More USADA silliness

[Scott]

If you haven't yet, read the article at
http://velonews.com/race/mtn/articles/11309.0.html

What a complete waste of resources AND a damn shame to have harmed an
admittedly ex-competitive albeit not officially retired cyclist's
reputation!

Scott

[Bob Schwartz]

Scott wrote:
> If you haven't yet, read the article at
> http://velonews.com/race/mtn/articles/11309.0.html
>
> What a complete waste of resources AND a damn shame to have harmed an
> admittedly ex-competitive albeit not officially retired cyclist's
> reputation!

It's a shame and it's silly but the guy is brain dead. Not just
brain dead in one individual incident but consistently brain dead
over an extended period of time. And he is leaving stuff out of
the interview and misrepresenting other stuff in order to make
him look less brain dead. But he's extremely brain dead.

So I guess I don't have a lot of sympathy.

Bob Schwartz

[alan_atwood]

I disagree. This guy deserves better. He deserves better from a
general public that blindly listens to a nazi-like organization who
just treats everyone like a number and can't take the blinders off and
look at the big picture.

The more stories I see like this it makes me wonder why anyone would
take up competitive sport anymore. People shouldn't be treated like
this. The staple of our judicial system, innocent until proven guilty,
has completely reversed itself now; one is now guilty of everything
unless you can prove otherwise.

Just sad.

Alan

Bob Schwartz wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > If you haven't yet, read the article at
> > http://velonews.com/race/mtn/articles/11309.0.html
> >
> > What a complete waste of resources AND a damn shame to have harmed an
> > admittedly ex-competitive albeit not officially retired cyclist's
> > reputation!
>
> It's a shame and it's silly but the guy is brain dead. Not just
> brain dead in one individual incident but consistently brain dead
> over an extended period of time. And he is leaving stuff out of
> the interview and misrepresenting other stuff in order to make
> him look less brain dead. But he's extremely brain dead.
>
> So I guess I don't have a lot of sympathy.
>
> Bob Schwartz

[RonSonic]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 03:52:33 GMT, Bob Schwartz
> wrote:

>Scott wrote:
>> If you haven't yet, read the article at
>> http://velonews.com/race/mtn/articles/11309.0.html
>>
>> What a complete waste of resources AND a damn shame to have harmed an
>> admittedly ex-competitive albeit not officially retired cyclist's
>> reputation!
>
>It's a shame and it's silly but the guy is brain dead. Not just
>brain dead in one individual incident but consistently brain dead
>over an extended period of time. And he is leaving stuff out of
>the interview and misrepresenting other stuff in order to make
>him look less brain dead. But he's extremely brain dead.
>
>So I guess I don't have a lot of sympathy.

He's a dumbass bike racer. Only recently retired, or semi-retired.

There's no such excuse for the USADA.


Ron

[Bob Schwartz]

alan_atwood wrote:
> I disagree. This guy deserves better. He deserves better from a
> general public that blindly listens to a nazi-like organization who
> just treats everyone like a number and can't take the blinders off and
> look at the big picture.

Let's say Alan Atwood is racing and progressing through the
ranks. He reaches the point where he is eligible for things
like the Olympics and Worlds. And he earns an entry on the
list of people that could be required to take out-of-comp
dope tests.

Later he says 'I'm backing off, just chill.' So the USADA
takes him out of the out-of-comp lottery. But he's still
eligible for Worlds. He shows up later and he's totally
****ing radioactive, he's slaying everyone. He wants a
ticket to Worlds. What then? How about if you had a form
that says Alan's retired, which takes him off of the
out-of-comp list, but also means he's not eligible for the
Olympics or Worlds? And you make him take a 6 month waiting
period on the out-of-comp list before he is eligible again.
Does that sound reasonable?

It does to me.

They *told* this guy what to do to avoid this. He had a
really long time to address it. It's his own ****ing fault.
It is a harsh truth that the world is a difficult place
for idiots. When did he not learn that? Maybe him mom should
have taken care of it. Why isn't anyone blaming his mom?

> The more stories I see like this it makes me wonder why anyone would
> take up competitive sport anymore. People shouldn't be treated like
> this. The staple of our judicial system, innocent until proven guilty,
> has completely reversed itself now; one is now guilty of everything
> unless you can prove otherwise.

Let's say you are pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving.
You refuse to take a BAC test. What happens? Is it your mom's
fault?

Bob Schwartz

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

Bob Schwartz wrote:

> Let's say you are pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving.
> You refuse to take a BAC test. What happens?

Well... I then say guvmint ownership of roads is bull**** and some
knucklehead on rbr thinks that is "ironic" because I was driving on the
guvmint's roads, drunk or not.

> Is it your mom's fault?

I will kick your ass Saturday in El Cajon, just for mom's reputation.


Mortensen doesn't care about the stupid paperwork of the bureaucrats,
or his over-and-done-with cycling career. Nothing wrong with that. He
didn't anticipate the near term publicity consequences, which he did
care about. In the long run it is probably good for him -- the farther
he is driven from elite cycling, the better off he will be.

[Steve]

"RonSonic" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 03:52:33 GMT, Bob Schwartz
> > wrote:
>
> >Scott wrote:
> >> If you haven't yet, read the article at
> >> http://velonews.com/race/mtn/articles/11309.0.html
> >>
> >> What a complete waste of resources AND a damn shame to have harmed an
> >> admittedly ex-competitive albeit not officially retired cyclist's
> >> reputation!
> >
> >It's a shame and it's silly but the guy is brain dead. Not just
> >brain dead in one individual incident but consistently brain dead
> >over an extended period of time. And he is leaving stuff out of
> >the interview and misrepresenting other stuff in order to make
> >him look less brain dead. But he's extremely brain dead.
> >
> >So I guess I don't have a lot of sympathy.
>
> He's a dumbass bike racer. Only recently retired, or semi-retired.
>
> There's no such excuse for the USADA.
>
>
> Ron
>
The rider missed every chance to inform the USADA. He ignored them. He
deserves what he gets because there is no alternative. The anti xoping
agencies cannot accept excuses, it would be a slippery slope. Damm brutal
cold world that is out there for the unprotected.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
Bob Schwartz > wrote:

> alan_atwood wrote:
> > I disagree. This guy deserves better. He deserves better from a
> > general public that blindly listens to a nazi-like organization who
> > just treats everyone like a number and can't take the blinders off and
> > look at the big picture.
>
> Let's say Alan Atwood is racing and progressing through the
> ranks. He reaches the point where he is eligible for things
> like the Olympics and Worlds. And he earns an entry on the
> list of people that could be required to take out-of-comp
> dope tests.
>
> Later he says 'I'm backing off, just chill.' So the USADA
> takes him out of the out-of-comp lottery. But he's still
> eligible for Worlds. He shows up later and he's totally
> ****ing radioactive, he's slaying everyone. He wants a
> ticket to Worlds. What then? How about if you had a form
> that says Alan's retired, which takes him off of the
> out-of-comp list, but also means he's not eligible for the
> Olympics or Worlds? And you make him take a 6 month waiting
> period on the out-of-comp list before he is eligible again.
> Does that sound reasonable?
>
> It does to me.
>
> They *told* this guy what to do to avoid this. He had a
> really long time to address it. It's his own ****ing fault.
> It is a harsh truth that the world is a difficult place
> for idiots. When did he not learn that? Maybe him mom should
> have taken care of it. Why isn't anyone blaming his mom?

Okay Bob, good, sensible scenario.

Given the facts, would an appropriate penalty for dumb Alan be:

a) make him ineligible for all national or worlds events for 18 months
b) suspended from all competition for 6 months
c) suspended for 18 months, no...make it 2 years!

Remember, Dick Pound assures us there's enough flexibility in the
process that if Nazi Frogmen injected Alan with stupid serum, he
wouldn't get a 2-year ban.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[Donald Munro]

Steve wrote:
> The rider missed every chance to inform the USADA. He ignored them. He
> deserves what he gets because there is no alternative. The anti xoping
> agencies cannot accept excuses

But I love to xope.

[Donald Munro]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> Remember, Dick Pound assures us there's enough flexibility in the
> process that if Nazi Frogmen injected Alan with stupid serum, he
> wouldn't get a 2-year ban.

I want to buy some stupid serum so I can become supreme leader of rbr.

[Bob Schwartz]

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>
>> Let's say you are pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving.
>> You refuse to take a BAC test. What happens?
>
> Well... I then say guvmint ownership of roads is bull**** and some
> knucklehead on rbr thinks that is "ironic" because I was driving on the
> guvmint's roads, drunk or not.
>
>> Is it your mom's fault?
>
> I will kick your ass Saturday in El Cajon, just for mom's reputation.
>
>
> Mortensen doesn't care about the stupid paperwork of the bureaucrats,
> or his over-and-done-with cycling career. Nothing wrong with that. He
> didn't anticipate the near term publicity consequences, which he did
> care about. In the long run it is probably good for him -- the farther
> he is driven from elite cycling, the better off he will be.

How's this for irony? The Man tells him that all he has to do is
submit a form and The Man will go away and not bother him. That
simple. He can't be bothered to do that. And *you* are the guy
that defends him. Irony rocks!

Say, do you stop at stoplights on the guvmint's roads? Like the
rest of the sheep? Don't let me down Greg. We want to believe in
you.

Bob Schwartz

[[email protected]]

LOVE SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>
> > Let's say you are pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving.
> > You refuse to take a BAC test. What happens?
>
> Well... I then say guvmint ownership of roads is bull**** and some
> knucklehead on rbr thinks that is "ironic" because I was driving on the
> guvmint's roads, drunk or not.

Dumbass,

Many states now have laws that make it clear that drunk
driving on private property is also a DUI offense. Just
something to keep in mind next time you are doing
donuts on your neighbor's lawn (or mall parking lot)
while sticking your head out the window and yelling
"You can't touch me, jackbooted government thugs!"

Not Valid for Legal Tenderness,
Ben

[Howard Kveck]

In article >,
Bob Schwartz > wrote:

> Say, do you stop at stoplights on the guvmint's roads? Like the
> rest of the sheep? Don't let me down Greg. We want to believe in
> you.


A few years ago, there was a guy living up near Santa Rosa, Calif. who was so
adamantly anti-government that he made his own license plates to go on his car. The
car was an ancient junker anyway, so the fees would have been negligible, so the
cops just ignored him (well, at least on the issue of the plates).

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?