd said "Ok. We'll wait
until you finish here, we're very sorry for your loss, but we need to
do this today." Then they could've agreed on a few minutes to do it
later that day. That would've put ALL of it on Van Impe if he didn't
cooperate. Instead they did the secret police thug routine. As I said
to MB even the legal system here makes reasonable accommodation for
testing, unfortunately I'm way too familiar with that.
Are you arguing that innocent cyclists should be treated worse than
convicted criminals? Seems to me you are.
Bill C
dusto...@mac.com
> On Mar 21, 7:23 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 21, 3:24 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Besides, even if you made exceptions for a legitimate such case, riders
> > > who wanted to dope would dope right before these special holidays and
> > > know they woud not be tested - giving them a loophole to cheat.
>
> > > So think about things carefully and in the context of life before you
> > > post in here because I've about had it with all the fucking 900 SAT
> > > scores in here.
>
> > > Magilla
>
> > Hey Dumbass, nice troll.
> > Besides probation/parole folks can, and do accomodate people under a
> > random testing scheme for these type of situations. They move the
> > testing a few hours, or maybe a day or two, and verify the event
> > actually happened.
> > Had this conversation quite a while ago with the head of probation
> > for our County.Known him since I was a kid. He's only been doing it
> > about 40 years so I guess he wouldn't know though.
> > Even folks on probation are still treated as humans.
>
> dumbass,
>
> i'm trying to understand the subtext of what you and sandy are
> saying.
"Even folks on probation are still treated as humans". Works for me.
> because van impe was visited for testing at a bad time the whole idea
> of OOC testing should be scrapped ?
That's not what I rememeber reading in any post except maybe yours,
just above, and again, below.
I see a reaction against a loss of rights, and dignity. Forcing riders
to sign contracts-- call it what you want, but it is forcing-- that
compel them to give up their presumption of innocence, dignity,
privacy doesn't make it right, either.
> if you think privacy concerns trump OOC testing
Bill C talked about that, in criminal cases, in the "real" world.
> then you might as well
> scrap all testing because the most sophisticated dopers won't test
> positive in competition.
That's a big leap from the specific situation with Van Impe.
(opinion) There was a lot of embarrassment caused the testing nazis
when police raids caused mass window tossings, while the "testing"
wasn't catching anyone. Puerto made it much worse. This is further
revenge and scapegoating.
"I was following orders".
Not even an hour left alone, for God's sake. That would have made no
difference in the test result.
"Have they no shame? --D-y
MagillaGorilla
The rules are the rules. Following them has nothing to do with respect
or not.
Answer my question about the police officer - would the cop be obligated
to not give van Impe a ticket if he pulled over a cyclist for speeding
on the way to burn his baby or his wedding or thhe birth of his child?
The problem with you 900 SAT scores is you are confusing two different
things. There is no need to connect baking your baby and being required
to comply with driving laws (or doping laws).
Save your little irrational emotional tantrum for someone with a GED.
In fact, if I headed WADA or the UCI's doping agency, I would target
riders at funerals, weddings, and parties.
Let's look at the facts. Van Impe agreed to be tested at his funeral
when he took out his UCI license and read the doping rules. He also
agreed to be tested at his wedding, divorce, bith of his children,
birthdays of his children, etc. So why he is complaining now after
having already agreed to be tested at these occiasions is not credible.
In fact, it comes across as pathetic and fake-righteous.
I support what the courier did. What van Impe did is another act of
fake-anger by pros with 900 SAT scores. How many other exceptions are
there besides crematoriums? Weddings, birthdays, baby deliveries, high
school graduation fo your niece or any of these with respect to ALL
family members...when would this list of "no test days" end?
Think about the implications of what you say before you open up your
mouth and let your GED brain talk.
I'm surprised Van Impe didn't call up the cable TV company and complain
to them about why they sent him a bill on the same day he was at the
crematorium.
You people make the most bizarre correlations in the world sound wrong
when in fact there is no logical reason to even make a correlation.
Dumb fucks - all of you,
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Hey dumbass,
Why don't you write the exact wording of the dope testing rule as you
wish it to be articulated in the rulebook and then once you post that, I
will ask you about funerals for your niece, funerals for your best
friend, nephew, second cousin, etc. Then I will ask you about the birth
of your child, birth of your sister's child, cancer treatment for your 3
year old niece, etc. (my point is this hypothetical list of "do not
test days" is endless, assfuckhead).
Once you realize it's virtually impossible to write such a rule that
would accomodate every exception without leaving loopholes large enough
to drive a Mack truck through, you will realize that it's better to make
NO EXCEPTIONS. And then maybe if you're smart enough, you will also
come to the realization that the people at WADA already thought this
through which is why the current "no excepotion" system exists.
Besides, Vam Impe agreed to be tested at funerals, weddings, birthday
parties, etc.. So why he is complaining now is a little disingenuous if
not altogether strange. The testing couriers have no authority to not
test an athlete and can be fired if they offer that exception. It's
called POLICY, asshole. And diligent employees follow it.
Why you are complaining about a rule that Van Impe agreed to
contractually is even more strange.
I leave you people alone for a few weeks, and you revert back the same
goddamn stupid sack of nonsense that bore responsibiluty for the daily
beatings I felt obligated to inflict. Now the beatings must continue.
You people are not capable of being educated. All your answers are the
same old predictable fifth grader logic and always takes the politically
correct approach or the most obvious emotional path of simplemindedness.
Answer my question about the cop giving a ticket to Vam Impe on the way
to the crematorium. Do you think driving safety of other people on the
road should be contingent on whether the driver is driving to a funeral,
birthday, or wedding?
And if the answer is no (the correct answer is NO), then shut the fuck
up about dope testing on those same days because it's the same thing.
Dope testiing is considerable an intrinsic rule to the ingrity of
cycling. Not only did Van Impe agree to be tested voluntailry on
funerals, he is handsomely paid for this intrusion.
Magilla
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> I don't understand what the big deal is. So fucking what if he was in a
> crematorium making an appointment to have his son cremated. How does
> that change the rules? If he were pulled over by the cops for speeding
> on the way to the crematorium, should the cop be barred by law from
> issuing him a ticket just because he's on the way to a crematorium?
>
> Does van Impe have to follow the driving laws when he's driving to the
> crematorium? If the answer to these questions are yes, then I don't
> understand why he can't be dope tested at the crematorium.
He can be. Have you ever caught a break from a traffic patrolman?
I have; many times. On balance I have more plusses than
minuses in traffic stops. How about you?
The piss police are harder than hard so they can prove what
tough guys they are. They are bullies and will dry up then
blow away the first time anybody says `Woof' to them.
Buncha chickenshit candyasses.
Starbuck's; Sausalito; I'll be wearing the Amgen jersey.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> Carl Sundquist wrote:
>
> >
> > "MagillaGorilla" <mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:fs1219$dnh$1...@aioe.org...
> >
> >> I don't understand
> >> Magilla
> >
> >
> > Have you figured out the differences between a bike and an ice skate yet?
>
>
> An ice skate glides along the ice because it melts the ice due to
> pressure of the blade and in fact glides on a very thin layer of water.
Bzzzzzzzzzt!
> A wheel rolling on a wet road has a slightly decreased coefficient of
> friction, but this factor is very small...maybe a percent or two.
Have you taken into account the energy dissipated tearing water
off of the road surface and flinging it into mist?
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
"Carl Sundquist" <car...@cox.net> wrote:
> "MagillaGorilla" <mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fs179u$v82$1...@aioe.org...
> > Carl Sundquist wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "MagillaGorilla" <mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:fs1219$dnh$1...@aioe.org...
> >>
> >>> I don't understand
> >>> Magilla
> >>
> >>
> >> Have you figured out the differences between a bike and an ice skate yet?
> >
> >
> > An ice skate glides along the ice because it melts the ice due to pressure
> > of the blade and in fact glides on a very thin layer of water. A wheel
> > rolling on a wet road has a slightly decreased coefficient of friction,
> > but this factor is very small...maybe a percent or two.
>
> The coefficient of friction goes up considerably if you try to ice skate on
> wet roads.
We have a winnah!
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<937fafb5-07fc-4abd...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Amit Ghosh <amit....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 21, 7:23 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Mar 21, 3:24 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Besides, even if you made exceptions for a legitimate such case, riders
> > > who wanted to dope would dope right before these special holidays and
> > > know they woud not be tested - giving them a loophole to cheat.
> >
> > > So think about things carefully and in the context of life before you
> > > post in here because I've about had it with all the fucking 900 SAT
> > > scores in here.
> >
> > > Magilla
> >
> > Hey Dumbass, nice troll.
> > Besides probation/parole folks can, and do accomodate people under a
> > random testing scheme for these type of situations. They move the
> > testing a few hours, or maybe a day or two, and verify the event
> > actually happened.
> > Had this conversation quite a while ago with the head of probation
> > for our County.Known him since I was a kid. He's only been doing it
> > about 40 years so I guess he wouldn't know though.
> > Even folks on probation are still treated as humans.
>
> dumbass,
>
> i'm trying to understand the subtext of what you and sandy are
> saying.
>
> because van impe was visited for testing at a bad time the whole idea
> of OOC testing should be scrapped ?
Yeah, that's what they're saying. How can anybody be so lame?
--
Michael Press
joseph.sa...@gmail.com
> testing, unfortunately I'm way too familiar with that.
Now this thread is getting interesting. Care to elaborate?
Joseph
Donald Munro
> Starbuck's; Sausalito; I'll be wearing the Amgen jersey.
An Astana Jersey and Festina bib shorts would be more colourful.
Bill C
Nothing new to the regulars. My oldest son who was a national level
Jr. had some drug issues and doesn't race anymore. My Brothers both
had drug and violence issues. Unfortunately friends I grew up with
have done time for things from manslaughter on down.
Bill C
Hob...@spnb&s.com
wrote:
>On Mar 21, 7:23 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Mar 21, 3:24 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Besides, even if you made exceptions for a legitimate such case, riders
>> > who wanted to dope would dope right before these special holidays and
>> > know they woud not be tested - giving them a loophole to cheat.
>>
>> > So think about things carefully and in the context of life before you
>> > post in here because I've about had it with all the fucking 900 SAT
>> > scores in here.
>>
>> > Magilla
>>
>> Hey Dumbass, nice troll.
>> Besides probation/parole folks can, and do accomodate people under a
>> random testing scheme for these type of situations. They move the
>> testing a few hours, or maybe a day or two, and verify the event
>> actually happened.
>> Had this conversation quite a while ago with the head of probation
>> for our County.Known him since I was a kid. He's only been doing it
>> about 40 years so I guess he wouldn't know though.
>> Even folks on probation are still treated as humans.
>
>dumbass,
>
>i'm trying to understand the subtext of what you and sandy are
>saying.
>
>because van impe was visited for testing at a bad time the whole idea
>of OOC testing should be scrapped ?
No, but it does need to stop treating cyclists worse than we treat known,
convicted felons.
>as mentioned in the other thread about this subject there are many
>"real-life" situations where there are analogies. restaurant
>inspectors don't announce their visits and there are other professions
>where there are surprise checks because knowing about an audit would
>allow you to conceal a fraud.
Surprise audits and inspections happen to people when they're at work. Nobody
goes up to a restaurant owner when the place is closed and he's at a funeral to
demand he open up for an inspection.
>if you think privacy concerns trump OOC testing then you might as well
>scrap all testing because the most sophisticated dopers won't test
>positive in competition.
How about a bit of decency. If the system is inhuman why should we want it. "Uh,
it's obviously a bad time, we'll see you at 4pm." How hard is that. And hey, if
you want, keep an eye on him in the meanwhile and see if he does anything hinky.
Ron
Ron
MagillaGorilla
Sandy,
Here you once again show you stupidity. The last time was when you
claimed Kashechkin's lawsuit actually had a chance to prevail when
everyone knows it was frivolous.
Riders actually do plot to subvert drug testers and go to incredible
extents. They use code names even when speaking over the phone
["wasps," using their dog's name to tag their autotransfusions
(Operacion Puerto), claiming the medicine is for their dog (Vandedouche)
or their wife (Edita Rumsas), etc.].
So for you to post that it's ludicrous that they have "strategy of
waiting for a moment of grief to stealthily plot to deceive all the
testers" is about as stupid a comment as one can imagine.
Second, the riders don't wait for a moment of grief to dope. They would
start creating moments of grief and simply bank on the testers not being
able to verify that information. How would a tester verify whether
someone's brother or sister who died is in fact related to someone? Do
you really think WADA wants its couriers to become field investigators
for what would be tens of thousands of athletes throughout the world?
You are so stupid because you haven't even thought about how diffiicult
such a policy would be to foormulate let alone enforce. The current
policy is the correct policy. It's the one Vam Impe agreed to abide by
when he took out his UCI license.
Nobody forced Van Impe to take out a UCI license.
Van Impe agreed to be tested 365/24/7.
Your complaint is dismissed.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> But of course the sutpid comment was intended to be provocative, not to
> represent either thought or opinion of merit. To solicit the dump of feces
> that it deserves. "It" is the attribute of the neutered version of a
> person. Believe what you will, this ape is still trying to go fast, but the
> velocity downward is greater than the horizontal forward.
My comment is thhe current policy of WADA and the one that Van chImpe
agreed to abide by. As you sit here and post that my suggestion is
intended only to be provocative is laughable considering that not only
is it the current WADA/UCI policy, it will not change for next year.
And when Van chImpe takes out his UCI license next year he will once
agree to be tested 365/24/7.
And the next cyclist who complains will also be an idiot for complaining
since they agreed to 365/24/7 testing.
My argument would win a court of law because it deals with facts and
contracts. Your argument sounds like it comes from a 3 year old.
>
> A reminder, nonetheless: all the riders are presumed not to violate the
> rules. Presumed to be non guilty. Well, yes, that's how the rules read.
> But the practice is the opposite.
Your presumption is wrong. OOC testing relies on riders producing a
sample when demanded. If they don't they are presmued guilty. I
suggest you read the rules, which the riders agreed to when they took
out a UCI license.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> In article <fs1219$dnh$1...@aioe.org>,
> MagillaGorilla <mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I don't understand what the big deal is. So fucking what if he was in a
>>crematorium making an appointment to have his son cremated. How does
>>that change the rules? If he were pulled over by the cops for speeding
>>on the way to the crematorium, should the cop be barred by law from
>>issuing him a ticket just because he's on the way to a crematorium?
>>
>>Does van Impe have to follow the driving laws when he's driving to the
>>crematorium? If the answer to these questions are yes, then I don't
>>understand why he can't be dope tested at the crematorium.
>
>
> He can be. Have you ever caught a break from a traffic patrolman?
> I have; many times. On balance I have more plusses than
> minuses in traffic stops. How about you?
Yeah, less than 50% result in a ticket for me. What's your point?
> The piss police are harder than hard so they can prove what
> tough guys they are. They are bullies and will dry up then
> blow away the first time anybody says `Woof' to them.
> Buncha chickenshit candyasses.
> Starbuck's; Sausalito; I'll be wearing the Amgen jersey.
>
Hey assface. The rules say you can be tested 365/24/7. Van Chimp knew
this when he took out his license. Knowing that, he should have assumed
that to mean funerals, weddings, birthdays, graduations, parties,
homosexual bathhouse rendezvous, blowjobs from Sandy, etc.
I suggest Van Chimp get a new agent if he can't read the rules.
But this entire conversation is moot because Van Imple agreed to the
rules. And the rules are made by WADA and are the same for all Olympic
sport federations throughout the world.
There is no reason to equate what the drug tester did with interfering
with Va Chimps's grief. Van Chimp only wants the public to believe the
doping tester is a "bad" guy.
The reality is the courier is under strict instructions to not let the
athlete give you any excuse. He can be fired if he lets athletes cajole
him into coming back later. And he did his job. I suggest Van Chimpe
shut up because he agreed to abide by these rules.
Van Impe's stupid agent should write WADA if he wants the rule changed
instead of complaining about some minimum wage guy doing his job by the
book.
Magilla
Tom Kunich
news:VbmdnV6TZZm-w3ja...@ptd.net...
>
> Second, the riders don't wait for a moment of grief to dope. They would
> start creating moments of grief and simply bank on the testers not being
> able to verify that information.
Tell me, what if your employers insurance company showed up at your door
right now and demanded a drug test from you. What would be your reaction?
MagillaGorilla
I think the question you are asking is this:
Would I let the drug tester enter my home to test me IF I SIGNED A
CONTRACT WHEN I WAS ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED IN WHICH THE CONTRACT CLEARLY
STATED THAT I AGREED TO BE TESTED AT HOME 365 DAYS A YEAR AS PART OF MY
EMPLOYMENT?"
And the answer is YES. Is this suppose to be a trick question or something?
As for what my "reaction" would be - why is this question relevant?
What difference would my reaction make given that I AGREED TO BE TESTED
BY CONTRACT?
You people keep talking about how unfair and wrong it is, but you never
acknowledge that Van Impe AGREED TO BE TESTED 365 DAYS A YEAR WHEN HE
TOOK OUT HIS UCI LICENSE.
I don't understand what the fucking debate is here? A contract is a
fucking contract. Nobody forced Van Impe to sign it.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
>>as mentioned in the other thread about this subject there are many
>>"real-life" situations where there are analogies. restaurant
>>inspectors don't announce their visits and there are other professions
>>where there are surprise checks because knowing about an audit would
>>allow you to conceal a fraud.
>
>
> Surprise audits and inspections happen to people when they're at work. Nobody
> goes up to a restaurant owner when the place is closed and he's at a funeral to
> demand he open up for an inspection.
So when is a cyclist "closed" in an OOC test? You people piss me off
because you're so stupid.
One more fucking time for you retards: CYCLISTS AGREED TO BE SURPRISE
TESTED 365 DAYS OUT OF THE YEAR WHEN THEY TOOK OUT THEIR UCI LICENSE.
End of argument.
Why are you complaining about a term in their contract that they agreed
to? Your complaint make no sense because nobody forced the riders to
sign their contract.
If the riders want the terms of their dope testing contract with the UCI
changed, they should go about changing the WADA rules or the terms of
their contract. However, complaining about the terms of your contract
after you already signed it and are paid to abide by it is really an
embarrassing argument.
Magilla
Hob...@spnb&s.com
And you're an ass. Which is fine, the world needs a few, somehow, I'm sure, just
not why, but like mosquitoes I'm sure there's a reason for y'all, I guess.
But just because you are a graceless, inconsiderate ass is no reason for you to
advocate that others take your example.
Honest, there is no valid reason for the testing regimen to be administered in
an ass way. Being tested by a decent person is no less valid than being tested
by an ass.
Really. There is no correlation between competence and ass.
Ron
ronaldo_jeremiah
> I pray to God every night to please have a gigantic meteor hit this
> fucking Earth just so it will thin out the herd in here.
Dumbass -
You believe in God?
-rj
MagillaGorilla
The riders agreed to be tested 365 days out of the year which implicitly
means the riders agreed that funerals, weddings, honeymoons,
graduations, parties, wakes, vacations, etc., were all fair game.
I think Vam Impe is being the asshole since the courier was just doing
his job - a job Van Impe agreed to.
The courier did nothing wrong, nor was he being an "asshole." In fact,
Van Impe was being the asshole for suggesting that the courier should
have violated policy by coming back later.
Van Impe signed the contract that permits the dope tester to come test
him 365 days out of the year and to never "come back later." So there
is no "asshole" factor on the part of the courier or WADA.
Magilla
Tom Kunich
>
> One more fucking time for you retards: CYCLISTS AGREED TO BE SURPRISE
> TESTED 365 DAYS OUT OF THE YEAR WHEN THEY TOOK OUT THEIR UCI LICENSE.
Then you don't mind being tested at any time day or night for alcohol
regardless of where you are or what you're doing?
Tom Kunich
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>> Tell me, what if your employers insurance company showed up at your door
>> right now and demanded a drug test from you. What would be your reaction?
>
> I think the question you are asking is this:
>
> Would I let the drug tester enter my home to test me IF I SIGNED A
> CONTRACT WHEN I WAS ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED IN WHICH THE CONTRACT CLEARLY
> STATED THAT I AGREED TO BE TESTED AT HOME 365 DAYS A YEAR AS PART OF MY
> EMPLOYMENT?"
I hate to point this out but most employment contracts contain essentially
that clause these days. Something tells me that you'd react a great deal
differently than you claim you would.
Amit Ghosh
>
> Then you don't mind being tested at any time day or night for alcohol
> regardless of where you are or what you're doing?
dumbass,
is this your idea of a logical argument ?
Amit Ghosh
> I hate to point this out but most employment contracts contain essentially
> that clause these days.
if you signed it, it means you agreed to it and can't bitch about it
if it happens.
i don't believe you either that "most" employment contracts have this
clause, i've never experienced it. i've only ever heard of people with
shitty jobs being fired for failing a drug test.
i did however sign a form agreeing to be tested if asked when i took
out my racing license.
Fabrizio Mazzoleni
Circulus in demonstrando
Sandy
MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
I really don't appreciate it when you change mailboxes. It defeats my
killfile.
Kashechkin, BTW, moved from the right lawyer to another, unsuccessful,
expensive, uninspired, American one, and the wrong American one.
My stupidity is my hallmark, anyway. But I have a sense of humor.
--
--
Sandy
--
Si les autres parties du monde ont des singes ; l'Europe a des Français.
Cela se compense.
[Arthur Schopenhauer]
Sandy
>
>
>> But of course the sutpid comment was intended to be provocative, not
>> to represent either thought or opinion of merit. To solicit the
>> dump of feces that it deserves. "It" is the attribute of the
>> neutered version of a person. Believe what you will, this ape is
>> still trying to go fast, but the velocity downward is greater than
>> the horizontal forward.
>
>
> My comment is thhe current policy of WADA and the one that Van chImpe
> agreed to abide by. As you sit here and post that my suggestion is
> intended only to be provocative is laughable considering that not only
> is it the current WADA/UCI policy, it will not change for next year.
The UCI is irrelevant. BTW, I added this address to the killfile just now.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
"Le Vin est la plus saine et la plus hygiénique des boissons."
- Louis Pasteur
Sandy
news:f1943d48-024c-408b...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com,
Amit Ghosh <amit....@gmail.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Mar 22, 6:12 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> I hate to point this out but most employment contracts contain
>> essentially that clause these days.
>
> if you signed it, it means you agreed to it and can't bitch about it
> if it happens.
WRONG.
>
> i don't believe you either that "most" employment contracts have this
> clause, i've never experienced it. i've only ever heard of people with
> shitty jobs being fired for failing a drug test.
>
WRONG.
> i did however sign a form agreeing to be tested if asked when i took
> out my racing license.
Irrelevant.
Amit Ghosh
>
> I really don't appreciate it when you change mailboxes. It defeats my
> killfile.
> Kashechkin, BTW, moved from the right lawyer to another, unsuccessful,
> expensive, uninspired, American one, and the wrong American one.
>
dumbass,
i was hoping that you (a lawyer) would be able to shed light on these
legal issues (privacy, labour laws) that is now 80% of cycling related
news, but it turns out you are just a papai with a degree.
your analyses are useful though because they are consistently wrong.
Tom Kunich
news:47e598c3$0$12564$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> My stupidity is my hallmark, anyway. But I have a sense of humor.
Silly sometimes when you're in the wrong mood but never stupid.
Sandy
news:c111aad5-4e53-4f45...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
Amit Ghosh <amit....@gmail.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
I take it you are the ape's close relative, at a similar stage of evolution?
I make my own expresso, so don't bother with a Starbucks challenge.
And why would I waste my legal talents on you, if you aren't paying me?
What I have written, consistently, is exactly about labor and privacy laws,
but your sieve for brain hasn't caught on yet. It's OK - but you need a
nickname to parallel your sibling's as fair warning.
--
Sandy
--
S'endormir au volant, c'est très dangereux.
S'endormir à vélo, c'est très rare.
S'endormir à pied, c'est très con.
- Geluck, P.
MagillaGorilla
It was his European lawyer who lost his case, not his American lawyer.
But if you bothered to read the judge's decision, she said his lawsuit
was stupid because he AGREED TO BE TESTED BY CONTRACT.
You, on the other hand, tried to make it sound as if his rights were
violated when in fact he agreed to it contractually.
Memo to Sandy: you are allowed to waive your rights when you sign a
contract. And Kashechkin did that.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> Dans le message de news:pNqdnUtOZ7w4wnja...@ptd.net,
> MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
>>Sandy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>But of course the sutpid comment was intended to be provocative, not
>>>to represent either thought or opinion of merit. To solicit the
>>>dump of feces that it deserves. "It" is the attribute of the
>>>neutered version of a person. Believe what you will, this ape is
>>>still trying to go fast, but the velocity downward is greater than
>>>the horizontal forward.
>>
>>
>>My comment is thhe current policy of WADA and the one that Van chImpe
>>agreed to abide by. As you sit here and post that my suggestion is
>>intended only to be provocative is laughable considering that not only
>>is it the current WADA/UCI policy, it will not change for next year.
>
>
> The UCI is irrelevant. BTW, I added this address to the killfile just now.
>
>
Van Impe has a UCI license and was tested because of his licensure
through the UCI. So, no, the "UCI is not irrelevant" with respect ot
this doping case.
You sound like you're 9 years old with your little killfile tantrum. You
will read my posts when people reply anyway, so deal with it.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Well your little hunch is wrong. So is your statement that "most
employment contracts contain essentially that clause."
I know fo nobody who gets dope tested at home. Cyclists do because they
are dope fiends who dope at home to alter what they do at work. Almost
no other employee does that - at least not intentionally like cyclists.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Sandy - you are wrong and that is why Kashechkin's lawsuit was
dismissed. The judge even remarked that Kasheckin agreed to be tested
contractually.
Why did Kashechkin's attorney file the lawsuit in Belgian when the UCI
is in Switzerland?
What an idiot. You were one of the idiots saying he could win his case
when it should have been obvious it was a bizarre lawsuit at best.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
If I signed a contract stating that I didn't mind, like van Impe did,
then the answer is no.
Is this suppose to be a trick question?
Magilla
Carl Sundquist
>
> I know fo nobody who gets dope tested at home. Cyclists do because they
> are dope fiends who dope at home to alter what they do at work. Almost no
> other employee does that - at least not intentionally like cyclists.
The difference being that most workers who get tested are for performance
_de_hancing substances (if it's not a word, it should be), not performance
_en_hancing substances. That is why they do not "dope at home _to_ alter
what they do at work" (my emphasis).
Carl Sundquist
>
> Why did Kashechkin's attorney file the lawsuit in Belgian when the UCI is
> in Switzerland?
I'm guessing because that is where the Main offices of the European Union
(and affiliated labor laws) are.
Howard Kveck
wrote:
> "MagillaGorilla" <mag...@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:maCdnWF5QZPu9nja...@ptd.net...
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>
> >> Tell me, what if your employers insurance company showed up at your door
> >> right now and demanded a drug test from you. What would be your reaction?
> >
> > I think the question you are asking is this:
> >
> > Would I let the drug tester enter my home to test me IF I SIGNED A
> > CONTRACT WHEN I WAS ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED IN WHICH THE CONTRACT CLEARLY
> > STATED THAT I AGREED TO BE TESTED AT HOME 365 DAYS A YEAR AS PART OF MY
> > EMPLOYMENT?"
>
> I hate to point this out but most employment contracts contain essentially
> that clause these days.
Cite, please.
--
tanx,
Howard
Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Sandy
news:YOURhoward-408C7...@newsgroups.comcast.net,
Howard Kveck <YOURh...@h-SHOESbomb.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> In article <13ub12l...@corp.supernews.com>, "Tom Kunich"
> <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> "MagillaGorilla" <mag...@zoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:maCdnWF5QZPu9nja...@ptd.net...
>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Tell me, what if your employers insurance company showed up at
>>>> your door right now and demanded a drug test from you. What would
>>>> be your reaction?
>>>
>>> I think the question you are asking is this:
>>>
>>> Would I let the drug tester enter my home to test me IF I SIGNED A
>>> CONTRACT WHEN I WAS ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED IN WHICH THE CONTRACT
>>> CLEARLY STATED THAT I AGREED TO BE TESTED AT HOME 365 DAYS A YEAR
>>> AS PART OF MY EMPLOYMENT?"
>>
>> I hate to point this out but most employment contracts contain
>> essentially that clause these days.
>
> Cite, please.
Valid for the US, generally. Not for Europe. US does not have labor
courts, so far as I know. UK is generally following this trend, although it
is reportedly part of Europe.
All SEC licensed agents, brokers, etc.
All international banks I am aware of.
All major insurance companies.
Petroleum companies I have worked with.
Major mass market retailers.
7-11. 8-20 (yes, not in US, but just look at the working hours!).
Not that I was defending Kween's Kounsel.
--
Bonne route !
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
Howard Kveck
wrote:
Yes, I'm aware that there are some (or even many) employers that have such
requirements in their employment contracts. I would say that "most" is a very large
stretch, however. In my circle of friends (who are employed in a huge variety of
professions) very few have such requirements.
The only time I've ever had such a stipulation made in employment I told them that
I would not abide by that and that only if they had some valid suspicion of my using
drugs would I take a test. The funny thing was that within an hour of my starting
work there, I spotted someone who was obviously a meth user. This was confirmed by
another employee.
> Not that I was defending Kween's Kounsel.
That goes without saying.
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> Answer my question about the cop giving a ticket to Vam Impe on the way
> to the crematorium. Do you think driving safety of other people on the
> road should be contingent on whether the driver is driving to a funeral,
> birthday, or wedding?
I answered it, and you fizzled.
For the hard of hearing. Patrol officers assess the drivers they
stop and determine their course of action on the spot. They are
the sheriff, judge, jury, and executioner. Most of them do it well.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > In article <fs1219$dnh$1...@aioe.org>,
> > MagillaGorilla <mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I don't understand what the big deal is. So fucking what if he was in a
> >>crematorium making an appointment to have his son cremated. How does
> >>that change the rules? If he were pulled over by the cops for speeding
> >>on the way to the crematorium, should the cop be barred by law from
> >>issuing him a ticket just because he's on the way to a crematorium?
> >>
> >>Does van Impe have to follow the driving laws when he's driving to the
> >>crematorium? If the answer to these questions are yes, then I don't
> >>understand why he can't be dope tested at the crematorium.
> >
> >
> > He can be. Have you ever caught a break from a traffic patrolman?
> > I have; many times. On balance I have more plusses than
> > minuses in traffic stops. How about you?
>
> Yeah, less than 50% result in a ticket for me. What's your point?
It is clear to all simians. You used a traffic stop metaphor,
and asked for clarification. I clarified. I am right, and
you are back peddling furiously pretending you do not understand.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> wrote:
> Hobbes@spnb&s.com wrote:
>
> >>as mentioned in the other thread about this subject there are many
> >>"real-life" situations where there are analogies. restaurant
> >>inspectors don't announce their visits and there are other professions
> >>where there are surprise checks because knowing about an audit would
> >>allow you to conceal a fraud.
> >
> >
> > Surprise audits and inspections happen to people when they're at work. Nobody
> > goes up to a restaurant owner when the place is closed and he's at a funeral to
> > demand he open up for an inspection.
>
>
> So when is a cyclist "closed" in an OOC test? You people piss me off
> because you're so stupid.
>
> One more fucking time for you retards: CYCLISTS AGREED TO BE SURPRISE
> TESTED 365 DAYS OUT OF THE YEAR WHEN THEY TOOK OUT THEIR UCI LICENSE.
>
> End of argument.
>
> Why are you complaining about a term in their contract that they agreed
> to? Your complaint make no sense because nobody forced the riders to
> sign their contract.
>
> If the riders want the terms of their dope testing contract with the UCI
> changed, they should go about changing the WADA rules or the terms of
> their contract. However, complaining about the terms of your contract
> after you already signed it and are paid to abide by it is really an
> embarrassing argument.
Some contract provisions are unenforceable. A contractee theoretically
could take it to court, and get free of the provision. I am sort of
agreeing with you.
--
Michael Press
RonSonic
>Hobbes@spnb&s.com wrote:
>
>>>as mentioned in the other thread about this subject there are many
>>>"real-life" situations where there are analogies. restaurant
>>>inspectors don't announce their visits and there are other professions
>>>where there are surprise checks because knowing about an audit would
>>>allow you to conceal a fraud.
>>
>>
>> Surprise audits and inspections happen to people when they're at work. Nobody
>> goes up to a restaurant owner when the place is closed and he's at a funeral to
>> demand he open up for an inspection.
>
>
>So when is a cyclist "closed" in an OOC test?
Maybe when he's at a crematorium for a family member. How the hell should I
know, it's your dumb metaphor.
>One more fucking time for you retards: CYCLISTS AGREED TO BE SURPRISE
>TESTED 365 DAYS OUT OF THE YEAR WHEN THEY TOOK OUT THEIR UCI LICENSE.
One more time for you, there is no reason that these tests must be administered
in an inhuman and abusive manner. There just isn't. It doesn't make for a better
or more reliable test.
>End of argument.
Then shut the fuck up already.
>Why are you complaining about a term in their contract that they agreed
>to? Your complaint make no sense because nobody forced the riders to
>sign their contract.
No reasonable person would expect an obligation to be tested to be enforced like
that. Now that's just my opinion, but I don't think it would be hard to convince
a judge and if there were any sort of useful union of cyclists, they'd already
be working at that.
Ron
RonSonic
Dumbass,
That was part of the terms of his early release.
Ron
MagillaGorilla
The UCI is who tested Kashechkin and whose license made him eligible for
OOC testing. The UCI is located in Aigle, Switzerland.
Switzerland is not a member of the European Union.
The question sstill stands: why did Kash-n-Check's lawyer file in
Belgian and then wonder why it was dismissed?
Besides the lawsuit being baseless, it wasn't even filed in the correct
court. Let's see Sandy answer that.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
A contract for drug testing would never be voided by a court of law. An
examle of contractual terms that would be voided are contracts that
violate the federal law for minimum wage, or contracts that violate
superseding state law in regulated businesses and professions.
The cycling rule for 365 day-a-year testing would never be voided by a
court. Never.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:33:18 -0400, MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Hobbes@spnb&s.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>as mentioned in the other thread about this subject there are many
>>>>"real-life" situations where there are analogies. restaurant
>>>>inspectors don't announce their visits and there are other professions
>>>>where there are surprise checks because knowing about an audit would
>>>>allow you to conceal a fraud.
>>>
>>>
>>>Surprise audits and inspections happen to people when they're at work. Nobody
>>>goes up to a restaurant owner when the place is closed and he's at a funeral to
>>>demand he open up for an inspection.
>>
>>
>>So when is a cyclist "closed" in an OOC test?
>
>
> Maybe when he's at a crematorium for a family member. How the hell should I
> know, it's your dumb metaphor.
>
>
> Ron
Define "family?" What about at his niece's funeral? First cousin?
Grandmother's funeral? Brother-in-law? Best friend? This list can get
into the hundreds of days that would be barred if you start getting into
weddings, honeymoons, graduations, etc.
Think before you post.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
>>One more fucking time for you retards: CYCLISTS AGREED TO BE SURPRISE
>>TESTED 365 DAYS OUT OF THE YEAR WHEN THEY TOOK OUT THEIR UCI LICENSE.
>
>
> One more time for you, there is no reason that these tests must be administered
> in an inhuman and abusive manner. There just isn't. It doesn't make for a better
> or more reliable test.
>
> Ron
I don't consider testing someone at a crematorium to be either
"inhumane" nor "abusive."
Because if you look at hos the policy is written...it goes like this:
1) Athletes can be tested 365 days out of the year.
2) The courier nor the athhlete has any discretion to delay the testing
once the athlete is located.
Given that policy, how do you propose enforcing your ambiguous
hypothetical rule that relies on nebulous adjectives that mean different
things to different people and given the fact that the courier has no
discretion to make that call?
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Well now let me reply. The cop CAN stop you and give you a ticket on
the way to the crematorium. That's the correct answer.
The correct analogy with a cop and drug tester is does the cop have a
right to pull you over on your way to the funeral or crematorium? And
the answer is yes.
Issuing a ticket is a whole different matter. In Van Impe's case, he
was simply pulled over, not given a ticket (ticket = positive test).
Either way, the cop can pull you over AND give you a ticket. So I don't
understand what your point is in talking in such nebulous terms.
You failed to state to me what the drug courier should have done
differently.
Magilla
Bill C
>
> Yes, I'm aware that there are some (or even many) employers that have such
> requirements in their employment contracts. I would say that "most" is a very large
> stretch, however. In my circle of friends (who are employed in a huge variety of
> professions) very few have such requirements.
>
> The only time I've ever had such a stipulation made in employment I told them that
> I would not abide by that and that only if they had some valid suspicion of my using
> drugs would I take a test. The funny thing was that within an hour of my starting
> work there, I spotted someone who was obviously a meth user. This was confirmed by
> another employee.
>
> > Not that I was defending Kween's Kounsel.
>
> That goes without saying.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Whatever happened to
> Leon Trotsky?
> He got an icepick
> That made his ears burn.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Never knew Magilla had ambitions to own his own company town where
there's a monopoly on the job skills you happen to have.
Either you do what the monopoly tells you, you move, get a new
career, or starve.
TThe coal mines in Pa. were great at this. You lived in their houses,
shopped at their stores, did what they said, including voting because
they sent thugs into the booth with you to "help" you vote.
That would all be valid in Magilla's world since they chose to work
for those folks instead of say becoming aeronautical engineers. Maybe
the bike racers could just become roofers and take over the world.
Bill C
RicodJour
>
> You failed to state to me what the drug courier should have done
> differently.
Wait until van Impe was leaving the crematorium. What's his hurry?
He's paid by the hour - and you're apparently paid by the word.
R
RicodJour
>
> I don't consider testing someone at a crematorium to be either
> "inhumane" nor "abusive."
How are _you_ fit to determine what is humane or abusive? You're a
whiney troll, so you automatically fail on both counts.
R
Amit Ghosh
> That would all be valid in Magilla's world since they chose to work
> for those folks instead of say becoming aeronautical engineers. Maybe
> the bike racers could just become roofers and take over the world.
dumbass,
stop rolling out that folklore. in this decade most pro cyclists had
better choices than working in a coal mine or some other totally
shitty existence. so that alone isn't enough to rationalize cheating
(which is what you are doing).
tyler hamilton for instance has an economics degree from the
university of colorado. if you tracked down his classmates many of
them are probably making over $100,000/yr.
but when got busted he was on TV winning gold medals and making maybe
over a million riding for phonak.
MagillaGorilla
The contract that Van Impe signed says he agreed to be tested 365 days
out of the year. The question you pose is simply not relevant.
Somehow, you think you can inject these nebulous standards that employ
adjectives into the equation when you can't.
There are no "abusive" or "inhumane" days to not test a pro cyclist
because the rules say 365 days a year is fair game. So what is the point
of your question given such a policy - a policy Van Impe agreed to abide by?
Do me a favor: go ask a cop - any cop - if he can give you a ticket on
your way to a funeral, wedding, graduation, or the birth of your child
....and he will tell you:
"I can give you a ticket any fucking day of the year no matter when it
is or where you are going or coming from."
And the reason for this is because the safety of OTHER people on the
road is not contingent on what's going on in YOUR little fucking world.
And likewise, the purpose of dope testing is to make it a fair playing
field for OTHER riders, which is likewise not dependent on any riders
little fucking world of personal tragedies, which knowing cyclists,
would last about 50 days out of the year if they could be the one who
define that term. Besides, van Imple's child was already dead at the
time he was dope tested. What you are talking about is some kind of
rule that would ban testing when the athlete is grieving. How long
would this "grieving" period last? 3 days, 2 weeks, 2 months?
Once again, you fail to realize that you could never write the details
of these exceptions into a policy.
But your question is irrelevant. Do you think OOC testing should be
determined by how each and every courier PERSONALLY defines the term
"inhumane" or "abusive?"
You people are stupid. You are dumb as a sack of rocks.
Magilla
Dan Gregory
>
> Do me a favor: go ask a cop - any cop - if he can give you a ticket on
> your way to a funeral, wedding, graduation, or the birth of your child
> .....and he will tell you:
>
> "I can give you a ticket any fucking day of the year no matter when it
> is or where you are going or coming from."
Only if you're breaking the law.
Except I guess Magillaland would be a police state where that wouldn't
be necessary.
Bill C
Dude talk about combining unlike elements! WTF does there only being
one place to race bicycles professionally have to do with doping.
Totally seperate issues.
You're right that it's absolutely no excuse for doping. This was
about the way cyclists are treated, and their lack of viable options
in THAT profession.
Cycling absolutely needs to do testing and enforcement, but in a
reasonable, negotiated, totally transparent manner where ALL the
parties have credible input and there is independent outside review.
That way when someone is tagged they can whine all the want, but if
the system works noone will be listening.
I'm sorry that my support for reasonable treatment of working folks
annoys you so much. In this situation the riders have little to no
power, and that needs to be addressed and balanced. Not giving them a
free pass, or putting them in charge, which would be equally as bad,
but giving them a valid stake in making this work well.
Commie Bill C
MagillaGorilla
Couple things for you, punk boy:
1) How is waiting until he left the crematorium really any differennt
than doing it quickly and getting over considering it was the whole
grief angle you are really pushing with the crematorium thing anyway,
and not the fact that he is in the middle of doing "something."
2) The dope couriers don't have all day to wait and have other athletes
to test, other things to do such as mail the samle. So waiting 2 hours
is not an option. If the courier had to wait 2-3 hours (or more) for
each athlete, they would never get their job done.
3) Let's say the dope tester showed up at 2 p.m . and Van Impe told him
to wait to 5 p.m....but the courier declined because waiting would mean
the urine sample would not make it out in time for next day arrival with
overnnight shipping, thus compromising the integrity of the sample for
testing. Do you think the courier wants to be the center of attention
in a doping case where the athlete is alleging his positive urine test
was due to contamination for sitting at room temperature for 24 hours
instead of being shipped overnight delivery? (i.e. an argument which
Jeanson asserted in her case, alleging her EPO positive was caused by
bacterial contamination due to a lack of refrigeration during
transportation)
Listen to me. WADA already thought of these things which is why they
have hav the policy they do and tell their couriers they will be fired
if they allow the athlete to delay the collection of the sample for even
10 minutes.
4) If you allow riders to delay testing, they can take masking agents,
IV infusions, or water to dilute their urine, or get ahold of some other
test-defeating method or substance (i.e. laundry detergent which
interferes with the EPO test). That's why once the courier makes eye
contact with the athlete, they are never suppose to let them out of
their sight until the sample is collected, let alone "come back in 2 hours."
-------------
So I applaud the courier who followed the rules. The courier was not
even responsible for picking Van Impe for OOC testing nor the day he was
to be tested.
But obviously you are too goddamn stupid to think of these sound reasons
because you, like most of the idiots in here, are only capable of
thinking like someone with a 900 SAT score would think.
MagillaGorilla
> On Mar 23, 10:51 am, Amit Ghosh <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 23, 10:02 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> That would all be valid in Magilla's world since they chose to work
>>>for those folks instead of say becoming aeronautical engineers. Maybe
>>>the bike racers could just become roofers and take over the world.
>>
>>dumbass,
>>
>>stop rolling out that folklore. in this decade most pro cyclists had
>>better choices than working in a coal mine or some other totally
>>shitty existence. so that alone isn't enough to rationalize cheating
>>(which is what you are doing).
>>
>>tyler hamilton for instance has an economics degree from the
>>university of colorado. if you tracked down his classmates many of
>>them are probably making over $100,000/yr.
>>
>>but when got busted he was on TV winning gold medals and making maybe
>>over a million riding for phonak.
>
>
> Dude talk about combining unlike elements! WTF does there only being
> one place to race bicycles professionally have to do with doping.
> Totally seperate issues.
> You're right that it's absolutely no excuse for doping. This was
> about the way cyclists are treated, and their lack of viable options
> in THAT profession.
> Commie Bill C
So you are telling me you "negotiate" all the laws and rules on the
books in your state, county, and at your workplace....or are they simply
dictated to you?
Once you answer this question correctly, you will realize that cyclists
are treated no differently than anyone else in the world.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Wrong, a cop can give you a ticket for whatever he wants - whether you
are actually breaking the law or not is not relevant.
It might be relevant in court, but not at the time he issues the ticket.
Now you people have to resort to lying (about irrelevant items) to
somehow try to make a point in the Van Impe case that is not even clear
what the hell it is you are trying to even insinuate.
You still haven't told me what the urine courier did wrong in the Van
Impe case other than by trying to make some kind of non sequiter analogy.
Magilla
Bill C
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dude we're talking workplace conditions. Those are negotiated. The
laws are what they are, and if you don't think those are actually
negotiated too, you are clueless.
Unions - The people who brought you the weekend.
Wada and the UCI are NOT police forces, they have NO law enforcement
powers so why bring LAWS into this? Those are enforced by the police,
and I haven't seen too many cyclists being locked up for violating
them.
Apples and pumpkins dude.
Bill C
Amit Ghosh
> A reminder, nonetheless: all the riders are presumed not to violate the
> rules. Presumed to be non guilty. Well, yes, that's how the rules read.
> But the practice is the opposite.
that's what you keep saying, but what backs this up ?
you claim that the system is biased towards finding athletes guilty. i
know what you will say about how the CAS panel is composed, but can
you show me any data or any inkling of evidence that guility athletes
are being improperly suspended ?
the athletes that are being implicated in doping scandals are guility.
a small percentage admit to it and accept a penalty and a large
fraction deny it and cast doubt on the doping control system and
perhaps years later admit they were doping (virenque, jeanson).
this van impe incident was the first of it's kind out of the thousands
of OOC tests that get administered, but i don't think it justifies
changing the rules to create opportunities for athletes to subvert the
system.
like i said if privacy is to trump OOC testing it might as well be
scrapped.
in fact since autologous blood doping isn't detectable all testing
should be scrapped, since tests will only catch dumb riders and low
level riders who can't afford the test doping schemes.
MagillaGorilla
> On Mar 23, 11:32 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Bill C wrote:
>>So you are telling me you "negotiate" all the laws and rules on the
>>books in your state, county, and at your workplace....or are they simply
>>dictated to you?
>>
>>Once you answer this question correctly, you will realize that cyclists
>>are treated no differently than anyone else in the world.
>>
>>Magilla
>
> Dude we're talking workplace conditions. Those are negotiated. The
> laws are what they are, and if you don't think those are actually
> negotiated too, you are clueless.
> Unions - The people who brought you the weekend.
> Wada and the UCI are NOT police forces, they have NO law enforcement
> powers so why bring LAWS into this? Those are enforced by the police,
> and I haven't seen too many cyclists being locked up for violating
> them.
> Apples and pumpkins dude.
> Bill C
And are you implying cyclists didn't have the right to negotiate their
employment terms? Who stopped cyclists from forming a union or
petitioning the federation or WADA or staging a boycott or a picket line?
Answer: Nobody.
So when you say cyclists didn't negotiate, that's their own fucking
fault and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever because nobody
prevented them from doing it.
Nobody said the UCI/WADA are the police either. What is your point of
saying that? If a cyclist violates a UCI/WADA rule they are kicked out
of the UCI, just like you can be kicked out of the Boy Scouts for being
gay or an atheist.
Carl Sundquist
(This is not a trick question) Do you have a link to courier protocol? I
find the 10 minute rule hard to believe.
Kurgan Gringioni
>
> And are you implying cyclists didn't have the right to negotiate their
> employment terms? Who stopped cyclists from forming a union or
> petitioning the federation or WADA or staging a boycott or a picket line?
>
> Answer: Nobody.
>
> So when you say cyclists didn't negotiate, that's their own fucking
> fault
<snip>
Dumbass -
That is correct, but throw in the UCI too.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Donald Munro
> Wrong, a cop can give you a ticket for whatever he wants - whether you are
> actually breaking the law or not is not relevant.
>
> It might be relevant in court, but not at the time he issues the ticket.
There might be some repercusions for the cop if he makes a habit of
issuing wrongful tickets. OTOH perhaps not in the US where cops can get
away with murder.
Sandy
news:fd885e54-378e-4c0b...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com,
Amit Ghosh <amit....@gmail.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> you claim that the system is biased towards finding athletes guilty. i
> know what you will say about how the CAS panel is composed, but can
> you show me any data or any inkling of evidence that guility athletes
> are being improperly suspended ?
I have often had to be patient with shoe sized IQ's, so I will extend that
courtesy to you and your simian brethren.
One (a rather large portion of mankind, excluding you, et alii) does not go
about life presuming everyone around is violating the social contract.
Remember 5th grade (perhaps last year)? Kids take a lot of tests, and they
are designed to diagnose, not to inculpate. Let's say in a class of 20
bright students, 18 get all answers right to a test of 50 questions. Under
your scenario, 17 were cheating by receiving, and 1 one cheating by giving
correct answers sub rosa.
I don't think anyone here expects that cheating never occurs under such
circumstances, but few will come to the conclusion that all were cheating.
Most will believe that talented students get right answers most of the time.
But under your and UCI's and WADA's operating principles, all 18 are
presumed to have cheated, will be suspended indefinitely, will have prior
exams re-examined, will have their overall veracity impugned, and the two
less talented will be honored as the "true champions."
Funny how it is just as likely that the weaker students were the ones
cheating, especially if they got the same answers wrong. But in
your/UCI/WADA scenario, they are less suspect, even if tested. We will all
take a few minutes to see if that lightbulb suddenly switches on over your
head .................. How did that feel?
>
> the athletes that are being implicated in doping scandals are guility.
I suggest you read and re-read that sentence several times over in order to
capture the illogic presented. Go ahead. Another few minutes ..........
Come back for refresher lessons when needed.
--
Sandy
Ce n'est pas que j'ai peur de la mort.
Je veux seulement ne pas être là
quand elle arrivera.
Amit Ghosh
> But under your and UCI's and WADA's operating principles, all 18 are
> presumed to have cheated, will be suspended indefinitely, will have prior
> exams re-examined, will have their overall veracity impugned, and the two
> less talented will be honored as the "true champions."
dumbass,
you are totally fucking nuts.
the criteria for riders who are implicated in doping cases are the
ones who have: failed A and B tests, been caught with doping products
(frigo, festina) or been caught collaborating in some doping scheme
(sevilla, basso, diluca, ullrich).
riders who aren't implicated in a scandal aren't presumed guilty.
Tom Kunich
>
> The contract that Van Impe signed says he agreed to be tested 365 days out
> of the year. The question you pose is simply not relevant.
The fact is that he couldn't follow his chosen profession unless he signed
that. That's what is known as coercion but then you're one of those who
believe that coercion is good except when it's used against you.
Tom Kunich
news:9a639afe-52e2-472a...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> tyler hamilton for instance has an economics degree from the
> university of colorado. if you tracked down his classmates many of
> them are probably making over $100,000/yr.
I would be interested in knowing what an economics degree guarantees
someone. By all means tell us what position in what sort of company would
accept an economics degree.
Bob Schwartz
> you claim that the system is biased towards finding athletes guilty. i
> know what you will say about how the CAS panel is composed, but can
> you show me any data or any inkling of evidence that guility athletes
> are being improperly suspended ?
>
> the athletes that are being implicated in doping scandals are guility.
> a small percentage admit to it and accept a penalty and a large
> fraction deny it and cast doubt on the doping control system and
> perhaps years later admit they were doping (virenque, jeanson).
There have been multiple documented incidents of athletes suspended
because of false positive EPO tests. A test that WADA knew had
problems.
Once that happened it was up to the athlete to provide evidence of
the false positive. This is not cheap. A few did it. How many
evaluated the value of a 12k dreamer career as a professional
athlete and just walked away? But these are people that no one
cares about, so no one gives a shit.
In order to convict Bergman they had to change the standards after
the offense but before the hearing. WTF is up with that? But he
did it so no one gives a shit.
When Muehlegg and Luzutina lost their Olympic skiing medals it was
because of a series of events that would have been thrown out in a
criminal court as entrapment. Would they have committed the offense
if WADA had been honest about developing the test? Does anyone care?
No one is crying for them because they did it. But trust in the
system is a casualty. Pound never gave a shit, no one gives a shit.
But if you would ask me if I had complete faith in WADA's ability
to always get it right, I would have to say fuck no.
It is really pretty clear that the system is biased towards finding
athletes guilty. And I would bet the house that there are a few
false positives in with all those guilty, lying dopers.
Bob Schwartz
Kyle Legate
Actually, a failed A test only is presumed guilty and the B test is only
a formality, available for repeated testing if need be until the result
agrees with the A test.
Just ask Iban Mayo.
Bill C
>
> And are you implying cyclists didn't have the right to negotiate their
> employment terms? Who stopped cyclists from forming a union or
> petitioning the federation or WADA or staging a boycott or a picket line?
>
> Answer: Nobody.
>
> So when you say cyclists didn't negotiate, that's their own fucking
> fault and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever because nobody
> prevented them from doing it.
Here we agree. The cyclists have been gutless. You've probably missed
my making about the same comment. It's still a monopoly though with no
alternative employment in their career field.
>
> Nobody said the UCI/WADA are the police either. What is your point of
> saying that? If a cyclist violates a UCI/WADA rule they are kicked out
> of the UCI, just like you can be kicked out of the Boy Scouts for being
> gay or an atheist.
>
> Think before you post.
>
> Magilla- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Again, it's a monopoly. Microsoft is getting killed for much less
nasty practices by the Euro courts. The riders are locked into a
system with incredibly limited labor protections. Having lived in
Europe I'm absolutely amazed that this hasn't become a "labor" issue
given how prevalent and militant the labor folks are at least in
Germany, and seemed to me in France. The protections provided to
workers in law was amazing to me having come from the US where there
is massively less protection, and protectionism. I just have been
totally unable to reconcile the racer situation with the folks who
worked at the Opel plant in K-town, or at the University there, or for
the US forces. They had amazing protections and guarantees both as to
protection from being released/layed off/fired, and the treatment by
employers.
It seems that those same laws aren't applied to cyclists, and I have
no idea why. I would have no problem at all if they scrapped Wada, and
CAS and all the appeals, working conditions, and testing had to meet,
and be open to review in the civil/labor court system.
To sum it up the racers have been gutless, and deserve a lot of what
they are getting. They are locked into a monoply with it's own quasi-
justice system. They have NOT been protected, that I can see, the same
as other folks working in the Euro system by the courts. That could be
their fault to somewhat for not screaming loud enough, but when there
are no other options being blackballed is a huge threat.
The whole system is still broken, and bringing it in under Euro wide
labor standards would probably be a huge start towards cleaning the
mess up.
Bill C
Bill C
Amit Ghosh
> I would be interested in knowing what an economics degree guarantees
> someone. By all means tell us what position in what sort of company would
> accept an economics degree.
dumbass,
who said anything about guarantees.
it's obvious you don't know shit. most bankers, accountants, actuaries
start with an econ. degree before pursuing a postgrad degree or
professional designation.
Tom Kunich
news:voyFj.1808$LV5...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
> Amit Ghosh wrote:
>> you claim that the system is biased towards finding athletes guilty. i
>> know what you will say about how the CAS panel is composed, but can
>> you show me any data or any inkling of evidence that guility athletes
>> are being improperly suspended ?
>>
>> the athletes that are being implicated in doping scandals are guility.
>> a small percentage admit to it and accept a penalty and a large
>> fraction deny it and cast doubt on the doping control system and
>> perhaps years later admit they were doping (virenque, jeanson).
>
> There have been multiple documented incidents of athletes suspended
> because of false positive EPO tests. A test that WADA knew had
> problems.
>
> Once that happened it was up to the athlete to provide evidence of
> the false positive. This is not cheap. A few did it. How many
> evaluated the value of a 12k dreamer career as a professional
> athlete and just walked away? But these are people that no one
> cares about, so no one gives a shit.
Well certainly no one claiming to be a Liberal and employed as a college
professor or other civil service who is guaranteed employment after he
reaches tenure may teach anything he likes including treason without
hindrance of college rules.
Strange that these same sort of people despise working people who would
prefer to have a say in their own treatment.
Tom Kunich
> On Mar 23, 3:17 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> I would be interested in knowing what an economics degree guarantees
>> someone. By all means tell us what position in what sort of company would
>> accept an economics degree.
>
So what you meant was that a degree in economics actually means little to
nothing in employment?
> it's obvious you don't know shit. most bankers, accountants, actuaries
> start with an econ. degree before pursuing a postgrad degree or
> professional designation.
How about this - three of my cousins are bank presidents. None of them had a
degree in economics.
Andrew Price
wrote:
[---]
>A contract for drug testing would never be voided by a court of law.
In the U.S.A., maybe.
>An
>examle of contractual terms that would be voided are contracts that
>violate the federal law for minimum wage, or contracts that violate
>superseding state law in regulated businesses and professions.
In the U.S.A.
>The cycling rule for 365 day-a-year testing would never be voided by a
>court. Never.
What is the applicable law in van Impe's contract?
Amit Ghosh
> > who said anything about guarantees.
>
> So what you meant was that a degree in economics actually means little to
> nothing in employment?
stop being a fucking retard.
RonSonic
>RonSonic wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:33:18 -0400, MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hobbes@spnb&s.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>as mentioned in the other thread about this subject there are many
>>>>>"real-life" situations where there are analogies. restaurant
>>>>>inspectors don't announce their visits and there are other professions
>>>>>where there are surprise checks because knowing about an audit would
>>>>>allow you to conceal a fraud.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Surprise audits and inspections happen to people when they're at work. Nobody
>>>>goes up to a restaurant owner when the place is closed and he's at a funeral to
>>>>demand he open up for an inspection.
>>>
>>>
>>>So when is a cyclist "closed" in an OOC test?
>>
>>
>> Maybe when he's at a crematorium for a family member. How the hell should I
>> know, it's your dumb metaphor.
>>
>>
>> Ron
>
>
>Define "family?" What about at his niece's funeral? First cousin?
>Grandmother's funeral? Brother-in-law? Best friend? This list can get
>into the hundreds of days that would be barred if you start getting into
>weddings, honeymoons, graduations, etc.
I'll make it fucking simple, send out decent, intelligent people to do the
testing with enough authority to judge the situation for themselves. If they
can't be trusted to do that then they're unqualified anyway.
Honest ape, your philosophy of trying to define every formal arrangement as
minutely and legalistically as possible has reductio'd off the slippery slope
into absurdum.
Ron
Sandy
news:7d657db5-b955-4098...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
You forgot to pause to allow for understanding.
Try again.
But I'll offer another example.
There are drivers on the road who abuse alcohol and thus violate the law.
Not all drunk drivers are caught.
Not all drivers are drunk (to the consternation of Ryan Cousineau, our
fearless leader, or is that feckless - sorry for the English).
To properly permit a police officer to select a person to test for this
violation, there is to be a minimal, be it slim, preliminary observation by
the cop that a driver is likely impaired, usually the inept conduct of the
vehicle.
Read the exercise again .........
Next week we try for the "open bottle" violation, or do you want to have a
go on your own?
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <fs233l$ip6$1...@aioe.org>,
> > MagillaGorilla <mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Answer my question about the cop giving a ticket to Vam Impe on the way
> >>to the crematorium. Do you think driving safety of other people on the
> >>road should be contingent on whether the driver is driving to a funeral,
> >>birthday, or wedding?
> >
> >
> > I answered it, and you fizzled.
> >
> > For the hard of hearing. Patrol officers assess the drivers they
> > stop and determine their course of action on the spot. They are
> > the sheriff, judge, jury, and executioner. Most of them do it well.
>
>
> Well now let me reply. The cop CAN stop you and give you a ticket on
> the way to the crematorium. That's the correct answer.
>
> The correct analogy with a cop and drug tester is does the cop have a
> right to pull you over on your way to the funeral or crematorium? And
> the answer is yes.
>
> Issuing a ticket is a whole different matter. In Van Impe's case, he
> was simply pulled over, not given a ticket (ticket = positive test).
>
> Either way, the cop can pull you over AND give you a ticket. So I don't
> understand what your point is in talking in such nebulous terms.
>
> You failed to state to me what the drug courier should have done
> differently.
Your metaphor; you get to say it means whatever you want
it to mean. It was a rhetorical question was it not?
Good luck with the anger management class.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
>
> > On Mar 23, 9:56 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>You failed to state to me what the drug courier should have done
> >>differently.
> >
> >
> > Wait until van Impe was leaving the crematorium. What's his hurry?
> > He's paid by the hour - and you're apparently paid by the word.
>
>
> Couple things for you, punk boy:
>
> 1) How is waiting until he left the crematorium really any differennt
> than doing it quickly and getting over considering it was the whole
> grief angle you are really pushing with the crematorium thing anyway,
> and not the fact that he is in the middle of doing "something."
>
> 2) The dope couriers don't have all day to wait and have other athletes
> to test, other things to do such as mail the samle. So waiting 2 hours
> is not an option. If the courier had to wait 2-3 hours (or more) for
> each athlete, they would never get their job done.
Since VI registered his schedule with the piss police,
they had the choice of when to collect a sample. They
chose. Your argument is cooked.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> wrote:
> And likewise, the purpose of dope testing is to make it a fair playing
> field for OTHER riders,
The OTHER riders are working as hard as they can to gain
an unfair advantage. Those that aren't get spit out the
back. This ain't T-ball for the under-tens.
And by the way, the under-tens are working as hard a they
can to get an unfair advantage on their soi-disant peers,
and so are their parents.
I have not noticed you abiding by principles of fair play
in these conversations. What are you on?
--
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla
It's obviously not 10 minutes because it might take longer to get a
urine sample from someone who is dehydrated. But they are not suppose
to let you leave their sight.
Magilla
Amit Ghosh
> The protections provided to
> workers in law was amazing to me having come from the US where there
> is massively less protection, and protectionism. I just have been
> totally unable to reconcile the racer situation with the folks who
> worked at the Opel plant in K-town, or at the University there, or for
> the US forces. They had amazing protections and guarantees both as to
> protection from being released/layed off/fired, and the treatment by
> employers.
> It seems that those same laws aren't applied to cyclists, and I have
> no idea why.
dumbass,
that is because there isn't the belief (even amongst cyclists) that
the conditions they are subject to are unfair.
all the systems we are talking about have been put into place to
prevent cheating, not screw over athletes. you say riders are getting
screwed over, but you cannot even give me one good example where that
has happened.
it is your crush on charismatic athletes that makes you feel the
system is unfair. none of you assholes can see how biased you are.
i keep hearing about how unfair things are for leipheimer or horner,
but i don't see anyone standing up for uncharismatic riders like tammy
thomas or michael rasmussen.