Road Cycling · Public discussion

Doping Joke

Started by Bill C · · Last activity · 52 posts · 1,385 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Road Cycling
Published
18 October 2005
Last activity
24 October 2005
Original author
Bill C
Posts
52
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,385
Views / 30 days
0
Topics

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 21–40 of 52
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Donald Munro said:
    Tom Kunich said:
    Quoted message said:

    The riders shouldn't be getting fined and suspended from competition,
    they ought to be spending hard time behind bars. They're the one's
    cheating and often for a damned Cat 4 win!

    Ryan Cousineau said:

    Hey, I don't know what more I can do to prove my innocence. I have
    _never_ failed a drug test.

    Well you must be a supplier then. What, other than an illegal dose of
    cheap gin, could cause a team mate to ride into a hay bale ?

    Look: I have no idea what horrible regimen Haybale was on. And that race
    was sponsored by the Yaletown Brewing Company, so if he was on cheap
    gin, he's got a much bigger problem: he was cheating on sponsors.

    http://www.markjamesgroup.com/restbrew/yaletown/yaletown.html

    Mmm. Beer.

    --
    Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
    "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
    to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

  2. In article
    <[email hidden]>,

    Tom Kunich said:

    Well, you're correct in that assessment Carl, but you could have used
    drugs as well and yet did you?

    The guys selling the stuff are only selling to a ready market. The
    pretense that they are somehow more to blame has to do with the theory
    that there are fewer pushers than users and hence it's easier to stop
    doping at that point. The FACT is that is a stupid misconseption. If
    you put one pusher away another 20 will spring up in his place because
    there's money to be made selling drugs.

    You NEED to punish the user and NOT focus on the pusher.

    No. Make drugs freely available at rock bottom prices.
    Most users will eventually stop. The rest cannot be
    helped.

    --
    Michael Press

  3. Tom Kunich said:
    Quoted message said:

    You NEED to punish the user and NOT focus on the pusher.

    Michael Press said:

    No. Make drugs freely available at rock bottom prices.
    Most users will eventually stop. The rest cannot be
    helped.

    Thats evolution, baby.

  4. Donald Munro said:
    Tom Kunich said:
    Quoted message said:

    You NEED to punish the user and NOT focus on the pusher.

    Michael Press said:

    No. Make drugs freely available at rock bottom prices.
    Most users will eventually stop. The rest cannot be
    helped.

    Thats evolution, baby.


    No it's intelligent design, God planned it that way.
    Bill C

  5. Tom Kunich said:

    You NEED to punish the user and NOT focus on the pusher.

    Still waiting for Rush Limbaugh to step up to the plate (i.e.,
    jailhouse "in" door) on this one.

    Talking the talk, perpin' the walk? Not while the dittoheads still say
    "baaaa". --D-y

  6. Quoted message said:
    Tom Kunich said:

    You NEED to punish the user and NOT focus on the pusher.

    Still waiting for Rush Limbaugh to step up to the plate (i.e.,
    jailhouse "in" door) on this one.

    Talking the talk, perpin' the walk? Not while the dittoheads still say
    "baaaa". --D-y

    That's another case of "If you got the money". If they leave the
    politics out of it he get's the standard slap on the wrist any major
    entertainer gets, otherwise Liz Taylor would've been doing life by now
    for the same thing.
    Does drop him right alongside his buddy "The Righteous Children's
    Author" Bill Bennett. There is a a double standard though, but I think
    it's primarily because the Dem's are smart enough not to stake out the
    marble pillar, so when they screw up every goes "Yeah, that's normal.
    What's the big deal?". Sometimes low expectations are a good thing.
    Did some digging on the Clinton-coke thing after Tom brought it up,
    and it sure looks like there was a hell of a lot more solid evidence
    for Clinton doing it than Bush, but nobody even bothered after Bill
    claimed he didn't inhale. My guess is that they both did, but nobody
    hammered Horndog Billy on it.
    Bill C

  7. Quoted message said:
    Tom Kunich said:

    You NEED to punish the user and NOT focus on the pusher.

    Still waiting for Rush Limbaugh to step up to the plate (i.e.,
    jailhouse "in" door) on this one.

    Talking the talk, perpin' the walk? Not while the dittoheads still say
    "baaaa". --D-y


    And now for the lighter side:
    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/41447
    Bill C

  8. Bill, what's the deal here? You don't like Rush so you want to see him
    jailed? And yet Roger Clinton on film picking up cocaine for the
    President is ignored? Wow. Explain again this evil oxycontin problem
    you seem to have.

    Personally I think that Rush had a problem and he had to be slapped in
    the face to do anything about it. Fine. So what business is that of
    yours or Douche's?

  9. Gentlemen, gentlemen....Limbaugh ? The Clintons ? It's 2006 already,
    come on in out of the 90's already.

  10. Tom Kunich said:

    Bill, what's the deal here? You don't like Rush so you want to see him
    jailed? And yet Roger Clinton on film picking up cocaine for the
    President is ignored? Wow. Explain again this evil oxycontin problem
    you seem to have.

    Personally I think that Rush had a problem and he had to be slapped in
    the face to do anything about it. Fine. So what business is that of
    yours or Douche's?


    Tom it's not that I don't like him, and I do think the investigation
    was massively driven by politics, but laws should be enforced
    consistently. Since I haven't seen any of the Hollywood crowd have
    their medical records forced into open court and haven't seem them
    hammered the same way. I say he gets the same kind of pass. Rush's
    problem was that he set himself up as better than those people, then
    when his problem came up he was forced into "Do as I say, not as I
    did". Bill Bennett did the same thing. It's got nothing to do with who
    I like. I'd put Roger Clinton in the same category as Billy Carter.
    I just don't think that wealthy, doctor shopping, prescription drug
    addicts should be treated any better than a college kid with a couple
    of joints, and 9 times out of ten the kid gets nailed and the soccer
    mom walks.
    Bill C

  11. Quoted message said:

    Gentlemen, gentlemen....Limbaugh ? The Clintons ? It's 2006 already,
    come on in out of the 90's already.


    We could talk Rumsfel and Rachel Maddow. They're both a trip.
    Bill C

  12. "Rush's problem was that he set himself up as better than those people,
    then when his problem came up he was forced into "Do as I say, not as I
    did""

    Got to tell you Bill, when I listened to Rush every once in awhile
    (he's on during working hours around here) I never heard him say that
    he was any better. I heard him offer fairly STAID criticism of people
    and not even all of them were political enemies. Perhaps that
    constitutes "holier than though" in your book but not in mine.

    And it doesn't matter that Bennett did whatever it is he did (I don't
    even know what that is).

    "I just don't think that wealthy, doctor shopping, prescription drug
    addicts should be treated any better than a college kid with a couple
    of joints, and 9 times out of ten the kid gets nailed and the soccer
    mom walks."

    I don't know what courts you've been in but even in Berkeley what's
    good for the goose is (generally) good for the gander and they don't
    even bother with kids using dope unless it's out of control. In San
    Francisco you can see cops driving past guys standing on the street
    corner snorting some sort of meth! One cop told me that he was told not
    to do anything about it because the DA wouldn't prosecute anyone and
    the department would look bad.

  13. Howard Kveck said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Tom Kunich said:

    Please don't tell me that Balco executives didn't get enough punishment
    to suit you. As far as I'm concerned they were only filling a market.

    Hmm, couldn't you say that about *any* person selling drugs of any sort?
    Pablo Escobar was only filling a market, wasn't he?

    dumbass,

    my point, and i think kunich's too is that the suppliers have already
    been charged and convicted, but the superstar users are still treated
    with kid-gloves by the justice system.

    the difference with the recreational drug market is that the users, ie.
    Balco's celebrity clients (as opposed to lit up master fatties) were
    profitting from the trade.

  14. Tom Kunich said:

    "Rush's problem was that he set himself up as better than those people,
    then when his problem came up he was forced into "Do as I say, not as I
    did""

    Got to tell you Bill, when I listened to Rush every once in awhile
    (he's on during working hours around here) I never heard him say that
    he was any better. I heard him offer fairly STAID criticism of people
    and not even all of them were political enemies. Perhaps that
    constitutes "holier than though" in your book but not in mine.

    And it doesn't matter that Bennett did whatever it is he did (I don't
    even know what that is).

    "I just don't think that wealthy, doctor shopping, prescription drug
    addicts should be treated any better than a college kid with a couple
    of joints, and 9 times out of ten the kid gets nailed and the soccer
    mom walks."

    I don't know what courts you've been in but even in Berkeley what's
    good for the goose is (generally) good for the gander and they don't
    even bother with kids using dope unless it's out of control. In San
    Francisco you can see cops driving past guys standing on the street
    corner snorting some sort of meth! One cop told me that he was told not
    to do anything about it because the DA wouldn't prosecute anyone and
    the department would look bad.


    Tom if you are going to make the argument that Berkely and SF are
    anywhere near normal or average then you've been there too long. They
    are pretty similar to here and Cambridge though, but the rest of the
    country doesn't see it that way. This is a problem I run into all the
    time is that people in either hardcore Red or Blue areas believe that
    their way is the only way and have little to no tolerance for even
    discussing the opposing views.
    Since we've lived in Ma., Nh, Vt, Fl., Tx., Ms., Wa.,Ga., and Mo. here
    in the states and we've always made it a point to learn about and blend
    into the local culture so I think we've got a pretty good experience of
    different areas. The only places I've been that ignore minor drug stuff
    is south Fla., the city of Orlando was variable but outside the city in
    Bubba heaven it was a whole different world, the N.E. states and Wa.
    are variable, but rural Tx., Ms., Ga., and Mo. had little to no
    tolerance.
    Here's a bit of info, but there are tons of conflicting
    interpretations of the numbers:
    http://www.mpp.org/arrests/fas61699.html
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/interviews/schlosser.html
    I know it would kill you to admit it but Tom P. is making really solid
    points.
    As for Rush I listen pretty regularly, and I'm not sure where you
    don't hear him arguing that he and conservative christians are morally
    superior in all ways. Of course Rachel Maddow and friends are just as
    far off the deep end on their side. Both sides are busy demonizing
    those they don't agree with and setting themselves up as shining
    examples. The only dfference is that the Air America types admit, and
    celebrate their unconventional lives including drug use as a good thing
    in many cases. They are willing to admit and be open about their
    activities, so people large portions of the country don't get all
    shocked when one of them gets tagged for something.
    The Moral Majority types including Limbaugh, and Bennett spent years
    claiming to be paragons of virtue and telling everyone how to live.
    It's a lot longer fall from that position than from the Air America
    position.
    IMO anybody who is a dittohead to either side isn't thinking for
    themselves and is an idiot, but that's just my sorry ass opinion.
    Bill C

  15. Tom Kunich said:

    "Rush's problem was that he set himself up as better than those people,
    then when his problem came up he was forced into "Do as I say, not as I
    did""

    Got to tell you Bill, when I listened to Rush every once in awhile
    (he's on during working hours around here) I never heard him say that
    he was any better. I heard him offer fairly STAID criticism of people
    and not even all of them were political enemies. Perhaps that
    constitutes "holier than though" in your book but not in mine.

    And it doesn't matter that Bennett did whatever it is he did (I don't
    even know what that is).

    "I just don't think that wealthy, doctor shopping, prescription drug
    addicts should be treated any better than a college kid with a couple
    of joints, and 9 times out of ten the kid gets nailed and the soccer
    mom walks."

    I don't know what courts you've been in but even in Berkeley what's
    good for the goose is (generally) good for the gander and they don't
    even bother with kids using dope unless it's out of control. In San
    Francisco you can see cops driving past guys standing on the street
    corner snorting some sort of meth! One cop told me that he was told not
    to do anything about it because the DA wouldn't prosecute anyone and
    the department would look bad.


    Here's a sig I just ran across that matches my views very well:

    About the only difference between the wingnuts on each end of the
    [political] spectrum is *which* civil right(s) they think we can do
    without. -- Rowan Hawthorn, in alt.callahans (2/28/05)

    Bill C

  16. Bill C said:

    Hell
    you're going to tell me that the DeLay [censored] is worse than the Gore
    China/Bhuddist [censored]?

    More recent. "Worse" is unknowable by us mortals.

    Quoted message said:

    The little guy with the public defender is always going to get
    hammered for the same thing someone who can afford the OJ team walks
    on. That's the reality of American justice.

    "The best money can buy". --D-y

  17. In article <[email hidden]>,

    amit said:
    Howard Kveck said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Tom Kunich said:

    Please don't tell me that Balco executives didn't get enough punishment
    to suit you. As far as I'm concerned they were only filling a market.

    Hmm, couldn't you say that about *any* person selling drugs of any sort?
    Pablo Escobar was only filling a market, wasn't he?

    dumbass,

    my point, and i think kunich's too is that the suppliers have already
    been charged and convicted, but the superstar users are still treated
    with kid-gloves by the justice system.

    I understand that to be your point, but I didn't read Tom's statement the
    same way.

    Quoted message said:

    the difference with the recreational drug market is that the users, ie.
    Balco's celebrity clients (as opposed to lit up master fatties) were
    profitting from the trade.

    Agreed.

    --
    tanx,
    Howard

    The sheriff is near...

    remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

  18. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Tom Kunich said:

    "Pablo Escobar was only filling a market, wasn't he?"

    Yeah, Bill Clinton had a nose like a vacuum cleaner.

    Hmm, are you saying that he snorted all those cheeseburgers? Or are you still
    clinging to that "Clinton took money from the coke dealers to allow plane loads
    of blow to come into Arkansas airports" story?

    OK, further upthread I see you're talking about a film of Roger Clinton
    buying blow "for the President". Uh, did he *say* that was who it was for, or
    are you assuming it? I don't have much doubt that Roger Clinton was a cokehead,
    based on plenty of stories about his lifestyle. It seems like he might get
    filmed buying coke for himself.

    --
    tanx,
    Howard

    The sheriff is near...

    remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

  19. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Tom Kunich said:

    "Rush's problem was that he set himself up as better than those people,
    then when his problem came up he was forced into "Do as I say, not as I
    did""

    Got to tell you Bill, when I listened to Rush every once in awhile
    (he's on during working hours around here) I never heard him say that
    he was any better. I heard him offer fairly STAID criticism of people
    and not even all of them were political enemies. Perhaps that
    constitutes "holier than though" in your book but not in mine.

    And it doesn't matter that Bennett did whatever it is he did (I don't
    even know what that is).

    He gambled. As far as I can tell, the greatest indignation among most
    pundits was reserved for the fact that he was a slots player. How
    unutterably declassé.

    What Bennett did not only wasn't a crime, it wasn't even against his
    moral code (he's Catholic: we're the drinking and gambling religion,
    maybe even a little smoking. No condoms, though. Seems like a good trade
    to me).

    Livedrunk? You bet!

    --
    Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
    "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
    to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

  20. Ryan Cousineau said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Tom Kunich said:

    "Rush's problem was that he set himself up as better than those people,
    then when his problem came up he was forced into "Do as I say, not as I
    did""

    Got to tell you Bill, when I listened to Rush every once in awhile
    (he's on during working hours around here) I never heard him say that
    he was any better. I heard him offer fairly STAID criticism of people
    and not even all of them were political enemies. Perhaps that
    constitutes "holier than though" in your book but not in mine.

    And it doesn't matter that Bennett did whatever it is he did (I don't
    even know what that is).

    He gambled. As far as I can tell, the greatest indignation among most
    pundits was reserved for the fact that he was a slots player. How
    unutterably declassé.

    What Bennett did not only wasn't a crime, it wasn't even against his
    moral code (he's Catholic: we're the drinking and gambling religion,
    maybe even a little smoking. No condoms, though. Seems like a good trade
    to me).

    Livedrunk? You bet!

    --
    Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
    "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
    to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

    I was also thinking about Bennetts suggestion that abortion was a good
    way to reduce the crime rate, Not quite a Catholic concept. Though
    that's being spun pretty well now and it looks like he picked it up
    from an economics text.
    Bill C

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.