Doping Joke

Ryan Cousineau said:

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.

Spending millions for the thrill of the turn of a card, while
brainwashing (or trying) children with the King James Buffalo. "What I
do is OK, what you do isn't".

Quoted message said:

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).

"People are a resource", translated: "If I can get enough starving
rabble to apply for this job, I can get it done as near as possible for
free".

A quote from somewhere on the web:
<I'm waiting for some gutsy black to suggest that if all the rich white
boys were aborted we wouldn't have any white collar crime, any more
Enrons, or...any more frigging Republicans to bankrupt the country and
go to war and ruin any chance for competent government and progress in
America. Can't we have some fun here??>

Is Ken Lay, and especially, his wife, in jail yet??? MORALITY??? No,
not something the Catholics are very good at, I agree. --D-y

Bill C said:

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

Spun? The entire exposition was in his original remarks. The "spin"
was taking it out of context and ignoring the intent of the remarks to
begin with. His suggestion was that you can take facts and use them to
support some pretty abhorrent arguments. In the complete context,
including abortion as part of an abhorrent argument is completely
plausible. The more rational opposition has since had fun taking other
similar facts to play with similar arguments - but at least they admit
to getting the point.

Yeah, there is a mindset showing. As it may have been said here
already, it does indicate from where he pulls his example. Anyone
surprised by this needs a reality check.

I'm no fan of Bennett, but everyone has had more than a week to get up
to speed on this. And you don't have to go to the Washington Times to
get the information - the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun among
many others has put it out there for various parts of the political
spectrum.

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

amit said:

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.

Dumbass,

The justice system as presently constructed treats supply
as a more serious crime than posession/use. That's part
of the law, but from a prosecutor's point of view, it's
also easier to prove. I agree with you that superstar
athletes get off easy (Romanowski even managed to beat a
steroid-selling rap) but imagine trying to prove that
Bonds or somebody knowingly used steroids, in front of
a sympathetic jury, with most of your witnesses being
lowlifes like Conte. If you can't catch them with a
medicine cabinet full, it's tough.

They may be profiting by using, but that isn't written in
the law as a crime. If a stockbroker uses coke or speed
so he can work harder and faster and put some other guy
out of business, the law doesn't treat him more severely
than some poor shmuck who just wants to get high. The
broker would probably get a _lesser_ penalty.

Anyway, who really profits? Some athletes get bigger
contracts, briefly, at the risk of damage to their health
and reputation - but it's a zero-sum game for them, since
some athlete would get a big contract anyway. The owners
make bank, at very little risk unless the fans get turned off.
The leagues make bank too. In cycling, the Giro, Tour, UCI,
all profited from Pantani, Virenque, Lance, Jan. The fans
ate that [censored] up. It's their fault for watching, isn't it?

So that's my modest proposal. Punish the fans. The fans
are benefitting from having their favorite team beat the
[censored] out of any less well-doped team, watching Bonds hit
homers, etc. It would be pretty easy to do in a
stadium-based league. Every time someone on a team tests
positive, fine each season-ticket holder 100 bucks. The
pressure to clean up would be intense. If you feel the
monetary aspect is inappropriate, every time an athlete
tests positive, have a ticket-holder taken out and shot.
[censored] Pound could get with that.

Ben
graduate, Scooter Libby School of Public Relations

P.S. Every time LANCE tests positive, have one of those
annoying "Cutters" dudes taken out and shot.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

Ben
graduate, Scooter Libby School of Public Relations

P.S. Every time LANCE tests positive, have one of those
annoying "Cutters" dudes taken out and shot.

Can't we just do that on general principal, and not even bother with the
positive tests?

Howard
graduate, Alberto Gonzalez School of Jurisprudence

--
tanx,
Howard

The sheriff is near...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard Kveck said:

graduate, Alberto Gonzalez School of Jurisprudence

Am I going to get called a candydumbass for my circumlocution?
<http://groups.google.co.nz/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/1a163c614da3c094/8a39d75a4fb5dbe2?lnk=st&q=rec.bicycles.racing+%22Scooter+Libby%22&rnum=1&hl=en#8a39d75a4fb5dbe2>

In article said:

Howard Kveck said:

graduate, Alberto Gonzalez School of Jurisprudence

Am I going to get called a candydumbass for my circumlocution?
<http://groups.google.co.nz/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/1a163c
614da3c094/8a39d75a4fb5dbe2?lnk=st&q=rec.bicycles.racing+%22Scooter+Libby%22&r
num=1&hl=en#8a39d75a4fb5dbe2>

Well, that was back in June. Pretty early for good prognostication.

--
tanx,
Howard

The sheriff is near...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

email hidden said:

Bennett decided to play with fire and he got burned.
I have no sympathy.

I don't have sympathy for Bennett. I also occasionally don't have much
patience when people continue to use information that is now stale:
either read the next issue of the Weekly Reader to keep up or move on
to what's current so you are not responsible yet for the follow up
articles. Clarence Page is liberal enough that when he defends Bennett
to some degree, its time to move to the next stupid comment. Why be
lazy and misuse an now old stupid comment when there are so many from
so many to choose from?

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

email hidden said:

If you feel the
monetary aspect is inappropriate, every time an athlete
tests positive, have a ticket-holder taken out and shot.
[censored] Pound could get with that.

This is an easy solution - all winners are presumed to be on drugs, so
the fans of the losers roam about and beat up on the fans of the
winner. Now this may, in fact, happen already in many places and
sports, but introducing legal sanctioning of the activity will take it
to new levels, when possible.

I could almost look forward to the next time Virginia Tech comes to
College Park...

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

Quoted message said:

Dumbass,

The justice system as presently constructed treats supply
as a more serious crime than posession/use.

dumbass,

that part is true.

Quoted message said:

That's part
of the law, but from a prosecutor's point of view, it's
also easier to prove.

i don't see that. proving someone is a supplier implies having to prove
not only that they had the drugs, but also the intent to sell, the
transport of it, gettting paid for it.

proving they supplied the drugs imples they can prove who it went to as
well.

possession in contrast is easier to prove.

Why are you talking about this as if you had an intelligent thought?

The law defines "supplier" as having more than a certain quantity of
drugs generally an amount larger than people can purchase for personal
use.

So, a drug pusher is someone who has more drugs than he could
personally use.

Tom Kunich said:

Why are you talking about this as if you had an intelligent thought?

The law defines "supplier" as having more than a certain quantity of
drugs generally an amount larger than people can purchase for personal
use.

So, a drug pusher is someone who has more drugs than he could
personally use.

dumbass,

not in the case of steroids.

the BALCO trio pled guilty to steroid distibution. this in not the same
as someone with a large stash of cocaine being brought up on a
trafficking charge.

this implies to me the prosecutors had some information about the
movement of the steroids.

amit said:

this implies to me the prosecutors had some information about the
movement of the steroids.

Dumbass -

I'll bet the prosecutors had *a lot* of information.

The BALCO guys were probably never expecting to get any heat
whatsoever, therefore they probably didn't put much effort into
covering their tracks.

The reason I make that speculation is: since when have the Feds
investigated steroid rings for highly paid professional athletes?

thanks,

K. Gringioni.