MTB league bans caffeine for High School athletes

[[email protected]]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/feb08/feb28news2

How are they going to learn?

[Michael Baldwin]

article text;

The League cited a study by Dr. Richard Stein, director of preventative
cardiology at New York's Beth Israel Medical Center and a representative
for the American Heart Association. said, "What five years ago was
considered outrageous doses of caffeine is now well within the range of
expected doses. We will soon find out the effects of prolonged usage in
high doses starting at an early age. In the past, that's always been a
formula for poor health and mental outcomes." Research has not yet
determined what are safe amounts of caffeine intake for young people.

...if there was a single reference to _PARENT_ in this entire piece I
missed it...

Here's the bottom line. Behind the fluff of good intentions we just have
another study that enables parents to remain their childrens best
friends.

"I'm sorry Hunter," says dad as he downs his Starbucks adding, "but
there's a study that suggests a six pack of Monster for breakfast isn't
good for you, it's not my fault you can't have it"

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Mar 1, 6:26*am, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> article text;
>
> The League cited a study by Dr. Richard Stein, director of preventative
> cardiology at New York's Beth Israel Medical Center and a representative
> for the American Heart Association. said, "What five years ago was
> considered outrageous doses of caffeine is now well within the range of
> expected doses. We will soon find out the effects of prolonged usage in
> high doses starting at an early age. In the past, that's always been a
> formula for poor health and mental outcomes." Research has not yet
> determined what are safe amounts of caffeine intake for young people.
>
> ..if there was a single reference to _PARENT_ in this entire piece I
> missed it...



Retard -


No one ever claimed there was a reference to PARENT.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[Michael Baldwin]

>Mike Baldwin wrote - if there was a single reference
>to _PARENT_ in this entire piece I missed it...
>
>Retard -
>No one ever claimed there was a reference to PARENT.
>thanks,
>K. Gringioni.

Grunge, I'll concede your editorial point. Your nit-picking has
surfaced an imperfection in my post.
It's true, "nobody" claimed PARENT was referenced in the article.
However since you chose to ignore the point of my post and instead
focus on semantics, then you must support the hands-off role of
parenting that's become so prevalent today.
I think your a bright, witty, intelligent person. Maybe you can
find fault in that statement as well.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

[[email protected]]

On Mar 1, 11:05 am, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:

> you must support the hands-off role of
> parenting that's become so prevalent today.

dumbass,

really ? i observe (at least in middle class families) that parents
are more meddling and try to micro-manage their kids lives. most kids'
schedules are booked solid by their parents and they try to mold the
rest of society so that it's safe and friendly for their kids.

> I think your a bright, witty, intelligent person. Maybe you can
> find fault in that statement as well.

you mean other than spelling ?

[Fred Fredburger[_3_]]

wrote:
> On Mar 1, 11:05 am, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
>
>> you must support the hands-off role of
>> parenting that's become so prevalent today.
>
> dumbass,
>
> really ? i observe (at least in middle class families) that parents
> are more meddling and try to micro-manage their kids lives. most kids'
> schedules are booked solid by their parents and they try to mold the
> rest of society so that it's safe and friendly for their kids.

I think the word "codependence" could be worked into this excellent
description.

>
>> I think your a bright, witty, intelligent person. Maybe you can
>> find fault in that statement as well.
>
> you mean other than spelling ?

May the wind be at your back ... oh wait, it apparently already is.

[Fred Fredburger[_3_]]

wrote:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/feb08/feb28news2
>
> How are they going to learn?

Hmm. Looks like JT's not around. I'll cover for him:

Won't someone PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!?!?

[Michael Baldwin]

>On Mar 1, 11:05 am, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
>you must support the hands-off role of
>parenting that's become so prevalent today.
>dumbass,
>really ? i observe (at least in middle class families)
>that parents are more meddling and try to micro-manage their
>kids lives. most kids' schedules are booked solid by their
>parents and they try to mold the rest of society
>so that it's safe and friendly for their kids.
>******I think your a bright, witty, intelligent person.
Maybe you
>can find fault in that statement as well.
>you mean other than spelling ?

...I cannot seem to shake that writing error, "your" for _you're_...but
when YOU'RE routinely labelled a dumbass & retard...BTW, the line forms
behind ME for those wanting to have a laugh at my expense...anyway,

Back on point now amit-ghosh. Have you asked "why" parents micro-manage
every aspect of their children's lives?
How's this? A recent (always omitted tax payer funded) study showed
"X" happens whenever "Y" occurs. Mom and Dad briefly discuss the study
during rush hour commutes in opposite directions via cell phones.
I think the study in question is focused on whether or not Hunter
should be suck'in down a RedBull to and from one sedentary moment to the
next.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Mar 1, 8:05*am, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> >Mike Baldwin wrote - if there was a single reference
> >to _PARENT_ in this entire piece I missed it...
>
> >Retard -
> >No one ever claimed there was a reference to PARENT.
> >thanks,
> >K. Gringioni.
>
> *Grunge, I'll concede your editorial point. *Your nit-picking has
> surfaced an imperfection in my post.
> * It's true, *"nobody" claimed PARENT was referenced in the article.
> * However since you chose to ignore the point of my post and *instead
> focus on semantics, then you must support the hands-off role of
> parenting that's become so prevalent today.
> * *I think your a bright, witty, *intelligent person. *Maybe you can
> find fault in that statement as well.



Retard -


I liked it better when you were losing your temper because I called
you a retard.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[Fred Fredburger[_3_]]

Michael Baldwin wrote:

> ..I cannot seem to shake that writing error, "your" for _you're_...but
> when YOU'RE routinely labelled a dumbass & retard...BTW, the line forms
> behind ME for those wanting to have a laugh at my expense...anyway,

Blessed are the thick skinned, for they have inherited RBR.

For some definition of the word "blessed", at least.

[Michael Baldwin]

>On Mar 1, 8:05*am, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
>Mike Baldwin wrote - if there was a single reference
>to _PARENT_ in this entire piece I missed it...
>Retard -
>No one ever claimed there was a reference to PARENT.
>thanks,
>K. Gringioni.
>*Grunge, I'll concede your editorial point. *Your nit-picking has
surfaced
>an imperfection in my post.
>* It's true, *"nobody" claimed PARENT was referenced in the
>article. * However since you chose to ignore the point
>of my post and *instead focus on semantics, then you
>must support the hands-off role of parenting that's become so
>prevalent today. * *I think your a bright, witty, *intelligent
>person. *Maybe you can find fault in that statement as
>well.
>Retard -
>I liked it better when you were losing your temper
>because I called you a retard.
>thanks,
>K. Gringioni.

...ah but you overlooked what amit-ghosh didn't...I miss spelled
_you're_ (your)...or were you being nice to me? XOXOXO's :)

I apologize for ruining your fun Grunge but like I said in another
thread, obviously sometimes I'm not strong enough either.

But back on point Grunge. Answer the charge. Do you support
hands-off, pass the buck, don't blame the parent blame society, modern
day excuses for a moms & dads?

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

[[email protected]]

On Mar 1, 1:36 pm, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> >On Mar 1, 11:05 am, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> >you must support the hands-off role of
> >parenting that's become so prevalent today.
> >dumbass,
> >really ? i observe (at least in middle class families)
> >that parents are more meddling and try to micro-manage their
> >kids lives. most kids' schedules are booked solid by their
> >parents and they try to mold the rest of society
> >so that it's safe and friendly for their kids.
> > I think your a bright, witty, intelligent person.
> Maybe you
> >can find fault in that statement as well.
> >you mean other than spelling ?
>
> ..I cannot seem to shake that writing error, "your" for _you're_...but
> when YOU'RE routinely labelled a dumbass & retard...BTW, the line forms
> behind ME for those wanting to have a laugh at my expense...anyway,
>
> Back on point now amit-ghosh. Have you asked "why" parents micro-manage
> every aspect of their children's lives?
> How's this? A recent (always omitted tax payer funded) study showed
> "X" happens whenever "Y" occurs. Mom and Dad briefly discuss the study
> during rush hour commutes in opposite directions via cell phones.
> I think the study in question is focused on whether or not Hunter
> should be suck'in down a RedBull to and from one sedentary moment to the
> next.

dumbass,

i cannot understand your crypto-crazy writing style. do you want to
restate it in plain english ?

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Mar 1, 12:41*pm, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> >On Mar 1, 8:05*am, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> >Mike Baldwin wrote - if there was a single reference
> >to _PARENT_ in this entire piece I missed it...
> >Retard -
> >No one ever claimed there was a reference to PARENT.
> >thanks,
> >K. Gringioni.
> >*Grunge, I'll concede your editorial point. *Your nit-picking has
> surfaced
> >an imperfection in my post.
> >* It's true, *"nobody" claimed PARENT was referenced in the
> >article. * However since you chose to ignore the point
> >of my post and *instead focus on semantics, then you
> >must support the hands-off role of parenting that's become so
> >prevalent today. * *I think your a bright, witty, *intelligent
> >person. *Maybe you can find fault in that statement as
> >well.
> >Retard -
> >I liked it better when you were losing your temper
> >because I called you a retard.
> >thanks,
> >K. Gringioni.
>
> ..ah but you overlooked what amit-ghosh didn't...I miss spelled
> _you're_ (your)...or were you being nice to me? XOXOXO's *:)
>
> * I apologize for ruining your fun Grunge but like I said in another
> thread, obviously sometimes I'm not strong enough either.
>
> * But back on point Grunge. *Answer the charge. *Do you support
> hands-off, pass the buck, don't blame the parent blame society, modern
> day excuses for a moms & dads?



Dumbass -


I don't have many opinions about parenting.

If people want to **** their kids up, let 'em.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[Fred Fredburger[_3_]]

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
> I don't have many opinions about parenting.
>
> If people want to **** their kids up, let 'em.

The human race has operated on precisely that principal for tens of
thousands of years. But it makes a ****-poor self-help book.

[Michael Baldwin]

amit-ghosh asks

>dumbass,
>i cannot understand your crypto-crazy writing style. do you want
>to restate it in plain english ?

No and Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

[[email protected]]

On Mar 1, 9:05*am, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
>
> * However since you chose to ignore the point of my post and *instead
> focus on semantics, then you must support the hands-off role of
> parenting that's become so prevalent today.

Please note that in RBR, the "However, you disagree
with me on minor point X, therefore you must support
strawmen A though F" argument is the exclusive
property of Koach Kunich. If you want to use it, you're
going to have to license it from him.

Sincerely,
Ben
RBR Patent Attorney

[[email protected]]

On Mar 1, 12:39*am, wrote:
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/feb08/feb28news2
>
> How are they going to learn?

While it does seem a little over the top (wot, no cans
of Coke on the premises?) they are not banning it
like a pee-test ban. They're just saying you can't
drink it at the race. It seems draconian and
probably not workable to enforce 100%, but on the
other hand I very much sympathize with their desire
not to become an implicit marketing tool for Red Bull
and similar fad drinks.

It's okay with me if those drinks sponsor adult events.
I'm not thinking of this in a "What about the CHILDREN???"
panic, but in the context that, for ex, my high school
didn't even have soda vending machines. (Except in
the teachers' lounge.) Selling sugar water to a captive
audience of minors has only become accepted
practice relatively recently.

Ben

[Howard Kveck]

In article >,
Fred Fredburger > wrote:

> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> >
> > I don't have many opinions about parenting.
> >
> > If people want to **** their kids up, let 'em.
>
> The human race has operated on precisely that principal for tens of
> thousands of years. But it makes a ****-poor self-help book.

No, it simply makes a very short self-help book and there's no money to be made
from one that's so simple that it can be summed up in a one line usenet post.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Michael Baldwin]

Ben informs Mike;

>Please note that in RBR, the "However, you disagree with
>me on minor point X, therefore you must support strawmen
>A though F" argument is the exclusive property of Koach
>Kunich. If you want to use it, you're going to
>have to license it from him.
>Sincerely,
>Ben
>RBR Patent Attorney

Mike informs Ben

I'm invoking the Clinton/China Fair Trade Agreement Article 69-1998 and
in doing so do not need to recognize any claim to intellectual
property and/or patent rights, sorry.

Best Regards -Mike Baldwin

PS - Please check out my new book on amazon.com, The Bicycle Reel.

[Fred Fredburger[_3_]]

Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article >,
> Fred Fredburger > wrote:
>
>> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>> I don't have many opinions about parenting.
>>>
>>> If people want to **** their kids up, let 'em.
>> The human race has operated on precisely that principal for tens of
>> thousands of years. But it makes a ****-poor self-help book.
>
> No, it simply makes a very short self-help book and there's no money to be made
> from one that's so simple that it can be summed up in a one line usenet post.
>

"no money to be made" = "bad"

Or are you some sort of communist?

[Howard Kveck]

In article >,
Fred Fredburger > wrote:

> Howard Kveck wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Fred Fredburger > wrote:
> >
> >> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> >>> I don't have many opinions about parenting.
> >>>
> >>> If people want to **** their kids up, let 'em.
> >> The human race has operated on precisely that principal for tens of
> >> thousands of years. But it makes a ****-poor self-help book.
> >
> > No, it simply makes a very short self-help book and there's no money to
> > be made from one that's so simple that it can be summed up in a one line usenet
> > post.
>
> "no money to be made" = "bad"

If you run a publishing house, yes. Unless you're running Regnery, the main
Wingnut Welfare publishing house.

> Or are you some sort of communist?

You're asking me?!?!?!?

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Michael Press]

In article >,
Fred Fredburger > wrote:

> Michael Baldwin wrote:
>
> > ..I cannot seem to shake that writing error, "your" for _you're_...but
> > when YOU'RE routinely labelled a dumbass & retard...BTW, the line forms
> > behind ME for those wanting to have a laugh at my expense...anyway,
>
> Blessed are the thick skinned, for they have inherited RBR.
>
> For some definition of the word "blessed", at least.

Blasted?

--
Michael Press

[Michael Press]

In article
>,
wrote:

> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/feb08/feb28news2
>
> How are they going to learn?

Is polio-weed still ok?

--
Michael Press

[Donald Munro]

Fred Fredburger wrote:
> Or are you some sort of communist?

Isn't it a rbr convention to add gay when calling someone liberal or
communist ?

[Fred Fredburger[_3_]]

Donald Munro wrote:
> Fred Fredburger wrote:
>> Or are you some sort of communist?
>
> Isn't it a rbr convention to add gay when calling someone liberal or
> communist ?
>

Whatever happened to the word "pinko"?

[Phil Holman]

"Kurgan Gringioni" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 1, 12:41 pm, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> >On Mar 1, 8:05 am, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> >Mike Baldwin wrote - if there was a single reference
> >to _PARENT_ in this entire piece I missed it...
> >Retard -
> >No one ever claimed there was a reference to PARENT.
> >thanks,
> >K. Gringioni.
> > Grunge, I'll concede your editorial point. Your nit-picking has
> surfaced
> >an imperfection in my post.
> > It's true, "nobody" claimed PARENT was referenced in the
> >article. However since you chose to ignore the point
> >of my post and instead focus on semantics, then you
> >must support the hands-off role of parenting that's become so
> >prevalent today. I think your a bright, witty, intelligent
> >person. Maybe you can find fault in that statement as
> >well.
> >Retard -
> >I liked it better when you were losing your temper
> >because I called you a retard.
> >thanks,
> >K. Gringioni.
>
> ..ah but you overlooked what amit-ghosh didn't...I miss spelled
> _you're_ (your)...or were you being nice to me? XOXOXO's :)
>
> I apologize for ruining your fun Grunge but like I said in another
> thread, obviously sometimes I'm not strong enough either.
>
> But back on point Grunge. Answer the charge. Do you support
> hands-off, pass the buck, don't blame the parent blame society, modern
> day excuses for a moms & dads?



>Dumbass -


>I don't have many opinions about parenting.

>If people want to **** their kids up, let 'em.


Interesting view point but lets flip it around into this rhetorical
question; if people don't want their kids to be f****d up, how can they
prevent it?

Phil H

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Mar 2, 1:43*pm, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
> "Kurgan Gringioni" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Mar 1, 12:41 pm, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > >On Mar 1, 8:05 am, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> > >Mike Baldwin wrote - if there was a single reference
> > >to _PARENT_ in this entire piece I missed it...
> > >Retard -
> > >No one ever claimed there was a reference to PARENT.
> > >thanks,
> > >K. Gringioni.
> > > Grunge, I'll concede your editorial point. Your nit-picking has
> > surfaced
> > >an imperfection in my post.
> > > It's true, "nobody" claimed PARENT was referenced in the
> > >article. However since you chose to ignore the point
> > >of my post and instead focus on semantics, then you
> > >must support the hands-off role of parenting that's become so
> > >prevalent today. I think your a bright, witty, intelligent
> > >person. Maybe you can find fault in that statement as
> > >well.
> > >Retard -
> > >I liked it better when you were losing your temper
> > >because I called you a retard.
> > >thanks,
> > >K. Gringioni.
>
> > ..ah but you overlooked what amit-ghosh didn't...I miss spelled
> > _you're_ (your)...or were you being nice to me? XOXOXO's :)
>
> > I apologize for ruining your fun Grunge but like I said in another
> > thread, obviously sometimes I'm not strong enough either.
>
> > But back on point Grunge. Answer the charge. Do you support
> > hands-off, pass the buck, don't blame the parent blame society, modern
> > day excuses for a moms & dads?
> >Dumbass -
> >I don't have many opinions about parenting.
> >If people want to **** their kids up, let 'em.
>
> Interesting view point but lets flip it around into this rhetorical
> question; if people don't want their kids to be f****d up, how can they
> prevent it?
>
> Phil H



Dumbass -


#1 thing: set a good example.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.