UTTER BS

Donald Munro said:

cyclintom said:

Sandy, you need to remember not to mention Benjo here who others
without any base of reference consider to be racist.

Huh. Are you sure you're not confusing poor Benjo with Tosi ?

Apparently you aren't. But maybe you missed Tosi and Benjo agreeing
upon occasion?

Quoted message said:

Donald Munro said:

cyclintom said:

Sandy, you need to remember not to mention Benjo here who others
without any base of reference consider to be racist.

Huh. Are you sure you're not confusing poor Benjo with Tosi ?

Apparently you aren't. But maybe you missed Tosi and Benjo agreeing
upon occasion?

"I do solemnly declare, to my team, my colleagues, the UCI, the
cycling movement and the public that I am not involved in the Puerto
affair nor in any other doping case and that I will not commit any
infringement to the UCI anti-doping rules.

"As proof of my commitment, I accept, if it should happen that I
violate the rules and am granted a standard sanction of a two-year
suspension or more, in the Puerto affair or in any other anti-doping
proceedings, to pay the UCI, in addition to the standard sanctions, an
amount equal to my annual salary for 2007 as a contribution to the
fight against doping.

"At the same time, I declare to the Spanish Law, that my DNA is at its
disposal, so that it can be compared with the blood samples seized in
the Puerto affair. I appeal to the Spanish Law to organise this test
as soon as possible or allow the UCI to organise it.

"Finally, I accept the UCI's wish to make my statement public."

--
signed ..........Davey Crockett
witnessed........RBR

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sandy said:

Benjo, more than I, knows the history of racing, and I am sure can tell
of
many men who looked to improve their lives by riding in support. They
are
the reality of this sport. They, more than the stars, need real
protection
from abuse by their bosses.

Sandy, you need to remember not to mention Benjo here who others
without any base of reference consider to be racist.

Where? When? Whom? Or are you just accusing someone without any base of
reference?

Benjo

On Jun 19, 2:03 pm, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You think there's no pressure on the domestiques to dope?

dumbass,

master fatties also have pressure to dope, but the wiggest winners
from doping are the big salary stars.

Quoted message said:

As it is,
all the pressure is being applied to the riders, and they're the wrong
targets. If you truly wanted to have an effect, re-target at the team.

maybe both, but riders dope for their own self interest.

Dumbass,

The biggest winners from doping are the big salary stars
but the biggest losers from this proposal are any
domestiques who get popped on random tests. (A big star
will lose more money but a domestique can less afford
to lose a year's salary, IMO.)

Remember the discussion a couple weeks back where
I said (cribbed from Bart van Hoorebeeck) that the
way to deter crimes is not stiffer penalties, but to
increase the likelihood of getting caught? This is
heading in the wrong direction. Chung's ideas about
less-strong penalties that are applied to the whole
team are better. It might seem unfair to penalize
a whole team for one person's actions, but I bet that
teams and teammates have some idea of what is going
on in each others' bloodstreams.

The current enforcement strategery seems to be carried
over from IOC anti-doping in individual Olympic sports
and doesn't address the structure and incentives of
doping in team sports.

Ben

On Jun 20, 2:06 pm, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Jun 19, 2:03 pm, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Jun 19, 4:44 pm, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You think there's no pressure on the domestiques to dope?

Quoted message said:

dumbass,

Quoted message said:

master fatties also have pressure to dope, but the wiggest winners
from doping are the big salary stars.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As it is,
all the pressure is being applied to the riders, and they're the wrong
targets. If you truly wanted to have an effect, re-target at the team.

Quoted message said:

maybe both, but riders dope for their own self interest.

Dumbass,

The biggest winners from doping are the big salary stars
but the biggest losers from this proposal are any
domestiques who get popped on random tests. (A big star
will lose more money but a domestique can less afford
to lose a year's salary, IMO.)

Remember the discussion a couple weeks back where
I said (cribbed from Bart van Hoorebeeck) that the
way to deter crimes is not stiffer penalties, but to
increase the likelihood of getting caught? This is
heading in the wrong direction. Chung's ideas about
less-strong penalties that are applied to the whole
team are better. It might seem unfair to penalize
a whole team for one person's actions, but I bet that
teams and teammates have some idea of what is going
on in each others' bloodstreams.

Maybe there'd be a bounty for each team mate they turn in. Would they
all get to wear brown shirts and arm bands? That would be cool!

R

On Jun 20, 8:06 pm, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I bet that
teams and teammates have some idea of what is going
on in each others' bloodstreams.

The current enforcement strategery seems to be carried
over from IOC anti-doping in individual Olympic sports
and doesn't address the structure and incentives of
doping in team sports.

It's worse than that. Right now, the teams tell riders they must
perform or they'll get cut. Then, when a doping rider gets caught, the
team says "we're shocked! We knew nothing!", it suspends the rider,
and replaces him with another rider who they tell to perform or get
cut. So the current incentive is actually for the teams to pressure
the riders to dope. A team-wide penalty gives the teams an incentive
to employ clean(er) riders. Keeping the riders in but giving them a
penalty matches the punishment to the crime (that is, the crime is
illegal performance-enhancement, so the targeted penalty should be
performance penalization), and ensures that the teams don't replace a
doping rider with a different doping rider.

cyclintom said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sandy, you need to remember not to mention Benjo here who others
without any base of reference consider to be racist.

Donald Munro said:

Quoted message said:

Huh. Are you sure you're not confusing poor Benjo with Tosi ?

cyclintom said:

Apparently you aren't. But maybe you missed Tosi and Benjo agreeing
upon occasion?

Actually I quite miss Tosi. Despite his not very PC opinions (Davey would
probably have liked him), he was quite interesting when discussing cycling
(although he seems to have been wrong about Basso not having the mental
ability to match his talents).

rechungREMOVETHIS said:

The current oath, which is a slightly abridged version of the original
oath that appears as Article 20, section 3 of the California
Constitution. Aren't you familiar with it? It's here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_20

So did you get to invade and colonize Arizona, and if so, did the Arizona
beer make it seem worthwhile ?

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Donald Munro said:

Michael Press said:

I always admired and respected Louis Pasteur for his
experimental genius. The demonstration of racemic
molecules and their optical activity. His demonstration
of air borne animalcules that colonize and grow in food
stuffs. Most elegant. He also note that it is
infestation of wine by these animalcules that require
an open bottle of wine be consumed, lest it go bad.

Presumably that means LIVEDRUNK will promote him to saint status.

Exactly what I was thinking.

--
Michael Press

In article
<[email hidden]>,
"[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

What complete and utter rubbish.

I agree.

Quoted message said:

If they had any balls

I agree, but I can understand the pressure they're under. I had to
sign a loyalty oath, a remnant of the McCarthy era, when I started
working for a public university.

http://www.hr.arizona.edu/03_hire/forms/loyaltyoath.pdf

As near as I can tell, this oath obliges me to,
among other things, resist by force of arms any
attempt by California to steal any of Arizona's
water. Or our sand, for that matter. (At least
that's what I think "defend them against all
enemies, foreign and domestic" means.)

And don't get any smart ideas, Californians. You
may have more people, but we probably have more guns.
Also, our nutjobs are a lot scarier than your
fruitcakes.

Go ahead thinking that the tree huggers speak for
everybody. Rural California is the same as rural
anywhere. Gun 'N Ammo, not Mother Earth Times.

Also
<URL:http://www.rense.com/politics6/51.htm>

--
Michael Press

Quoted message said:

It's worse than that. Right now, the teams tell riders they must
perform or they'll get cut. Then, when a doping rider gets caught, the
team says "we're shocked! We knew nothing!", it suspends the rider,
and replaces him with another rider who they tell to perform or get
cut. So the current incentive is actually for the teams to pressure
the riders to dope. A team-wide penalty gives the teams an incentive
to employ clean(er) riders. Keeping the riders in but giving them a
penalty matches the punishment to the crime (that is, the crime is
illegal performance-enhancement, so the targeted penalty should be
performance penalization), and ensures that the teams don't replace a
doping rider with a different doping rider.

Let's do like NASCAR, and fine the "crew chiefs".

Expanding, let's fine Pound, [censored] $10,000 every time an athlete (not
just bicycle racers) is found positive. $20,000 if the B sample comes
back positive also.

Riders get a slap on the wrist ($1000?) ($50? that sounds better) and
a one-race suspension. Then they join the peolton again. Next positive
(A and B, of course, which must be submitted within 24 hours of the
event where the pos. test was found), it's a hundred bucks, and one
more race event (one day) missed. Results are "relegated" as they say
in the USA. Sooner or later, a big race would be missed by a rider
found positive in a preceeding event. Big disincentive to go along
with the doping structure instituted by teams and rule makers.

The crew chiefs (team, underlings) get the big end of the punishment
stick, is the idea. Plus, those (Pound just the emblem) who make
stupid rules get to taste the lash of their own stupidity.

That would straighten this mess out in a big hurry.

"Make rules you can enforce by simple testing". If athletes know they
will be caught, they won't dope. Simple. Easy. --D-y

"benjo maso" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sandy said:

Benjo, more than I, knows the history of racing, and I am sure can tell
of
many men who looked to improve their lives by riding in support. They
are
the reality of this sport. They, more than the stars, need real
protection
from abuse by their bosses.

Sandy, you need to remember not to mention Benjo here who others
without any base of reference consider to be racist.

Where? When? Whom? Or are you just accusing someone without any base of
reference?

Benjo, around here all you have to do is identify someone's race or
nationality and there are American Liberals ready to claim that you're
racist or bigoted.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Excuse me but what "loyalty oath" were you required to sign?

The current oath, which is a slightly abridged version of the original
oath that appears as Article 20, section 3 of the California
Constitution. Aren't you familiar with it? It's here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_20

You'll have to excuse me here Robert but possibly you could make it clear to
me why you'd object to vowing to keep the laws and Constitution of the
people who are paying you?

You could always go to work in private industry which doesn't require such
things.

"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Jun 19, 9:36 pm, Bill C <[email hidden]> wrote:

> What complete and utter rubbish.

I agree.

> If they had any balls

I agree, but I can understand the pressure they're under. I had to
sign a loyalty oath, a remnant of the McCarthy era, when I started
working for a public university.

Excuse me but what "loyalty oath" were you required to sign? Why do I
get this idea that somehow you don't believe in restricted
information?

You remind me that when we opened the front door to our building in
Berkeley a homeless guy walked in and started setting up a tent in the
bathroom. The Berkeley Police took two hours to talk him out of our
building and he walked up the street in a huff.

I'm surprised you werren't arrested for discrimination on the basis of
familial
association. You wouldn't have kicked your sister out of the bathroom so
it is
only because of your discriminatory outlook that you denied this man a
place to
stay.

It was the place where I was working. And it was pretty funny that the cops
just asked the guy to leave. He'd already pitched a tent in the lavatory
which was rather large.

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"benjo maso" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Jun 20, 5:57 am, "Sandy" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> Benjo, more than I, knows the history of racing, and I am sure can tell
> of
> many men who looked to improve their lives by riding in support. They
> are
> the reality of this sport. They, more than the stars, need real
> protection
> from abuse by their bosses.

Sandy, you need to remember not to mention Benjo here who others
without any base of reference consider to be racist.

Where? When? Whom? Or are you just accusing someone without any base of
reference?

Benjo, around here all you have to do is identify someone's race or
nationality and there are American Liberals ready to claim that you're
racist or bigoted.

The problem is that I don't have the faintest idea what he is talking about.
My only consolation is that he probably doesn't either.

Benjo

benjo maso said:

The problem is that I don't have the faintest idea what he is talking about.
My only consolation is that he probably doesn't either.

Benjo, with all the respect in the world, I have to say it looks like
you have the problem and consolation parts switched around, sort of.
--D-y

In article <[email hidden]>, "benjo maso" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"benjo maso" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Jun 20, 5:57 am, "Sandy" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> Benjo, more than I, knows the history of racing, and I am sure can tell of
>> many men who looked to improve their lives by riding in support. They are
>> the reality of this sport. They, more than the stars, need real protection
>> from abuse by their bosses.
>
> Sandy, you need to remember not to mention Benjo here who others
> without any base of reference consider to be racist.

Where? When? Whom? Or are you just accusing someone without any base of
reference?

Benjo, around here all you have to do is identify someone's race or
nationality and there are American Liberals ready to claim that you're
racist or bigoted.

The problem is that I don't have the faintest idea what he is talking about.
My only consolation is that he probably doesn't either.

Tom constructed a strawman around you so he could fire off a salvo at his favorite
target, those nasty "American Liberals" that he hates so much. So it isn't that
surprising that you have no idea what the hell he's talking about.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Jun 21, 12:42 am, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's worse than that. Right now, the teams tell riders they must
perform or they'll get cut. Then, when a doping rider gets caught, the
team says "we're shocked! We knew nothing!", it suspends the rider,
and replaces him with another rider who they tell to perform or get
cut. So the current incentive is actually for the teams to pressure
the riders to dope. A team-wide penalty gives the teams an incentive
to employ clean(er) riders. Keeping the riders in but giving them a
penalty matches the punishment to the crime (that is, the crime is
illegal performance-enhancement, so the targeted penalty should be
performance penalization), and ensures that the teams don't replace a
doping rider with a different doping rider.

Let's do like NASCAR, and fine the "crew chiefs".

Expanding, let's fine Pound, [censored] $10,000 every time an athlete (not
just bicycle racers) is found positive. $20,000 if the B sample comes
back positive also.

Riders get a slap on the wrist ($1000?) ($50? that sounds better) and
a one-race suspension. Then they join the peolton again. Next positive
(A and B, of course, which must be submitted within 24 hours of the
event where the pos. test was found), it's a hundred bucks, and one
more race event (one day) missed. Results are "relegated" as they say
in the USA. Sooner or later, a big race would be missed by a rider
found positive in a preceeding event. Big disincentive to go along
with the doping structure instituted by teams and rule makers.

The crew chiefs (team, underlings) get the big end of the punishment
stick, is the idea. Plus, those (Pound just the emblem) who make
stupid rules get to taste the lash of their own stupidity.

That would straighten this mess out in a big hurry.

"Make rules you can enforce by simple testing". If athletes know they
will be caught, they won't dope. Simple. Easy. --D-y

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

You'll have to excuse me here Robert but possibly you could make it clear to
me why you'd object to vowing to keep the laws and Constitution of the
people who are paying you?

Oh, I don't object to keeping the laws and protecting the Constitution
against enemies both foreign and domestic. Especially the domestic
part--that's why I fight you. And notice that the oath I signed says
that it was of my own free will, and supporting regulations say that I
can be prosecuted for perjury if I later say that I signed it under
duress. So, I have never said that I objected to it.

However, signing such an oath is quite similar to signing the proposed
UCI oath.

Quoted message said:

You could always go to work in private industry which doesn't require such
things.

Yeah, but I sort of like it that 1) I've signed an oath to keep the
laws and protect the Constitution, and you haven't; and 2) I
especially like it that your taxes pay my salary while enabling me to
subvert the minds of young impressionable students to my own nefarious
ends, muuahHAHAHA.

On Jun 21, 12:42 am, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Let's do like NASCAR, and fine the "crew chiefs".

Riders get a slap on the wrist ($1000?) ($50? that sounds better) and
a one-race suspension.

I was proposing time penalties for every rider on the team, but no
suspensions. A suspension just lets the team replace the rider with
another rider of unknown doping status. Actually, I had proposed
anonymizing the test results so no one would know exactly which rider
was doping -- though the team would have a pretty strong incentive to
figure it out.