Mr. .3 Percent?

Quoted message said:

From Yahoo Sports News:

(quoting):

Brailsford said Hayles was just 0.3 percent over the maximum limit.
Haematocrit levels above 50 percent are an indication, but not proof,
that illegal blood-boosting may have taken place

What does anorexic Drew Carey say about this?

Magilla

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

From Yahoo Sports News:

(quoting):

Brailsford said Hayles was just 0.3 percent over the maximum limit.
Haematocrit levels above 50 percent are an indication, but not proof,
that illegal blood-boosting may have taken place

"I've known Rob a long time and there's never been any doubt in my
mind that Rob is anything but a fantastic athlete for Great Britain,"
Brailsford told Reuters.

"I've spoken to Rob and looked him straight in the eye and he's
devastated as you'd expect. All of our riders are tested and we've had
thousands of tests done on our squad."

"Whilst it's not anything we'd ever wish to happen on the opening day
of the track world championships, I think the system is there to make
sure that everything is kept above board and I'm 100 percent behind
it." (end quote)

"This morning's screening has shown an anomaly that warrants further
investigation and we are working with the UCI to resolve this matter.
Meanwhile, we continue to be focused on delivering the best results
during the world track championships." (end quote)

O brave new world!

"Brailsford loved Uncle WADA".

(What's up over at baseballplayersgotaunion.org?) --D-y

Okay, super, but what's the problem? I am a naive dumbass (probably
drunk, possibly an ape, apparently owned by a slave), but aside from the
fact that Hayles, in retrospect, ought to have tracked his Hct himself
(and, er, infused saline like there was no tomorrow...), what's the
problem?

The hematocrit test should be the least controversial WADA protocol of
all. Maybe this is the start of the documentation for Rob getting a
"golden ticket" natural-hematocrit exemption, or maybe this is the start
of Rob getting a one-way ticket on the Stolen Underground*, but either
way, not many tears in my beers because he got a two-week health
suspension.

*Should not be mistaken for Jan Ullrich's ticket on the stollen
Underground. Mmm...

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

From Yahoo Sports News:

Quoted message said:

(quoting):

Quoted message said:

Brailsford said Hayles was just 0.3 percent over the maximum limit.
Haematocrit levels above 50 percent are an indication, but not proof,
that illegal blood-boosting may have taken place

Quoted message said:

"I've known Rob a long time and there's never been any doubt in my
mind that Rob is anything but a fantastic athlete for Great Britain,"
Brailsford told Reuters.

Quoted message said:

"I've spoken to Rob and looked him straight in the eye and he's
devastated as you'd expect. All of our riders are tested and we've had
thousands of tests done on our squad."

Quoted message said:

"Whilst it's not anything we'd ever wish to happen on the opening day
of the track world championships, I think the system is there to make
sure that everything is kept above board and I'm 100 percent behind
it." (end quote)

Quoted message said:

"This morning's screening has shown an anomaly that warrants further
investigation and we are working with the UCI to resolve this matter.
Meanwhile, we continue to be focused on delivering the best results
during the world track championships." (end quote)

Quoted message said:

O brave new world!

Quoted message said:

"Brailsford loved Uncle WADA".

Quoted message said:

(What's up over at baseballplayersgotaunion.org?)  --D-y

Okay, super, but what's the problem? I am a naive dumbass (probably
drunk, possibly an ape, apparently owned by a slave), but aside from the
fact that Hayles, in retrospect, ought to have tracked his Hct himself
(and, er, infused saline like there was no tomorrow...), what's the
problem?

You said "problems" twice.

"I like problems" (yes I watched Blazing Saddles the other night).

Well... "Why is there a hematocrit limit?" Why is the hematocrit
limit set at 50%, when it is known that some, even non-athletic human
beings, can have a higher 'crit? And these are trackies, not worn-down
"endurance athletes" whose hematocrits might be expected to sag during
competition.

Is it because some sanctioning body or two made up some bad rules they
couldn't effectively test for? So, some/many/"all" riders were at
least tempted to "cheat", knowing the guy next to him could probably
dope without getting caught? So, there has to be an arbitrary limit
set, and people get kicked out of competitions, even without a
positive test for dope?

This flunks the NASCAR test (Michael Waltrip's Daytona transgression
of '07 comes to mind) in a big, big way.

"Whoops, we caught you ever so slightly over the 50% limit. You're
busted. Size depending on subsequent events/findings, there's going to
be a fine for you, maybe for people in your racing organization, too.
We need urine and blood and hair and whatever (non-harmful) samples,
which will be quickly tested (i.e., no [censored] delays meant expressly
to prevent participation in the upcoming competition), and you will be
taken to control immediately after the race, also, with those results
obtained immediately."

Compared to the War on People approach. That's what's wrong what's
wrong.

And "infusing saline like there was no tomorrow"? Dang, then what if
he were to ask for some makeup to cover needle marks or something?
Phew, that was some of the strongest hearsay evidence the Lance-haters
were clinging onto back when Lafferty was still posting here.

How much suspicion did Floyd draw to himself with his massive water
"consumption" even if most of it was used for evaporative cooling?

Or, are you suggesting you would have been happier in your beer if he
had "infused like there was no tomorrow" and passed the rushed-into-
place, stopgap hematocrit test limit? Remember, the test the
authorities decided to initiate back when only the police were even
giving the appearance of "catching dopers"? --D-y

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

From Yahoo Sports News:

Quoted message said:

(quoting):

Quoted message said:

Brailsford said Hayles was just 0.3 percent over the maximum limit.
Haematocrit levels above 50 percent are an indication, but not proof,
that illegal blood-boosting may have taken place

Okay, super, but what's the problem? I am a naive dumbass (probably
drunk, possibly an ape, apparently owned by a slave), but aside from the
fact that Hayles, in retrospect, ought to have tracked his Hct himself
(and, er, infused saline like there was no tomorrow...), what's the
problem?

You said "problems" twice.

Well, I may have been drunk. No, actually, I wasn't. I'm just stupid.

Quoted message said:

"I like problems" (yes I watched Blazing Saddles the other night).

"Mongo only pawn... in game of life." -Ben Franklin

Quoted message said:

Well... "Why is there a hematocrit limit?" Why is the hematocrit
limit set at 50%, when it is known that some, even non-athletic human
beings, can have a higher 'crit? And these are trackies, not worn-down
"endurance athletes" whose hematocrits might be expected to sag during
competition.

Very few people naturally cross the 50% limit. It's a presumptive limit,
but the golden ticket is easy enough for actual pro athletes to acquire.
Just ask Jonathan Vaughters or any of the few other athletes with the
golden ticket. And that's in sports that self-select for high-hct, at
least in theory.

Quoted message said:

Is it because some sanctioning body or two made up some bad rules they
couldn't effectively test for? So, some/many/"all" riders were at
least tempted to "cheat", knowing the guy next to him could probably
dope without getting caught? So, there has to be an arbitrary limit
set, and people get kicked out of competitions, even without a
positive test for dope?

Well, arguing that EPO was a case of bad rules is pretty hazardous. EPO
practically dragged the UCI and WADA into this rule because EPO was
gently killing off the first flower of neo-pros in their sleep.

EPO is impressively dangerous in the hands of dumb athletes because its
dose-response apparently responsive right up to the point where it
starts quietly killing you in your sleep. In the interests of not
wanting any more 60-percenters sludging to death, and with no effective
test available, an easily testable speed limit was imposed.

Quoted message said:

This flunks the NASCAR test (Michael Waltrip's Daytona transgression
of '07 comes to mind) in a big, big way.

"Whoops, we caught you ever so slightly over the 50% limit. You're
busted. Size depending on subsequent events/findings, there's going to
be a fine for you, maybe for people in your racing organization, too.
We need urine and blood and hair and whatever (non-harmful) samples,
which will be quickly tested (i.e., no [censored] delays meant expressly
to prevent participation in the upcoming competition), and you will be
taken to control immediately after the race, also, with those results
obtained immediately."

This might be fair comment if hct was hard to test for, or if the rule
wasn't widely publicized. I mean, if you show up to The Big Race and get
a health-break (but you weren't actually cheating) then you're either
young enough to have years of excellent racing ahead, or old enough to
know better. I assume that if this wasn't the rider's first EPO test,
that his previous values have been disclosed to him? I may be wrong, but
the spectacle of elite athletes who are naive about their hematocrit
numbers seems like discovering a Cat 1/2 who doesn't know his max HR.
Maybe they exist, but where?

Quoted message said:

Compared to the War on People approach. That's what's wrong what's
wrong.

You don't see riders getting repeated health-breaks unless they're
hopelessly dim (dumber even than me), and most of those riders,
historically, turned out to be dopers. The half-sensible riders either
dial back 5% or go through the process of getting the Golden Ticket.

Quoted message said:

And "infusing saline like there was no tomorrow"? Dang, then what if
he were to ask for some makeup to cover needle marks or something?
Phew, that was some of the strongest hearsay evidence the Lance-haters
were clinging onto back when Lafferty was still posting here.

Well, I was being a bit sarcastic. As in, when was the first time this
rider had his Hct tested? What happened between now and then?

At best, he's just discovered he's a natural wonder and has to get his
passport stamped.

Quoted message said:

How much suspicion did Floyd draw to himself with his massive water
"consumption" even if most of it was used for evaporative cooling?

My guess, having watched that stage either live or on the subsequent
repeats but in either case before he was tagged for doping, was "not
much."

A google could prove me wrong, but I don't recall talk about Floyd's
liquid cooling being suspicious, though many saw it as the secret of his
success. What I remember was the nice synergy of his breakaway and his
liquid cooling: the escape meant he could have the team car with him
unimpeded, which meant he could then enact Operation Super Soaker,
something he could not have done in the peloton.

Quoted message said:

Or, are you suggesting you would have been happier in your beer if he
had "infused like there was no tomorrow" and passed the rushed-into-
place, stopgap hematocrit test limit? Remember, the test the
authorities decided to initiate back when only the police were even
giving the appearance of "catching dopers"? --D-y

It might have been a rushed, stopgap test when it was first implemented.
Was that a decade ago? Now I think it's pretty well understood.

Sheesh. Are we now going to forgive riders because they show up at TTs
with Y-Foils or illegal seat positions? Sucks to be the guy who does
that, but it's not new or tricky.

EPO is an especially easy candidate for this kind of enforcement,
because it's practically the perfect nightmare drug: potent,
undetectable (until recently, and only with difficulty), and more
effective even as the rider crosses into lethal-dose territory.

About the only thing you could add if you were designing the perfect
drug was that it caused you to secrete a pheremone that demoralized your
opponents,

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Ryan Cousineau said:

Okay, super, but what's the problem? I am a naive dumbass (probably drunk,
possibly an ape, apparently owned by a slave),

In Canada you might be known as Mr >0.08

Ryan Cousineau said:

Quoted message said:

"Whoops, we caught you ever so slightly over the 50% limit. You're
busted. Size depending on subsequent events/findings, there's going to
be a fine for you, maybe for people in your racing organization, too.
We need urine and blood and hair and whatever (non-harmful) samples,
which will be quickly tested (i.e., no [censored] delays meant expressly
to prevent participation in the upcoming competition), and you will be
taken to control immediately after the race, also, with those results
obtained immediately."

This might be fair comment if hct was hard to test for, or if the rule
wasn't widely publicized. I mean, if you show up to The Big Race and get
a health-break (but you weren't actually cheating) then you're either
young enough to have years of excellent racing ahead, or old enough to
know better. I assume that if this wasn't the rider's first EPO test,
that his previous values have been disclosed to him? I may be wrong, but
the spectacle of elite athletes who are naive about their hematocrit
numbers seems like discovering a Cat 1/2 who doesn't know his max HR.
Maybe they exist, but where?

The guy is thirty-five, and has medals from two Olympics. One thing he
definitely isn't is inexperienced or naive. TBH I'd be surprised if he'd
been cheating, but I've been surprised before. Still, he will definitely
have a long series of previous tests, so it should be relatively easy to
prove whether this is in his natural range or not.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; It appears that /dev/null is a conforming XSL processor.

Brailsford interview
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/sol/newsid_7310000/newsid_7315300/7315379.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&bbcws=1

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

From Yahoo Sports News:

Quoted message said:

(quoting):

Quoted message said:

Brailsford said Hayles was just 0.3 percent over the maximum limit.
Haematocrit levels above 50 percent are an indication, but not proof,
that illegal blood-boosting may have taken place

Quoted message said:

"I've known Rob a long time and there's never been any doubt in my
mind that Rob is anything but a fantastic athlete for Great Britain,"
Brailsford told Reuters.

Quoted message said:

"I've spoken to Rob and looked him straight in the eye and he's
devastated as you'd expect. All of our riders are tested and we've had
thousands of tests done on our squad."

Quoted message said:

"Whilst it's not anything we'd ever wish to happen on the opening day
of the track world championships, I think the system is there to make
sure that everything is kept above board and I'm 100 percent behind
it." (end quote)

Quoted message said:

"This morning's screening has shown an anomaly that warrants further
investigation and we are working with the UCI to resolve this matter.
Meanwhile, we continue to be focused on delivering the best results
during the world track championships." (end quote)

Quoted message said:

O brave new world!

Quoted message said:

"Brailsford loved Uncle WADA".

Quoted message said:

(What's up over at baseballplayersgotaunion.org?) --D-y

Okay, super, but what's the problem? I am a naive dumbass (probably
drunk, possibly an ape, apparently owned by a slave), but aside from the
fact that Hayles, in retrospect, ought to have tracked his Hct himself
(and, er, infused saline like there was no tomorrow...), what's the
problem?

The hematocrit test should be the least controversial WADA protocol of
all. Maybe this is the start of the documentation for Rob getting a
"golden ticket" natural-hematocrit exemption, or maybe this is the start
of Rob getting a one-way ticket on the Stolen Underground*, but either
way, not many tears in my beers because he got a two-week health
suspension.

*Should not be mistaken for Jan Ullrich's ticket on the stollen
Underground. Mmm...

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden]://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Who says he wasn't tracking it himself? I would imagine 0.3% is
within the error margins for the portable centrifuges these guys use.
And if you're already close to 50%, it doesn't take much to go over.
As for infusion, it would only take 15-20 mL of saline to get back
under 50%. And this is the reasoning for the biological passport. If
officials have a time history, they can tell if 50.3% is a guy who's
cheating or a guy who should have had another glass of water the night
before.

Ryan Cousineau said:

Very few people naturally cross the 50% limit. It's a presumptive limit,
but the golden ticket is easy enough for actual pro athletes to acquire.
Just ask Jonathan Vaughters or any of the few other athletes with the
golden ticket. And that's in sports that self-select for high-hct, at
least in theory.

None of that means Hayles didn't get screwed.

Quoted message said:

Well, arguing that EPO was a case of bad rules is pretty hazardous. EPO
practically dragged the UCI and WADA into this rule because EPO was
gently killing off the first flower of neo-pros in their sleep.

Rules you can't enforce by clear/simple/quick testing are bad rules.

Quoted message said:

EPO is impressively dangerous in the hands of dumb athletes because its
dose-response apparently responsive right up to the point where it
starts quietly killing you in your sleep. In the interests of not
wanting any more 60-percenters sludging to death, and with no effective
test available, an easily testable speed limit was imposed.

That's what happens when drug use is driven underground. I wonder how
many people have seen the inside of a jail cell for trying to provide
clean needles for addicts here in the USA? The mindset is the biggest
part of the problem.

I never said I have any answers; to the contrary, this is an
unsolvable problem. Hypocrisy doesn't help any.

Quoted message said:

This might be fair comment if hct was hard to test for, or if the rule
wasn't widely publicized. I mean, if you show up to The Big Race and get
a health-break (but you weren't actually cheating) then you're either
young enough to have years of excellent racing ahead, or old enough to
know better.

I don't find it so easy to blow off the cost to the competitors.

Quoted message said:

I assume that if this wasn't the rider's first EPO test,
that his previous values have been disclosed to him? I may be wrong, but
the spectacle of elite athletes who are naive about their hematocrit
numbers seems like discovering a Cat 1/2 who doesn't know his max HR.
Maybe they exist, but where?

Which, it could be said, makes this exclusion, minus any sort of a
positive test for actual EPO "on board" even more objectionable.

Quoted message said:

Well, I was being a bit sarcastic. As in, when was the first time this
rider had his Hct tested? What happened between now and then?

"He didn't test positive for EPO" is one thing that happened.

Quoted message said:

At best, he's just discovered he's a natural wonder and has to get his
passport stamped.

That's a poor outcome.

[Floyd's hundred water bottles]

Quoted message said:

My guess, having watched that stage either live or on the subsequent
repeats but in either case before he was tagged for doping, was "not
much."

I was thinking after the fact, didn't 'splain clearly.

Quoted message said:

A google could prove me wrong, but I don't recall talk about Floyd's
liquid cooling being suspicious, though many saw it as the secret of his
success. What I remember was the nice synergy of his breakaway and his
liquid cooling: the escape meant he could have the team car with him
unimpeded, which meant he could then enact Operation Super Soaker,
something he could not have done in the peloton.

That could have been the sponsor link-in of all times: "Evian: In you,
or on you!"

Quoted message said:

It might have been a rushed, stopgap test when it was first implemented.
Was that a decade ago? Now I think it's pretty well understood.

It's so easy to manipulate. Imperfect, but if short suspensions
("health breaks", gag me with a euphum or sumting) instead of
automatic two year suspensions are the result, it winds up being one
of the worst and best rules at the same time. Such is life.

Quoted message said:

Sheesh. Are we now going to forgive riders because they show up at TTs
with Y-Foils or illegal seat positions? Sucks to be the guy who does
that, but it's not new or tricky.

Come on, stick to business and don't be ridiculous in search of
making a point.

Quoted message said:

EPO is an especially easy candidate for this kind of enforcement,
because it's practically the perfect nightmare drug: potent,
undetectable (until recently, and only with difficulty), and more
effective even as the rider crosses into lethal-dose territory.

Or it could be that you could go to a real MD and get treated.
Monitored for safety, kept to safe limits.

Quoted message said:

About the only thing you could add if you were designing the perfect
drug was that it caused you to secrete a pheremone that demoralized your
opponents

Looks like Cancellara is already there. --D-y

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

That's what happens when drug use is driven underground. I wonder how
many people have seen the inside of a jail cell for trying to provide
clean needles for addicts here in the USA? The mindset is the biggest
part of the problem.

Who buys needles for junkies? Why? Leave people alone
to do what they want. That means letting them shoot up
whatever they want with whatever they want. Don't
interfere with people; it only confuses them and
garners you resentment. One last word of advice:
junkies will play you like a gypsy violinist. You are
no match for a junkie.

--
Michael Press

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

Quoted message said:

Why? Leave people alone
to do what they want. That means letting them shoot up
whatever they want with whatever they want.

The problem with that attitude is that the next step is that guy is breaking
into your house while you're at work and taking anything of value he can
find to support his habit.

Do you REALLY believe that it was some sort of humanitarian belief that
passed those laws against drugs?

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Why? Leave people alone
to do what they want. That means letting them shoot up
whatever they want with whatever they want.

The problem with that attitude is that the next step is that guy is breaking
into your house while you're at work and taking anything of value he can
find to support his habit.

Do you REALLY believe that it was some sort of humanitarian belief that
passed those laws against drugs?

Read the post before the one you replied to. Idiot.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Simon Brooke said:

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

[Rob Hayles scores a 50.3% on his hct test, which is a failing grade]

Quoted message said:

The guy is thirty-five, and has medals from two Olympics. One thing he
definitely isn't is inexperienced or naive. TBH I'd be surprised if he'd
been cheating, but I've been surprised before. Still, he will definitely
have a long series of previous tests, so it should be relatively easy to
prove whether this is in his natural range or not.

A two-time Olympic medalist, and I didn't recognize his name. Does that
say the most about me, track cycling, or the Olympics?

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

That's what happens when drug use is driven underground. I wonder how
many people have seen the inside of a jail cell for trying to provide
clean needles for addicts here in the USA? The mindset is the biggest
part of the problem.

Who buys needles for junkies? Why? Leave people alone
to do what they want. That means letting them shoot up
whatever they want with whatever they want. Don't
interfere with people; it only confuses them and
garners you resentment. One last word of advice:
junkies will play you like a gypsy violinist. You are
no match for a junkie.

These guys:

http://www.sfne.org/

And BTW, the answer to Theodur's rhetorical question is "not many, and
not recently."

The SFNE organizers got arrested in 1998 for "paraphenalia
distribution." They were quickly bailed out by supporters and charges
were dropped 5 days later.

Sure, better they had never been arrested, but I don't think Bob Dylan's
going to have to write a song about them.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

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

Quoted message said:

Why? Leave people alone
to do what they want. That means letting them shoot up
whatever they want with whatever they want.

The problem with that attitude is that the next step is that guy is breaking
into your house while you're at work and taking anything of value he can
find to support his habit.

??? What alternative attitude do you suggest that will
diminish the house breaking trend? I still say, leave
people to do all the drugs they want. If somebody were
to ask me what I really think about the drugs they take
I would say they might be well served to continue thinking
about it. Mostly I do not try to talk seriously with people
on drugs, because I'm always talking to the drugs.
Are you taking drugs?

Quoted message said:

Do you REALLY believe that it was some sort of humanitarian belief that
passed those laws against drugs?

Do you _want_ to know what I believe?
Does not sound like it.

--
Michael Press

In article
<rcousine-D4AC58.18015227032008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

That's what happens when drug use is driven underground. I wonder how
many people have seen the inside of a jail cell for trying to provide
clean needles for addicts here in the USA? The mindset is the biggest
part of the problem.

Who buys needles for junkies? Why? Leave people alone
to do what they want. That means letting them shoot up
whatever they want with whatever they want. Don't
interfere with people; it only confuses them and
garners you resentment. One last word of advice:
junkies will play you like a gypsy violinist. You are
no match for a junkie.

These guys:

http://www.sfne.org/

And BTW, the answer to Theodur's rhetorical question is "not many, and
not recently."

The SFNE organizers got arrested in 1998 for "paraphenalia
distribution." They were quickly bailed out by supporters and charges
were dropped 5 days later.

Sure, better they had never been arrested, but I don't think Bob Dylan's
going to have to write a song about them.

What do they do besides give junkies more time to do drugs
thereby delaying the inevitable time when the junkie
must make a decision? I'm confused.

--
Michael Press

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In article
<rcousine-D4AC58.18015227032008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

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

> That's what happens when drug use is driven underground. I wonder how
> many people have seen the inside of a jail cell for trying to provide
> clean needles for addicts here in the USA? The mindset is the biggest
> part of the problem.

Who buys needles for junkies? Why?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

These guys:

http://www.sfne.org/

And BTW, the answer to Theodur's rhetorical question is "not many, and
not recently."

Quoted message said:

What do they do besides give junkies more time to do drugs
thereby delaying the inevitable time when the junkie
must make a decision? I'm confused.

Dumbass: I'm not particularly of the opinion that needle exchanges are
the right answer to a drug problem, but that said, I think the answer to
your stupid question is, quite obviously, "they prevent the junkies from
getting one of several expensive-to-treat, slow-to-kill diseases before
they get off the junk."

You will be pleased to know that as far as I can tell, the needle
exchanges do little to reduce the fast and cheap form of death known as
"OD."

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

That's what happens when drug use is driven underground. I wonder how
many people have seen the inside of a jail cell for trying to provide
clean needles for addicts here in the USA? The mindset is the biggest
part of the problem.

Who buys needles for junkies? Why? Leave people alone
to do what they want. That means letting them shoot up
whatever they want with whatever they want. Don't
interfere with people; it only confuses them and
garners you resentment. One last word of advice:
junkies will play you like a gypsy violinist. You are
no match for a junkie.

Hoo boy. You could have stopped with the next-to-last "advice".

Every once in awhile, over the years as I've noticed, someone is
murdered by a "street person" whom they have tried to help.

You know, by letting said individual have access to their home for one
foolish reason or another.

Needles are real cheap compared to AIDS care, for one quick example.

In the context I suggested, maybe there is a fair amount of safety for
the providers, and some small amount of compassion is shown to users
who were once human beings-- "someone's baby" is the phrase that rings
with me.

Yeah, people do achieve real rehab. Opinions differ; I agree with
those who say it's a decision made within-- not the result of any
program. "I'm not going to do that anymore".

I had an incredibly hard time with a nicotine habit. I could tell you
what day in 1976 I had my last fix, and give thanks to the person who
helped me get off the bus; suffice to say when you're doubled up and
sick as a dog and know how quickly the misery could be over, it's easy
just to light one up and get right again. Point being, a dose was easy
to come by, cheap, and I didn't have to use illegal (possibly violent)
means to "get well", or gravely risk my health to be able to function
again. Sufficient?

It's not the junkie, it's the junk and he proof is in repetition.

The term "doping", even with its historical linkage, is so revealing
of a problematic mindset. --D-y

On Mar 28, 9:47 am, Bill C <[email hidden]> wrote:
Then

Quoted message said:

there's the horrible access for working poor and poor folks who have
incredibly limited coverage and options, usually through government
insurance programs, but those need to be massively repaired, at the
very least and providers need to be compelled to take them or lose
their licenses.
 The idea of creating a whole new government bureacracy is just going
to put the costs even further out of sight, and duplicate a lot of
insurance positions. Maybe something smaller, based in enforcement and
regulation, and serious penalties, not slap on the wrist, along with
expansion of basic services and coverage. That would save money in the
long run IMO, not to mention saving and improving lives. We're already
in the socialism business, by our own choice, we should at least get
the most possible benefit from it.

I was back to talking about the system here in the US at this point,
but didn't make that clear. Again my bad.
Sorry
Bill C