Betsy Keeps Pulling Lance's Short Hairs

una farrar wrote:

On Sep 12, 7:34*pm, Brad Anders wrote:
On Sep 12, 6:38*am, Magilla Gorilla wrote:

--D-y wrote:
Especially when you figure parents are probably supplying their high-
school football players with steroids, HGH, whatever else, and there
are crooked doctors out there helping the show along.

You really believe that parents give their children steroids? *C'mon. *You might
need to get your brain recalibrated.

I think it's you that needs a recalibration. This came from less than
15 seconds on a Google search, I'm sure I can find plenty mo

http://blog.4wallspublishing.com/201...rrently-unprev...

"News of juicing preps generated from Florida, Georgia, Virginia,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas,
Louisiana, Texas, Arizona, Utah, California, and more states. The teen
athletes mostly used steroids but also growth hormone, experts said.
In some instances football coaches and parents were identified as
illicit sources of the drugs. In other cases, no reported links to
teens, criminal charges for steroids and HGH were filed against
coaches, teachers, and a district board president."

"Parents regularly pestered pediatrician Dr. Bernie Griesemer in
Missouri, seeking HGH prescriptions for their athletic offspring, and
he was publicized as a critic of such doping. “Everybody thinks they
are going to retire on their children’s sports incomes,” Griesemer
told The New York Daily News. In Dallas, athletic trainer Ken Locker
knew of an 18-year-old football player who tested positive for
steroids as a college freshman. “The parents admitted giving it to
him,” Locker told The Morning News. “They wanted him to get a
scholarship.” Only one prep football player in 17 would play in the
NCAA, but many parents sought scholarships for their sons. One study
found about 10 percent of parents polled knew of PED use by a prep
athlete."

I'll say it again for the hundredth time - anyone who believes that
nailing LA is going to change anything is seriously deluded.

Brad Anders

Well, nailing Voet got us WADA, which came from French laws that
started when Simpson died. Some dead guys got us at least the hct
test. Nailing Johnson in 88 got us an international conference and an
agreement on anti-doping that was the stepping stone to WADA. We even
have two research groups that say they can identify gene doping, thru
grants from WADA. The first precedents for the passport nailed
Hamilton and stopped folks transfusing others blood.

Did you know that Dick Pound was Ben Johnson's lawyer? Yep, and he believed him at the
time.




What makes you think that nailing Armstrong won't lead to stronger
anti-doping laws, less complicit teams, and UCI officials that might
actually try to stop doping? Those would all be much more than what we
have now.

Nailing Pharmstrong will definitely be a face-smacking for a lot of dopers.

Magilla

Brad Anders wrote:

On Sep 13, 10:58*am, una farrar wrote:
On Sep 12, 7:34*pm, Brad Anders wrote:





On Sep 12, 6:38*am, Magilla Gorilla wrote:

--D-y wrote:
Especially when you figure parents are probably supplying their high-
school football players with steroids, HGH, whatever else, and there
are crooked doctors out there helping the show along.

You really believe that parents give their children steroids? *C'mon. *You might
need to get your brain recalibrated.

I think it's you that needs a recalibration. This came from less than
15 seconds on a Google search, I'm sure I can find plenty mo

http://blog.4wallspublishing.com/201...rrently-unprev...

"News of juicing preps generated from Florida, Georgia, Virginia,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas,
Louisiana, Texas, Arizona, Utah, California, and more states. The teen
athletes mostly used steroids but also growth hormone, experts said.
In some instances football coaches and parents were identified as
illicit sources of the drugs. In other cases, no reported links to
teens, criminal charges for steroids and HGH were filed against
coaches, teachers, and a district board president."

"Parents regularly pestered pediatrician Dr. Bernie Griesemer in
Missouri, seeking HGH prescriptions for their athletic offspring, and
he was publicized as a critic of such doping. “Everybody thinks they
are going to retire on their children’s sports incomes,” Griesemer
told The New York Daily News. In Dallas, athletic trainer Ken Locker
knew of an 18-year-old football player who tested positive for
steroids as a college freshman. “The parents admitted giving it to
him,” Locker told The Morning News. “They wanted him to get a
scholarship.” Only one prep football player in 17 would play in the
NCAA, but many parents sought scholarships for their sons. One study
found about 10 percent of parents polled knew of PED use by a prep
athlete."

I'll say it again for the hundredth time - anyone who believes that
nailing LA is going to change anything is seriously deluded.

Brad Anders

Well, nailing Voet got us WADA, which came from French laws that
started when Simpson died. *Some dead guys got us at least the hct
test. *Nailing Johnson in 88 got us an international conference and an
agreement on anti-doping that was the stepping stone to WADA. *We even
have two research groups that say they can identify gene doping, thru
grants from WADA. *The first precedents for the passport nailed
Hamilton and stopped folks transfusing others blood.

It also got us a pro cycling sport that's almost out of sponsors, a
smaller calendar due to canceled races, a massive decline in fan
interest, and a general belief (unfounded, IMO), that pro cyclists are
the biggest dopers in pro sports.

What makes you think that nailing Armstrong won't lead to stronger
anti-doping laws, less complicit teams, and UCI officials that might
actually try to stop doping? Those would all be much more than what we
have now.

Because the rewards of doping will still outweigh the risks. Nailing
LA won't change that at all. Hell, it might even reinforce to people
that dope will help you gain wealth and fame.

Brad Anders

Nailing LA will be a plus. Don't deny it.

Magilla

In article ,
Magilla Gorilla wrote:

Brad Anders wrote:

On Sep 12, 6:38*am, Magilla Gorilla wrote:
--D-y wrote:
Especially when you figure parents are probably supplying their high-
school football players with steroids, HGH, whatever else, and there
are crooked doctors out there helping the show along.

You really believe that parents give their children steroids? *C'mon.
*You might
need to get your brain recalibrated.

I think it's you that needs a recalibration. This came from less than
15 seconds on a Google search, I'm sure I can find plenty mo

http://blog.4wallspublishing.com/201...-unpreventable
-in-highschool-football.aspx

"News of juicing preps generated from Florida, Georgia, Virginia,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas,
Louisiana, Texas, Arizona, Utah, California, and more states. The teen
athletes mostly used steroids but also growth hormone, experts said.
In some instances football coaches and parents were identified as
illicit sources of the drugs. In other cases, no reported links to
teens, criminal charges for steroids and HGH were filed against
coaches, teachers, and a district board president."

"Parents regularly pestered pediatrician Dr. Bernie Griesemer in
Missouri, seeking HGH prescriptions for their athletic offspring, and
he was publicized as a critic of such doping. “Everybody thinks they
are going to retire on their children’s sports incomes,” Griesemer
told The New York Daily News. In Dallas, athletic trainer Ken Locker
knew of an 18-year-old football player who tested positive for
steroids as a college freshman. “The parents admitted giving it to
him,” Locker told The Morning News. “They wanted him to get a
scholarship.” Only one prep football player in 17 would play in the
NCAA, but many parents sought scholarships for their sons. One study
found about 10 percent of parents polled knew of PED use by a prep
athlete."

I'll say it again for the hundredth time - anyone who believes that
nailing LA is going to change anything is seriously deluded.

Brad Anders

All you have proved there is physicians are violating the law and medical
ethics. Generally speaking, the only states where you'll see parents
pestering pediatricians and GP's for steroids for their children is in
Bible belt states where football - particularly high school football - is
king. You won't see that BS in coastal states.

I know you love the contrarian thing but seriously? You're out to lunch on that.
Kids were pounding steroids at both high schools I went to in the coastal state of
California. Not out in the sticks, mind you - that was in the Bay Area. And I doubt
it's gotten better in the intervening years.

Lance is from a doping state of Texas....he's no different than the avg, high
school football player in Dallas, Houston, or Austin.

Oh, they're dating women that look like their moms too? Huh, who knew?

Go move down to Texas for a year and then tell me if that entire state isn't
****ed up with their attitude about football and chearleadin;.....

I'm not going to argue with that. But to one extent or the other, it's true across
the country.

On Sep 13, 6:27*pm, Magilla Gorilla wrote:
una farrar wrote:
On Sep 12, 7:34*pm, Brad Anders wrote:
On Sep 12, 6:38*am, Magilla Gorilla wrote:

--D-y wrote:
Especially when you figure parents are probably supplying their high-
school football players with steroids, HGH, whatever else, and there
are crooked doctors out there helping the show along.

You really believe that parents give their children steroids? *C'mon. *You might
need to get your brain recalibrated.

I think it's you that needs a recalibration. This came from less than
15 seconds on a Google search, I'm sure I can find plenty mo

http://blog.4wallspublishing.com/201...rrently-unprev....

"News of juicing preps generated from Florida, Georgia, Virginia,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas,
Louisiana, Texas, Arizona, Utah, California, and more states. The teen
athletes mostly used steroids but also growth hormone, experts said.
In some instances football coaches and parents were identified as
illicit sources of the drugs. In other cases, no reported links to
teens, criminal charges for steroids and HGH were filed against
coaches, teachers, and a district board president."

"Parents regularly pestered pediatrician Dr. Bernie Griesemer in
Missouri, seeking HGH prescriptions for their athletic offspring, and
he was publicized as a critic of such doping. “Everybody thinks they
are going to retire on their children’s sports incomes,” Griesemer
told The New York Daily News. In Dallas, athletic trainer Ken Locker
knew of an 18-year-old football player who tested positive for
steroids as a college freshman. “The parents admitted giving it to
him,” Locker told The Morning News. “They wanted him to get a
scholarship.” Only one prep football player in 17 would play in the
NCAA, but many parents sought scholarships for their sons. One study
found about 10 percent of parents polled knew of PED use by a prep
athlete."

I'll say it again for the hundredth time - anyone who believes that
nailing LA is going to change anything is seriously deluded.

Brad Anders

Well, nailing Voet got us WADA, which came from French laws that
started when Simpson died. *Some dead guys got us at least the hct
test. *Nailing Johnson in 88 got us an international conference and an
agreement on anti-doping that was the stepping stone to WADA. *We even
have two research groups that say they can identify gene doping, thru
grants from WADA. *The first precedents for the passport nailed
Hamilton and stopped folks transfusing others blood.

Did you know that Dick Pound was Ben Johnson's lawyer? *Yep, and he believed him at the
time.

Thanks, that explains a lot. Ben made Dick look like a fool for
believing him, so it's no wonder Dick went off the deep end when he
ran WADA.

Brad Anders

On Sep 13, 5:14*pm, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:06*pm, mtb Dad wrote:





On Sep 13, 1:42*pm, Fred Flintstein
wrote:

On 9/13/2010 3:33 PM, Brad Anders wrote:

On Sep 13, 11:46 am, mtb *wrote:

I agree food safety is important. *Especially for poor people who have
to buy the cheapest stuff. *But I think this is more than worthy of
the government's attention.

I really (seriously) don't say this to offend you, but you're off your
rocker if you think nailing a single individual for doping offenses at
a foreign race from a decade ago in a niche sport is more worthy of
the government's attention than general US food safety.

Brad Anders

Dude,

And you didn't even touch the connection he draws between doping in
a niche sport and every moral failure that has ever infected society.

Fred Flintstein

Lance isn't niche. *He's as big as they get. *And you have failed to
address how important a socializing force sport is in society. That's
at risk when cheating is endemic in it. *And I never said or implied
'every failure'. *If we accept that sport is a huge socializing
influence, and we accept that doping is endemic, and we accept the
stats that Fortune 500 types come from sport backgrounds, (feel free
to debate those) then we must accept that it's at the very least a
very worrying trend. *Every Skull and Bones society story, or frat
scandal, lives on the implications for what those implicated are doing
now. *We should feel the same way about doping in sport. *It's bigger.

Dumbass,

Seriously, you're a bigger Kool-Aid drinker than the
diehard fans of LANCE. *What I mean by that is that you
are buying all the lines about the importance of sport
in society, building character, and so on.

Those are mostly rationalizations for making sports
such a large part of our lives, when it's really just
entertainment. *Why do Texas schools spend way more
money on high school football than on teaching high
school algebra? *Because football is fun, and fun for
people to watch, and algebra is work, and not fun to
watch. *In order to justify this state of affairs, coaches
principals parents fans and dumbasses talk about
how sport is character building and creates Fortune
500 CEOs. *I'm calling bull**** on it.

If you want to worry about something, worry about a
culture of entitlement where everyone is looking for
an easy way out and where parents consider
harassing teachers for grades more proper than
teaching little Jimmy and Jane that learning is
important. *The low educational level of US (or Canadian,
so there) undergrads is more worrisome to me than
some goddamn doper.

I appreciate the correction Brad. *I think you raised the level here
about 10 pts doing that. I'll try to follow. *So, yes, there are
serious food issues that should be examined. *And I agree with your
examples. *But maybe they haven't got a Landis to move an
investigation, on supplements or bad eggs? *FDA does with doping with
tax dollars.

You're nuts. *FDA does not need a Landis to investigate
bad eggs. *They know that if they inspect food factories
("factory" not the usual term, but I think it appropriate) they
can turn up violations. *The problems are that they don't
have the budget to hire enough inspectors, and that the
food-factory lobby is so rich and influential that it can
influence regulations, prevent penalties with actual teeth,
and so on. *The doper lobby, despite your thoughts about
its influence, is not doing that.

Fredmaster Ben- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Looks like they have some inspectors doing the right things:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tainted_eggs

"Donations" to the UCI should be included in the category of 'doper
lobby'. And how about McQuaid getting the nod as Verbruggen's
appointed heir? Or clean docs like the Prentice getting shown the
door? Or no chaperones in the Tour until 2 years ago? In 08 TV crews
caught riders cyclocrossing across fields to avoid the first
chaperones. And penalties with teeth? Steroids got you a 10 minutes
penalty in the tour, when all other sports had 2 year suspension.

On Sep 14, 8:51*am, Brad Anders wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:27*pm, Magilla Gorilla wrote:





una farrar wrote:
On Sep 12, 7:34*pm, Brad Anders wrote:
On Sep 12, 6:38*am, Magilla Gorilla wrote:

--D-y wrote:
Especially when you figure parents are probably supplying their high-
school football players with steroids, HGH, whatever else, and there
are crooked doctors out there helping the show along.

You really believe that parents give their children steroids? *C'mon. *You might
need to get your brain recalibrated.

I think it's you that needs a recalibration. This came from less than
15 seconds on a Google search, I'm sure I can find plenty mo

http://blog.4wallspublishing.com/201...rrently-unprev...

"News of juicing preps generated from Florida, Georgia, Virginia,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas,
Louisiana, Texas, Arizona, Utah, California, and more states. The teen
athletes mostly used steroids but also growth hormone, experts said..
In some instances football coaches and parents were identified as
illicit sources of the drugs. In other cases, no reported links to
teens, criminal charges for steroids and HGH were filed against
coaches, teachers, and a district board president."

"Parents regularly pestered pediatrician Dr. Bernie Griesemer in
Missouri, seeking HGH prescriptions for their athletic offspring, and
he was publicized as a critic of such doping. “Everybody thinks they
are going to retire on their children’s sports incomes,” Griesemer
told The New York Daily News. In Dallas, athletic trainer Ken Locker
knew of an 18-year-old football player who tested positive for
steroids as a college freshman. “The parents admitted giving it to
him,” Locker told The Morning News. “They wanted him to get a
scholarship.” Only one prep football player in 17 would play in the
NCAA, but many parents sought scholarships for their sons. One study
found about 10 percent of parents polled knew of PED use by a prep
athlete."

I'll say it again for the hundredth time - anyone who believes that
nailing LA is going to change anything is seriously deluded.

Brad Anders

Well, nailing Voet got us WADA, which came from French laws that
started when Simpson died. *Some dead guys got us at least the hct
test. *Nailing Johnson in 88 got us an international conference and an
agreement on anti-doping that was the stepping stone to WADA. *We even
have two research groups that say they can identify gene doping, thru
grants from WADA. *The first precedents for the passport nailed
Hamilton and stopped folks transfusing others blood.

Did you know that Dick Pound was Ben Johnson's lawyer? *Yep, and he believed him at the
time.

Thanks, that explains a lot. Ben made Dick look like a fool for
believing him, so it's no wonder Dick went off the deep end when he
ran WADA.

Brad Anders- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Do you really think he went off the deep end? Everything he said has
been shown to be true. Sometimes the emperor doesn't actually have
any clothes on.

On Sep 14, 9:18*am, mtb Dad wrote:
On Sep 14, 8:51*am, Brad Anders wrote:





On Sep 13, 6:27*pm, Magilla Gorilla wrote:

una farrar wrote:
On Sep 12, 7:34*pm, Brad Anders wrote:
On Sep 12, 6:38*am, Magilla Gorilla wrote:

--D-y wrote:
Especially when you figure parents are probably supplying their high-
school football players with steroids, HGH, whatever else, and there
are crooked doctors out there helping the show along.

You really believe that parents give their children steroids? *C'mon. *You might
need to get your brain recalibrated.

I think it's you that needs a recalibration. This came from less than
15 seconds on a Google search, I'm sure I can find plenty mo

http://blog.4wallspublishing.com/201...rrently-unprev...

"News of juicing preps generated from Florida, Georgia, Virginia,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas,
Louisiana, Texas, Arizona, Utah, California, and more states. The teen
athletes mostly used steroids but also growth hormone, experts said.
In some instances football coaches and parents were identified as
illicit sources of the drugs. In other cases, no reported links to
teens, criminal charges for steroids and HGH were filed against
coaches, teachers, and a district board president."

"Parents regularly pestered pediatrician Dr. Bernie Griesemer in
Missouri, seeking HGH prescriptions for their athletic offspring, and
he was publicized as a critic of such doping. “Everybody thinks they
are going to retire on their children’s sports incomes,” Griesemer
told The New York Daily News. In Dallas, athletic trainer Ken Locker
knew of an 18-year-old football player who tested positive for
steroids as a college freshman. “The parents admitted giving it to
him,” Locker told The Morning News. “They wanted him to get a
scholarship.” Only one prep football player in 17 would play in the
NCAA, but many parents sought scholarships for their sons. One study
found about 10 percent of parents polled knew of PED use by a prep
athlete."

I'll say it again for the hundredth time - anyone who believes that
nailing LA is going to change anything is seriously deluded.

Brad Anders

Well, nailing Voet got us WADA, which came from French laws that
started when Simpson died. *Some dead guys got us at least the hct
test. *Nailing Johnson in 88 got us an international conference and an
agreement on anti-doping that was the stepping stone to WADA. *We even
have two research groups that say they can identify gene doping, thru
grants from WADA. *The first precedents for the passport nailed
Hamilton and stopped folks transfusing others blood.

Did you know that Dick Pound was Ben Johnson's lawyer? *Yep, and he believed him at the
time.

Thanks, that explains a lot. Ben made Dick look like a fool for
believing him, so it's no wonder Dick went off the deep end when he
ran WADA.

Brad Anders- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Do you really think he went off the deep end? *Everything he said has
been shown to be true. *Sometimes the emperor doesn't actually have
any clothes on.

It's pretty clear that Pound seemed to take every major case rather
personally, issuing pronouncements of guilt long before the process
(e.g. prior to B-sample testing) had reached conclusion. The fact that
most (not all) turned out to be guilty doesn't absolve Pound. A guy
with that little self-control is not a good match for an organization
like WADA, and certainly not the IOC. IMO, Ben Johnson playing Pound
for a sucker probably is a factor here.

There's a good article on Pound in Wired that you can find on Google.

Brad Anders

On Sep 14, 9:15*am, mtb Dad wrote:

Looks like they have some inspectors doing the right things:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tainted_eggs

"Donations" to the UCI should be included in the category of 'doper
lobby'. *And how about McQuaid getting the nod as Verbruggen's
appointed heir? *Or clean docs like the Prentice getting shown the
door? *Or no chaperones in the Tour until 2 years ago? *In 08 TV crews
caught riders cyclocrossing across fields to avoid the first
chaperones. And penalties with teeth? *Steroids got you a 10 minutes
penalty in the tour, when all other sports had 2 year suspension.

This doesn't even rise to the level of an argument.

The complaint Brad and I and others are making is that
having the _Federal Government_ go after Dopestrong for
last decade's EPO use, USPS contract, and SCA testimony
(the SCA case never should have been brought since there
was no anti-dope clause in SCA's insurance contract)
is a waste of _Federal_ resources that should be applied
to something the FDA rightly regulates.

Your comment about Dopestrong donating money to the UCI
is completely beside the point. If the UCI wants to be lenient
or tough on dopers, that is cycling's internal business.
The food-factory lobby influences Congress. The doper lobby,
such as it is, only influences McQuaid. I don't really expect or
need McQuaid to look out for the safety of the egg-buying,
amateur-racing public. Or to OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

Doping is not a significantly greater moral issue than throwing
spitballs in baseball, tackling with your head in football, or
excessively hard checks into the boards in hockey.
All of these are sporting fouls and should be penalized with
sporting penalties. Having the government investigate them
as crimes is a waste of government resources and risks
criminalizing sporting rivalries.

It used to be that steroids got you a 10 minute penalty in
the Tour, and other sports may have had a longer suspension -
but how many athletes ever got that long suspension, unless
they were super high profile busts like Ben Johnson?
Do you think soccer players are all clean as whistles?
Cycling now has much stiffer penalties than 10 minutes,
and doping hasn't decreased. So why do you think that
yet stiffer penalties are going to finally turn the tide on
doping? Listening to anti-dope crusaders is like hearing
Westmoreland talk about body counts. At least Lafferty
has given up on the anti-dope pretense - he just wants
to see Armstrong rot in prison, and after that we can all be
see-no-evil monkeys.

Fredmaster Ben

On Sep 14, 9:00*pm, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
On Sep 14, 9:15*am, mtb Dad wrote:



Looks like they have some inspectors doing the right things:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tainted_eggs

"Donations" to the UCI should be included in the category of 'doper
lobby'. *And how about McQuaid getting the nod as Verbruggen's
appointed heir? *Or clean docs like the Prentice getting shown the
door? *Or no chaperones in the Tour until 2 years ago? *In 08 TV crews
caught riders cyclocrossing across fields to avoid the first
chaperones. And penalties with teeth? *Steroids got you a 10 minutes
penalty in the tour, when all other sports had 2 year suspension.

This doesn't even rise to the level of an argument.

The complaint Brad and I and others are making is that
having the _Federal Government_ go after Dopestrong for
last decade's EPO use, USPS contract, and SCA testimony
(the SCA case never should have been brought since there
was no anti-dope clause in SCA's insurance contract)
is a waste of _Federal_ resources that should be applied
to something the FDA rightly regulates.

Your comment about Dopestrong donating money to the UCI
is completely beside the point. *If the UCI wants to be lenient
or tough on dopers, that is cycling's internal business.
The food-factory lobby influences Congress. *The doper lobby,
such as it is, only influences McQuaid. *I don't really expect or
need McQuaid to look out for the safety of the egg-buying,
amateur-racing public. *Or to OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

Doping is not a significantly greater moral issue than throwing
spitballs in baseball, tackling with your head in football, or
excessively hard checks into the boards in hockey.
All of these are sporting fouls and should be penalized with
sporting penalties. *Having the government investigate them
as crimes is a waste of government resources and risks
criminalizing sporting rivalries.

It used to be that steroids got you a 10 minute penalty in
the Tour, and other sports may have had a longer suspension -
but how many athletes ever got that long suspension, unless
they were super high profile busts like Ben Johnson?
Do you think soccer players are all clean as whistles?
Cycling now has much stiffer penalties than 10 minutes,
and doping hasn't decreased. *So why do you think that
yet stiffer penalties are going to finally turn the tide on
doping? *Listening to anti-dope crusaders is like hearing
Westmoreland talk about body counts. *At least Lafferty
has given up on the anti-dope pretense - he just wants
to see Armstrong rot in prison, and after that we can all be
see-no-evil monkeys.

Fredmaster Ben

+1.

your 10 minute penalty comment: that's EXACTLY what we need to do
for doping offenses. IMO, the draconian 2-year penalty allows the
doper to disappear, and re-emerge (a la Vino) somewhat anew. Screw
that. Kill 'em for 10 min and make them finish the event to keep their
pro license. Hell, even better, in the GT's, make them wear the "dope
jersey" for the rest of the event, so that fans know who to hurl eggs
at.

Probably a 10X more effective penalty.

Brad Anders

In article ,
Brad Anders wrote:

On Sep 14, 9:00*pm, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
On Sep 14, 9:15*am, mtb Dad wrote:



Looks like they have some inspectors doing the right things:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tainted_eggs

"Donations" to the UCI should be included in the category of 'doper
lobby'. *And how about McQuaid getting the nod as Verbruggen's
appointed heir? *Or clean docs like the Prentice getting shown the
door? *Or no chaperones in the Tour until 2 years ago? *In 08 TV crews
caught riders cyclocrossing across fields to avoid the first
chaperones. And penalties with teeth? *Steroids got you a 10 minutes
penalty in the tour, when all other sports had 2 year suspension.

This doesn't even rise to the level of an argument.

The complaint Brad and I and others are making is that
having the _Federal Government_ go after Dopestrong for
last decade's EPO use, USPS contract, and SCA testimony
(the SCA case never should have been brought since there
was no anti-dope clause in SCA's insurance contract)
is a waste of _Federal_ resources that should be applied
to something the FDA rightly regulates.

Your comment about Dopestrong donating money to the UCI
is completely beside the point. *If the UCI wants to be lenient
or tough on dopers, that is cycling's internal business.
The food-factory lobby influences Congress. *The doper lobby,
such as it is, only influences McQuaid. *I don't really expect or
need McQuaid to look out for the safety of the egg-buying,
amateur-racing public. *Or to OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

Doping is not a significantly greater moral issue than throwing
spitballs in baseball, tackling with your head in football, or
excessively hard checks into the boards in hockey.
All of these are sporting fouls and should be penalized with
sporting penalties. *Having the government investigate them
as crimes is a waste of government resources and risks
criminalizing sporting rivalries.

It used to be that steroids got you a 10 minute penalty in
the Tour, and other sports may have had a longer suspension -
but how many athletes ever got that long suspension, unless
they were super high profile busts like Ben Johnson?
Do you think soccer players are all clean as whistles?
Cycling now has much stiffer penalties than 10 minutes,
and doping hasn't decreased. *So why do you think that
yet stiffer penalties are going to finally turn the tide on
doping? *Listening to anti-dope crusaders is like hearing
Westmoreland talk about body counts. *At least Lafferty
has given up on the anti-dope pretense - he just wants
to see Armstrong rot in prison, and after that we can all be
see-no-evil monkeys.

Fredmaster Ben

+1.

Ben's on a roll, as usual.

your 10 minute penalty comment: that's EXACTLY what we need to do
for doping offenses. IMO, the draconian 2-year penalty allows the
doper to disappear, and re-emerge (a la Vino) somewhat anew. Screw
that. Kill 'em for 10 min and make them finish the event to keep their
pro license. Hell, even better, in the GT's, make them wear the "dope
jersey" for the rest of the event, so that fans know who to hurl eggs
at.

In some ways, making a rider that got caught wear a "doper's jersey" is bordering
on the kind of thinking that had people in stocks back when. But you know, it has a
certain appeal right now. I think you're absolutely right about the present long
suspensions actually allowing a rider to do a form of PR in that the public generally
will have forgotten what he'd done two years prior.


Probably a 10X more effective penalty.

Brad Anders