Armstrong Simeoni Case Dropped

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

Quoted message said:

Watch for the headlines. Each dropped his case against the other.

Which is to say that they settled, as Armstrong and Anderson did. But, will
the public learn the terms of the settlement?

Pretty funny considering the Anderson "settlement" was plainly him
running for cover.

Same, no doubt for Simeoni who was probably presented with a legal bill
and the after effects of no one wanting to hire him to ride.

I have always found it fascinating that Brian finds it unethical for a
doctor to inform his patients who wanted to use drugs how to use them
safely but hasn't the slightest problem with false accusations or
phoney law suits.

It must be the lawyer in him.

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

Quoted message said:

Pretty funny considering the Anderson "settlement" was plainly him
running for cover.

Another stupid comment on your part, Eunuch. You have absolutely no idea
what the settlement terms were.

Quoted message said:

Same, no doubt for Simeoni who was probably presented with a legal bill
and the after effects of no one wanting to hire him to ride.

Once again, a stupid comment, Eunuch. Simeoni's attorney has stated
numerous times that he was not charging a fee for his representations of
Simeoni.

Quoted message said:

I have always found it fascinating that Brian finds it unethical for a
doctor to inform his patients who wanted to use drugs how to use them
safely but hasn't the slightest problem with false accusations or
phoney law suits.

A clear mis-statement on your part, Eunuch. Doctors who work with athletes
to the end of using prescription drugs for non-medical purposes such as
performance enhancement, violate medical ethics, state and federal law.

Quoted message said:

It must be the lawyer in him.

Eunuch, the lawyer in me knows a hell of a lot more than exists in toto in
your addled brain.

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

Watch for the headlines. Each dropped his case against the other.

Which is to say that they settled, as Armstrong and Anderson did. But, will
the public learn the terms of the settlement?

I'm cheesed. There oughta be a law. Once a case is brought
before a magistrate, any settlement goes into the public
record.

You go to a Sumo match, they walk around, squat, throw
salt, stretch, grimace, turn their back on one another,
stomp around more, flex, talk to the handler, strut; then
settle out of court. [censored].

--
Michael Press

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

Quoted message said:

I have always found it fascinating that Brian finds it unethical for a
doctor to inform his patients who wanted to use drugs how to use them
safely but hasn't the slightest problem with false accusations or
phoney law suits.

Very good point...

-p

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Pretty funny considering the Anderson "settlement" was plainly him
running for cover.

Another stupid comment on your part, Eunuch. You have absolutely no idea
what the settlement terms were.

Quoted message said:

Same, no doubt for Simeoni who was probably presented with a legal bill
and the after effects of no one wanting to hire him to ride.

Once again, a stupid comment, Eunuch. Simeoni's attorney has stated
numerous times that he was not charging a fee for his representations of
Simeoni.

Well, gee, I had a lawyer that didn't charge me and yet he did present a
bill for over two grand for expenses. But you wouldn't know anything about
that sort of thing would you?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have always found it fascinating that Brian finds it unethical for a
doctor to inform his patients who wanted to use drugs how to use them
safely but hasn't the slightest problem with false accusations or
phoney law suits.

A clear mis-statement on your part, Eunuch. Doctors who work with
athletes to the end of using prescription drugs for non-medical purposes
such as performance enhancement, violate medical ethics, state and federal
law.

Doctors who work with athletes who tell them that they intend to use drugs
for performance enhancing nevertheless have the responsibility to their
patients to make sure they're informed how to use those drugs soas to
minimize the health risks to their patients. But you wouldn't know anything
about ethics either would you?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It must be the lawyer in him.

Eunuch, the lawyer in me knows a hell of a lot more than exists in toto in
your addled brain.

Imagine the clown in you writing about doping to the exclusion of everything
else in the universe?

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Pretty funny considering the Anderson "settlement" was plainly him
running for cover.

Another stupid comment on your part, Eunuch. You have absolutely no idea
what the settlement terms were.

Quoted message said:

Same, no doubt for Simeoni who was probably presented with a legal bill
and the after effects of no one wanting to hire him to ride.

Once again, a stupid comment, Eunuch. Simeoni's attorney has stated
numerous times that he was not charging a fee for his representations of
Simeoni.

Well, gee, I had a lawyer that didn't charge me and yet he did present a
bill for over two grand for expenses. But you wouldn't know anything about
that sort of thing would you?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have always found it fascinating that Brian finds it unethical for a
doctor to inform his patients who wanted to use drugs how to use them
safely but hasn't the slightest problem with false accusations or
phoney law suits.

A clear mis-statement on your part, Eunuch. Doctors who work with
athletes to the end of using prescription drugs for non-medical purposes
such as performance enhancement, violate medical ethics, state and
federal law.

Doctors who work with athletes who tell them that they intend to use drugs
for performance enhancing nevertheless have the responsibility to their
patients to make sure they're informed how to use those drugs soas to
minimize the health risks to their patients. But you wouldn't know
anything about ethics either would you?

Incorrect, Eunuch. That's a standard line of defense that many of these
doctors use. It doesn't wash.

See:
The harm-minimisation argument is that some athletes will take drugs
irrespective of whether supervised or not, and that giving drugs under
medical supervision potentially results in less harm as there is control
over the quality of the drugs supplied and early detection and treatment of
adverse reactions. The controlled use of heroin in registered addicts is one
example of the application of the harm-minimisation argument in medicine.17
However, this model is not applicable to drugs in sport. Both types of
drug-taking may involve unfortunate victims and major criminal and financial
enterprises,18 but there the similarity ends. In contrast to heroin, little
is known of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of high doses of AAS
taken as single agents. There is even less knowledge of their
pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics when taken in various multiple doses
("stacking"😉 or in increasing doses ("pyramiding"😉. In addition, experience
has shown that when a doctor prescribes low doses of AAS, this may lead to
the prescriber's being used as one of a number of sources of supply.19 Under
these circumstances, the doctor faces a new dilemma when an adverse reaction
follows: to cease prescribing the offending agent or to prescribe yet
another drug (for example, tamoxifen when oestrogenic side effects occur).
The absurdity of this argument becomes evident when extended to justify
prescribing insulin, erythropoietin or amphetamines.
Respect for the general principle of autonomy and individual freedom means
an acceptance that individuals -- both doctors and patients -- "own" their
actions and are responsible for what they do. Athletes can request what they
like, but doctors need not comply. Non-maleficence means that medical
actions must cause as little harm as possible, not that medical skills
should be used to fine-tune enterprises of harm.

If approached about prescribing drugs to enhance sporting performance, the
proper medical response is to provide accurate information and advice in a
non-judgemental manner. If the patient has been or is exposed to a known
health risk it is reasonable to diagnose and treat any ill-effects. This
applies to drug use as much as it does to smoking, and does not require
crossing the line between good medicine and cooperating with behaviour that
is unhealthy, illegal or just plain wrong.

If requested to prescribe drugs to enhance sporting performance the proper
response is to refuse. Saying "no" to unreasonable requests is not always
easy, but to do otherwise is to miss the point of what practising medicine
is all about.

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/171_4_160899/kennedy/kennedy.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It must be the lawyer in him.

Eunuch, the lawyer in me knows a hell of a lot more than exists in toto
in your addled brain.

Imagine the clown in you writing about doping to the exclusion of
everything else in the universe?

That's funny, Eunuch, coming from a clown like you. You aren't even
intelligent or knowledgeable enough to be the Court Fool.

Well now, there's the usual big lie from laff@me. Simeoni didn't say that he
took drugs "under medical supervision". Are we surprised that pure invention
takes the form of laff@me's words?

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

Quoted message said:

Well now, there's the usual big lie from laff@me. Simeoni didn't say that
he took drugs "under medical supervision". Are we surprised that pure
invention takes the form of laff@me's words?

Eunuch, you are such dissembler. Nowhere did I say anything about Simeoni
and his situation vis a vis any physicians. The only lie here comes from
you---quite typical of you, Eunuch.