Jeanson banned for life

Michael Press wrote:


I do not consider morals and morality an effective method
for considering human action.
--
Michael Press

Goddam!
I vote this as the stupidest statement ever written to RBR bar none.
Holy ****, are you really that brain damged? Those are the ONLY ways to
judge people and large groups. Their actions past, present, and future
are shaped by those. Everything they are IS their morals and beliefs.
Bill C

"Sandy" wrote in message
...
Dans le message de ,
Curtis L. Russell a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré
:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 20:50:33 +0100, "Sandy" wrote:

Before you go setting yourself up as the moral judge of humanity,
just think a little longer.

Uh huh, and this is within her known moral (personally, I'd argue more
for the word ethical) universe of bike racing, with known rules and
known consequences, within reason. She cheated evidently at least once
and she is paying the penalty. If I come over the hill speeding and
there's a speed trap, it is irrelevant whether or not it was the first
time or the the 100th - I get a ticket.

We aren't taking her to a pit and stoning her.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Last year caffeine was a problem.
This year, it's not.
Please explain to me the moral imperative that changed ...

Sandy, they just had to give up on caffeine because it's in everything. They
were spending too much time with caffeine tests that were near the limits
and the person who was near testing positive or testing positive had only
been drinking some really good coffee.

It isn't as if it wasn't a good idea because excess caffeine can cause
strokes etc. and some of these guys got the idea that if some was good, more
was better and too much was just right. They had caffeine suppositories,
caffeine patches and cups and cups of coffee with caffeine pills.

And then studies related that one cup of caffeine gives you all the
performance boost of a dozen.

So they eliminated it from the list. And it didn't make any difference in
the first place.

But EPO, anabolic steroids, amphetamines and a lot of other stuff DO make a
difference. So if you were a clean Pro, worked your whole life to train
yourself to the point you were and some jackass beat you in the climbs
because he used a bunch of drugs what would you think? That Pro cycling is
still worth it?

On 21 Jan 2006 17:49:34 -0800, "Bill C"
wrote:

Those are the ONLY ways to
judge people and large groups. Their actions past, present, and future
are shaped by those. Everything they are IS their morals and beliefs.

Well, no. Morality certainly can be one and I disagree with the prior
point about it being a poor method. OTOH, if we are going to make drug
use a moral isue, then, yes, maybe it is a poor method.

OTOOH, there are many valid reasons to judge individuals and groups.
Frankly, I'm leaning toward sunglasses as a good point to be
judgemental. Kloden got what he deserved.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
On 21 Jan 2006 17:49:34 -0800, "Bill C"
wrote:

Those are the ONLY ways to
judge people and large groups. Their actions past, present, and future
are shaped by those. Everything they are IS their morals and beliefs.

Well, no. Morality certainly can be one and I disagree with the prior
point about it being a poor method. OTOH, if we are going to make drug
use a moral isue, then, yes, maybe it is a poor method.

OTOOH, there are many valid reasons to judge individuals and groups.
Frankly, I'm leaning toward sunglasses as a good point to be
judgemental. Kloden got what he deserved.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

It's like the journalism debate. Your morals reflect directly upon
what you think of someone else's. The position of the observer is
critical to any observation.
Now ugly kit and dumbass sunglasses are obviously a universal cycling
sin and a direct afront to the cycling gods. Be fearful for they are
jealous and discriminating.
Bill C

There's a short three or four day window for testing positive after
injecting EPO. This perfectly fits the scenario where Jeanson is
positive on day one and tests negative three days later, assuming that
dosage occurred three to four days prior to the initial test. The
effect of EPO last several weeks ( if one uses bigger dosages - from
DeClerq's taped calls/journals it sounds like microdosing EPO requires
more maintenance for day to day performance). This fits one plausible
scenario where they gambled on not being tested on day one ( don't get
top three or get the random draw for drugtesting).

In article
.com,
"Bill C" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:


I do not consider morals and morality an effective method
for considering human action.
--
Michael Press

Goddam!
I vote this as the stupidest statement ever written to RBR bar none.
Holy ****, are you really that brain damged? Those are the ONLY ways to
judge people and large groups. Their actions past, present, and future
are shaped by those. Everything they are IS their morals and beliefs.

I would like to thank my parents, my director, the studio,
the academy, my therapist, and all the little people who
made this possible. I don't know what I did in this life
to deserve the recognition bestowed upon me; and I promise
that success will not change me. I'm just a rivethead from
Detroit who had a dream. I will be eternally grateful for
this great honor.

--
Michael Press

In article t,
"Tom Kunich" wrote:

It isn't as if it wasn't a good idea because excess caffeine can cause
strokes etc.

Not quite true, Tom.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/d...105.html#SXX18

__________________________________________________ _________________
Along with its needed effects, a medicine may cause some unwanted effects.
Although not all of these side effects may occur, they may be more likely to
occur if caffeine is taken in large doses or more often than recommended. If
they do occur, they may need medical attention.

Check with your doctor as soon as possible if any of the following side effects
occur:

More common
Diarrhea; dizziness; fast heartbeat; hyperglycemia, including blurred
vision, drowsiness, dry mouth, flushed dry skin, fruit-like breath odor,
increased urination, ketones in urine, loss of appetite, nausea, stomachache,
tiredness, troubled breathing, unusual thirst, or vomiting (in newborn babies);
hypoglycemia, including anxious feeling, blurred vision, cold sweats, confusion,
cool pale skin, drowsiness, excessive hunger, fast heartbeat, nausea,
nervousness, restless sleep, shakiness, or unusual tiredness or weakness (in
newborn babies); irritability, nervousness, or severe jitters (in newborn
babies); nausea (severe) ; tremors; trouble in sleeping ; vomiting

Rare
Abdominal or stomach bloating; dehydration ; diarrhea (bloody); unusual
tiredness or weakness

Symptoms of overdose
Abdominal or stomach pain; agitation, anxiety, excitement, or
restlessness; confusion or delirium; convulsions (seizures)in acute overdose ;
dehydration; faster breathing rate; fast or irregular heartbeat; fever; frequent
urination; headache; increased sensitivity to touch or pain ; irritability;
muscle trembling or twitching; nausea and vomiting, sometimes with blood;
overextending the body with head and heels bent backward and body bowed forward;
painful, swollen abdomen or vomiting (in newborn babies); ringing or other
sounds in ears; seeing flashes of zig-zag lights; trouble in sleeping;
whole-body tremors (in newborn babies)

Other side effects may occur that usually do not need medical attention. These
side effects may go away during treatment as your body adjusts to the medicine.
However, check with your doctor if any of the following side effects continue or
are bothersome:

More common
Nausea (mild); nervousness or jitters (mild)

After you stop using this medicine, your body may need time to adjust. The
length of time this takes depends on the amount of medicine you were using and
how long you used it. During this time, check with your doctor if you notice any
of the following side effects:

More common
Anxiety; dizziness; headache; irritability; muscle tension; nausea;
nervousness; stuffy nose; unusual tiredness

Other side effects not listed above may also occur in some patients. If you
notice any other effects, check with your doctor.
__________________________________________________ _________________

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On 21 Jan 2006 19:39:53 -0800, wrote:

This fits one plausible
scenario where they gambled on not being tested on day one ( don't get
top three or get the random draw for drugtesting).

They gambled that Jeanson would not get top three in a TT in a U.S.
race??? I don't think that's very plausible. I doubt there's more than
a handful of times (if that) that she's not been in the top three.
That kind of gamble would only be useful if she deliberately tried to
throw the race -- in which case she did a **** poor job of it.

T

Dan Connelly wrote:
amit wrote:
no one with any perspective will argue this is a fundamental moral
isssue -- it isn't. if you get a racing license it means you've joined
an organization and you've agreed to abide by their rules. it also
means if you break those rules you've agreed to be penalized within
that structure.

Why aren't there endless threads against center line violations, then?

There aren't endless threads about center line violations?

The same arguments apply, if anything more strongly.

Yeah, and if you get DQ'ed for a centerline violation you take
your lumps, which is what Amit is arguing for. Occasionally people
argue about it. But generally, everybody saw it, so it's not like
doping where it happens behind closed doors and nobody
knows who's really doing it. Clarity has a way of defusing
arguments.

Mark wrote:
On 21 Jan 2006 19:39:53 -0800, wrote:

This fits one plausible
scenario where they gambled on not being tested on day one ( don't get
top three or get the random draw for drugtesting).

They gambled that Jeanson would not get top three in a TT in a U.S.
race??? I don't think that's very plausible. I doubt there's more than
a handful of times (if that) that she's not been in the top three.
That kind of gamble would only be useful if she deliberately tried to
throw the race -- in which case she did a **** poor job of it.

Maybe they ... ****ed up. It's my pet theory that ****ups and
variations in people's body chemistry are behind most
inexplicable doping results like this. (Ref: Hamilton, T., 2004,
J. Quant. Hist. Spec., "Applications of the ****up Technique
for Blood Transfusion"). Maybe she used EPO five or seven
days before, but for some reason traces of it hung around
for five or seven days instead of three or four.

I don't know how often this can happen, and I certainly don't
know how or if she doped, but in general when people say
"three or four days" in a biological application, there's some
distribution, so most of the time it's three or four, sometimes
it's two or five, and sometimes it's seven. Three sigma events
happen. (That's if it's PhDs. If it's MDs saying 3-4, it could be
a uniform distribution from 1 to 30.)