Paging Jeff Jones

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

Quoted message said:

The big question, IMO, is whether or not CyclingNews will continue to
use Ferrari as a columnist.

Why shouldn't Ferrari continue his commentary on CyclingNews? Does his
conviction in any way detract from his knowledge of the sport? I don't think
so. A good editor would think long and hard before publishing anything
Ferrari had to say even remotely connected to the topic of doping, but beyond
that, what's the problem?

I have a much greater problem with the ethics of letting Ferrari comment on
matters involving riders and teams he has a professional relationship with.
Still, this is sport journalism we're talking about, and the lines here are
never drawn as sharply as they might be in other fields--and all things
considered, Cyclingnews is no worse (and I would argue better) than most
commercial cycling media in ethical matters.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

The big question, IMO, is whether or not CyclingNews will continue to
use Ferrari as a columnist.

Why shouldn't Ferrari continue his commentary on CyclingNews? Does his
conviction in any way detract from his knowledge of the sport? I don't
think
so. A good editor would think long and hard before publishing anything
Ferrari had to say even remotely connected to the topic of doping, but
beyond
that, what's the problem?

I have a much greater problem with the ethics of letting Ferrari comment
on
matters involving riders and teams he has a professional relationship
with.
Still, this is sport journalism we're talking about, and the lines here
are
never drawn as sharply as they might be in other fields--and all things
considered, Cyclingnews is no worse (and I would argue better) than most
commercial cycling media in ethical matters.

OK. Here are some possibilities:

Reporter for Court TV OJ Simpson
Crime Columnist NY Post John Gotti, Jr.
Wall Street Journal Market Reporter Martha Stewart
Reporter On Domestic Violence/Spouse Abuse Joel Steinberg
Court TV Ethics Commentator Sol Watchler

Feel free to add to the list. Every convicted criminal has marketable
expertise under your system of ethics.

Quoted message said:

From: "B. Lafferty" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

The big question, IMO, is whether or not CyclingNews will continue to use
Ferrari as a columnist. I expect that we'll get an interesting article from
Jeff once it's posted.

--

Brian I'm trying to remember the guys name, but he was a big time Roids, and
everything else dealer to big name bodybuilder and powerlifter types and got
nailed for a couple of years in the pen, but after he got out he did a regular
column for Musclemag and didn't hold anything back. It definitely made for some
real interesting reading and was a real window into how to win through
chemicals.
Bill C

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From: "B. Lafferty" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

The big question, IMO, is whether or not CyclingNews will continue to use
Ferrari as a columnist. I expect that we'll get an interesting article
from
Jeff once it's posted.

--

Brian I'm trying to remember the guys name, but he was a big time Roids,
and
everything else dealer to big name bodybuilder and powerlifter types and
got
nailed for a couple of years in the pen, but after he got out he did a
regular
column for Musclemag and didn't hold anything back. It definitely made for
some
real interesting reading and was a real window into how to win through
chemicals.
Bill C

There you have a guy clearly acting in the role of revealer of systemic
cheating. That's based on first hand knowledge. Drug addicts in recovery
often make the best drug rehab counselors---knowledge and empathy make them
effective.
I think it sends the wrong message to employ a person convicted of fraud and
mis-use of the authority to write prescription as a reporter on training
issues. Some will no doubt disagree. That's life.

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:o1l7d.872$Vm1.158
@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

Quoted message said:

OK. Here are some possibilities:

Reporter for Court TV OJ Simpson

He has experience as a defendant, but no extensive knowledge of the law or
court procedure.

Quoted message said:

Crime Columnist NY Post John Gotti, Jr.

Crime in genral, no. But organized crime? Why not? Who has better
knowledge of the way LCN in specific, and organized crime in general
works? Of course, ethics would preclude him from covering anything he was
in any way involved in--and, if you believe the government's case, that's
just about everything on the east cost.

Quoted message said:

Wall Street Journal Market Reporter Martha Stewart
Reporter On Domestic Violence/Spouse Abuse Joel Steinberg
Court TV Ethics Commentator Sol Watchler

Dumbass,

You're argument assumes that because someone once did something,
that makes them an expert in the field. How stupid is that? I did your old
lady once....does that make me an expert in all things Laff@me?

Ferrari's expertise in cycling is not limited to doping. And his
conviction in no way invalidates any of his knowledge and experience. Now,
if he ever used his column in CyclingNews to deny his--or any of his
clients-- involvement in doping, then, yes, he should go. That's a
violation of the trust between CyclingNews and their readers. Likewise, If
CyclingNews had made an effort to ignore the case against Ferrari, or his
controversial status within cycling, that would be problematic. But they
haven't. So long as the editors do use the proper restraint, and there is
full disclosure as to who Ferrari is, and what he is about, I say let the
readers decide if they wish to benefit from what the man knows.

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

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:o1l7d.872$Vm1.158
@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

Quoted message said:

OK. Here are some possibilities:

Reporter for Court TV OJ Simpson

He has experience as a defendant, but no extensive knowledge of the law or
court procedure.

Quoted message said:

Crime Columnist NY Post John Gotti, Jr.

Crime in genral, no. But organized crime? Why not? Who has better
knowledge of the way LCN in specific, and organized crime in general
works? Of course, ethics would preclude him from covering anything he was
in any way involved in--and, if you believe the government's case, that's
just about everything on the east cost.

Quoted message said:

Wall Street Journal Market Reporter Martha Stewart
Reporter On Domestic Violence/Spouse Abuse Joel Steinberg
Court TV Ethics Commentator Sol Watchler

Dumbass,

You're argument assumes that because someone once did something,
that makes them an expert in the field. How stupid is that? I did your old
lady once....does that make me an expert in all things Laff@me?

Ferrari's expertise in cycling is not limited to doping. And his
conviction in no way invalidates any of his knowledge and experience. Now,
if he ever used his column in CyclingNews to deny his--or any of his
clients-- involvement in doping, then, yes, he should go. That's a
violation of the trust between CyclingNews and their readers. Likewise, If
CyclingNews had made an effort to ignore the case against Ferrari, or his
controversial status within cycling, that would be problematic. But they
haven't. So long as the editors do use the proper restraint, and there is
full disclosure as to who Ferrari is, and what he is about, I say let the
readers decide if they wish to benefit from what the man knows.

There was a time in this country when in most states a person convicted of a
felony forfeited for life certain rights and privileges, some of which
included employment. The trend has been to do away with those laws on the
theory that once the person serves the sentence, their complete debt to
society has been repaid.

Simply putting a disclaimer on Jack the Ripper's expert commentary on
aspects of knife manufacture and sharpening, doesn't do it in my ethical
book. But we'll just have to disagree.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

The big question, IMO, is whether or not CyclingNews will continue to
use Ferrari as a columnist.

Why shouldn't Ferrari continue his commentary on CyclingNews? Does his
conviction in any way detract from his knowledge of the sport? I don't
think
so. A good editor would think long and hard before publishing anything
Ferrari had to say even remotely connected to the topic of doping, but
beyond
that, what's the problem?

I have a much greater problem with the ethics of letting Ferrari comment
on
matters involving riders and teams he has a professional relationship
with.
Still, this is sport journalism we're talking about, and the lines here
are
never drawn as sharply as they might be in other fields--and all things
considered, Cyclingnews is no worse (and I would argue better) than most
commercial cycling media in ethical matters.

OK. Here are some possibilities:

Reporter for Court TV OJ Simpson
Crime Columnist NY Post John Gotti, Jr.
Wall Street Journal Market Reporter Martha Stewart
Reporter On Domestic Violence/Spouse Abuse Joel Steinberg
Court TV Ethics Commentator Sol Watchler

Feel free to add to the list. Every convicted criminal has marketable
expertise under your system of ethics.

Hmm, ok.

Brian, do you consider Dr. Ferarri closer to OJ Simpson than he is to say,
your neighbor down the street that got picked up for a DUI? Should every
person convicted of any and all crimes be removed from any position that has
public contact? What exactly is your concern?

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:15:27 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

There was a time in this country when in most states a person convicted of a
felony forfeited for life certain rights and privileges, some of which
included employment.

So?

Quoted message said:

The trend has been to do away with those laws on the
theory that once the person serves the sentence, their complete debt to
society has been repaid.

WTF has this got to do with anything?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From: "B. Lafferty" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

The big question, IMO, is whether or not CyclingNews will continue to

use

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ferrari as a columnist. I expect that we'll get an interesting article
from
Jeff once it's posted.

--

Brian I'm trying to remember the guys name, but he was a big time Roids,
and
everything else dealer to big name bodybuilder and powerlifter types and
got
nailed for a couple of years in the pen, but after he got out he did a
regular
column for Musclemag and didn't hold anything back. It definitely made

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

some
real interesting reading and was a real window into how to win through
chemicals.
Bill C

There you have a guy clearly acting in the role of revealer of systemic
cheating. That's based on first hand knowledge. Drug addicts in recovery
often make the best drug rehab counselors---knowledge and empathy make

them

Quoted message said:

effective.
I think it sends the wrong message to employ a person convicted of fraud

and

Quoted message said:

mis-use of the authority to write prescription as a reporter on training
issues. Some will no doubt disagree. That's life.

Well yes I do disagree. I think that the severity of his crimes are greatly
exaggerated by you and many others. During the time in question I am sure
his guidance saved some lives since he was one of the few MDs qualified to
advise these desperate athletes. No single person could have done anything
at that time that would have prevented an athlete from using EPO.

You have to remember that many of these MDs at that time had athletes as
clients and were performing health checks as well as consultation on optimal
health. Some of them like Ferrari also advised on training protocols
including exercise intensity, duration and other protocols like altitude and
drugs whether legal or not. Turning a patient away to some MDs is no
acceptable because they believe they are putting their client at risk by not
advising him or her on a substance that the patient athlete had already
decided to take. Some MDs view it as an ethical decision to supervise the
(relatively) healthy administration the drug in question rather than turning
them away to fend for himself. The same kind of dilemma is also why some MDs
do prescribe maintenance doses of addictive drugs. In the US this is against
the law but I do not think it is against the law in many European countries.
In any case, it was not against the law anywhere many years ago and if you
look at that prescribing model then you see the logic that Ferrari claimed
to following. I think our society has become extremely hypocritical about
drugs. I know that there are many people that sling med at athletes that are
charged with a doping offense and yet they probably are not aware that they
are consuming many of these drugs throughout their lives. Why is it that
only in one case has there been any kind of hand wringing over sensible
doping laws? When Jonathon Vaughters has to choose an IM dose of an
anti-inflammatory drug or continuing the remainder of the Tour, the poor guy
for forced to retire by his team to avoid the risk of a positive dope test.
Everyone saw how stupid that was, but that kind of thing happens on a very
regular basis.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There was a time in this country when in most states a person convicted
of a

felony forfeited for life certain rights and privileges, some of which
included employment. The trend has been to do away with those laws on the
theory that once the person serves the sentence, their complete debt to
society has been repaid.

The State of Washington used to give money for secondary education to
ex-cons, the trend has been to also get rid of incentives to commit crimes

B. Lafferty said:

There was a time in this country when in most states a person convicted of a
felony forfeited for life certain rights and privileges, some of which
included employment. The trend has been to do away with those laws on the
theory that once the person serves the sentence, their complete debt to
society has been repaid.

Quoted message said:

Simply putting a disclaimer on Jack the Ripper's expert commentary on
aspects of knife manufacture and sharpening, doesn't do it in my ethical
book. But we'll just have to disagree.

Laffertool,

We live in a world in which war criminal Henry Kissinger
appears frequently on Nightline and writes Op-Ed pieces
for major newspapers. And you're worried about this?

If Bob Knight wasn't a demigod, he could (in principle) have
gotten booked for assault on one of his players. As it was he
lost his job. Should Bob Knight be allowed to be a sports
columnist? Oh wait a minute, he can't, because he's got another
[censored] COACHING JOB. Say whatever you want about Ferrari, at
least he doesn't throw chairs.

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

Quoted message said:

Simply putting a disclaimer on Jack the Ripper's expert commentary on
aspects of knife manufacture and sharpening, doesn't do it in my ethical
book. But we'll just have to disagree.

So let me get this straight....you're equating what Ferrari did with serial
murder? Okay....

So here is a question for you. Eddy Merckx failed something like three drug
tests. So I guess you've got him on your list of dopers, right? Also, his
company is one of the sponsors of Lott-Domo. Covering a business or party you
have a commercial interest in is considered a conflict of interest, and
highly unethical. So I suppose you also believe he shouldn't be providing
commentary for Belgian television race coverage, right?

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

The big question, IMO, is whether or not CyclingNews will continue to
use Ferrari as a columnist.

Why shouldn't Ferrari continue his commentary on CyclingNews? Does his
conviction in any way detract from his knowledge of the sport? I don't
think
so. A good editor would think long and hard before publishing anything
Ferrari had to say even remotely connected to the topic of doping, but
beyond
that, what's the problem?

I have a much greater problem with the ethics of letting Ferrari comment
on
matters involving riders and teams he has a professional relationship
with.
Still, this is sport journalism we're talking about, and the lines here
are
never drawn as sharply as they might be in other fields--and all things
considered, Cyclingnews is no worse (and I would argue better) than most
commercial cycling media in ethical matters.

OK. Here are some possibilities:

Reporter for Court TV OJ Simpson
Crime Columnist NY Post John Gotti, Jr.
Wall Street Journal Market Reporter Martha Stewart
Reporter On Domestic Violence/Spouse Abuse Joel Steinberg
Court TV Ethics Commentator Sol Watchler

Feel free to add to the list.

How about people who just like to [censored] all over the place without
worrying that they may need to clean up after themselves later:

RBR Doping reporter B. Lafferty

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

> The big question, IMO, is whether or not CyclingNews will continue to
> use Ferrari as a columnist.

Why shouldn't Ferrari continue his commentary on CyclingNews? Does his
conviction in any way detract from his knowledge of the sport? I don't
think
so. A good editor would think long and hard before publishing anything
Ferrari had to say even remotely connected to the topic of doping, but
beyond
that, what's the problem?

I have a much greater problem with the ethics of letting Ferrari
comment
on
matters involving riders and teams he has a professional relationship
with.
Still, this is sport journalism we're talking about, and the lines here
are
never drawn as sharply as they might be in other fields--and all things
considered, Cyclingnews is no worse (and I would argue better) than
most
commercial cycling media in ethical matters.

OK. Here are some possibilities:

Reporter for Court TV OJ Simpson
Crime Columnist NY Post John Gotti, Jr.
Wall Street Journal Market Reporter Martha Stewart
Reporter On Domestic Violence/Spouse Abuse Joel Steinberg
Court TV Ethics Commentator Sol Watchler

Feel free to add to the list. Every convicted criminal has marketable
expertise under your system of ethics.

Hmm, ok.

Brian, do you consider Dr. Ferarri closer to OJ Simpson than he is to say,
your neighbor down the street that got picked up for a DUI? Should every
person convicted of any and all crimes be removed from any position that
has
public contact? What exactly is your concern?

Let me ask you this. HGH administered to healthy people has been show to
have and immediate effect on the left ventricle of the heart greatly
increasing the risk of heart attack and death. If the good doctor
recommended the use of hgh, as he apparently did according to the testimony
at the trail, then the good doctor has quite possibly helped to cause the
death cyclists or at the very least put them at risk. Not the kind of
person who I would want advising people as a paid columnist on training
issues.

This is completely different from cyclists who have tested positive whom
many have argued are victims of a system that includes the likes of Ferrari.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From: "B. Lafferty" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

The big question, IMO, is whether or not CyclingNews will continue to use
Ferrari as a columnist. I expect that we'll get an interesting article

from

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Jeff once it's posted.

--

Brian I'm trying to remember the guys name, but he was a big time Roids,

and

Quoted message said:

everything else dealer to big name bodybuilder and powerlifter types and

got

Quoted message said:

nailed for a couple of years in the pen, but after he got out he did a

regular

Quoted message said:

column for Musclemag and didn't hold anything back. It definitely made for

some

Quoted message said:

real interesting reading and was a real window into how to win through
chemicals.
Bill C

And now he is governor of California.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"Tim Mullin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in
> news:[email hidden]:
>
>> The big question, IMO, is whether or not CyclingNews will continue

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> use Ferrari as a columnist.
>
> Why shouldn't Ferrari continue his commentary on CyclingNews? Does

his

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> conviction in any way detract from his knowledge of the sport? I

don't

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> think
> so. A good editor would think long and hard before publishing

anything

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Ferrari had to say even remotely connected to the topic of doping,

but

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> beyond
> that, what's the problem?
>
> I have a much greater problem with the ethics of letting Ferrari
> comment
> on
> matters involving riders and teams he has a professional relationship
> with.
> Still, this is sport journalism we're talking about, and the lines

here

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> are
> never drawn as sharply as they might be in other fields--and all

things

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> considered, Cyclingnews is no worse (and I would argue better) than
> most
> commercial cycling media in ethical matters.

OK. Here are some possibilities:

Reporter for Court TV OJ Simpson
Crime Columnist NY Post John Gotti, Jr.
Wall Street Journal Market Reporter Martha Stewart
Reporter On Domestic Violence/Spouse Abuse Joel Steinberg
Court TV Ethics Commentator Sol Watchler

Feel free to add to the list. Every convicted criminal has marketable
expertise under your system of ethics.

Hmm, ok.

Brian, do you consider Dr. Ferarri closer to OJ Simpson than he is to

say,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

your neighbor down the street that got picked up for a DUI? Should every
person convicted of any and all crimes be removed from any position that
has
public contact? What exactly is your concern?

Let me ask you this. HGH administered to healthy people has been show to
have and immediate effect on the left ventricle of the heart greatly
increasing the risk of heart attack and death.

Perfect example. Show me those studies. Are you talking about so called
"mega dosing" or are you talking about replacing the quantity that has been
assumed to have declined with age?

If the good doctor

Quoted message said:

recommended the use of hgh, as he apparently did according to the

testimony

Quoted message said:

at the trail, then the good doctor has quite possibly helped to cause the
death cyclists or at the very least put them at risk. Not the kind of
person who I would want advising people as a paid columnist on training
issues.

Again, I thank you for this perfect example. You see, there is no single
unified view in most cases about drugs and many other procedures. Cosmetic
surgery in most cases puts a patient at risk in exchange for merely "feeling
better" about their self image. At least with HGH there are likely to be
health benefits that outweigh the risk in (I hope) most cases. In any case,
the MD ethically should assist the patient in deciding whether the benefits
outweigh the risks and if it is clearly not the case then the MD should not
offer it. Your example of HGH just does not present enough information for
me to pass judgement. However, you seem to want to conclude that any MD that
prescribes or recommends HGH is de facto acting against the patient's
interest. You can't factually say that. Truly, the same can be said about
most if not all of the doping cases we have heard about. I will say that I
do beleive many MDs (Ferarri included) most likely did cross the line of
acting in the best interest of the patient. I just don't know what the
appropriate government role is. In some cases where the patient was truly
put at risk then perhaps the goverment should prosecute him. If it is merely
a case that the risks were not exaplained properly then that is a lessor
form malpractice (assuming there were valid reasons for using HGH). Who do
you suppose is best qualified to decide whether a patient could benefit from
EPO or HGH? You? Do you suppose your judgement is superior to a medical
doctor? Naturally self-interest is going to influence the outcome but I am
just pointing out to you that maybe you don't really know enough about what
has been happening to pass judgement yet.

Quoted message said:

This is completely different from cyclists who have tested positive whom
many have argued are victims of a system that includes the likes of

Ferrari.

I think those cases should be argued in a civil court. If evidence from
those cases starts to show evidence of malpractice then the prosecution can
use that evidence in future cases against him. The highly visible nature of
these cases almost guarantees that public perception will corrupt the whole
process of the pursuit of justice. Prosecutors tens to worry as much about
public perception as they do about facts in evidence.

So far I have no information whatsoever that Dr. Ferrai' conviction this
week deserves more than a suspended sentence. If some of these rumors are
true, well none of them that I have heard were shown to be true just because
he was found guilty earlier this week.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Let me ask you this. HGH administered to healthy people has been show to
have and immediate effect on the left ventricle of the heart greatly
increasing the risk of heart attack and death.

Perfect example. Show me those studies. Are you talking about so called
"mega dosing" or are you talking about replacing the quantity that has
been
assumed to have declined with age?

http://www.endocrine-society.gr/hormones/pdf/1_2004/teyx37-45.pdf Take a
look at page 41 under 2.Side effects of GH abuse.

Quoted message said:

However, you seem to want to conclude that any MD that
prescribes or recommends HGH is de facto acting against the patient's
interest.

If a physician prescribed hgh for a healthy individual not in medical need
of hgh, that would be unethical, illegal and a criminal offense in all
jurisdictions that I'm aware of. In as much as Ferrari was found guilty, I
would assume the same under Italian law. It amounts to malpractice under
our civil law.

B. Lafferty said:

Quoted message said:

However, you seem to want to conclude that any MD that
prescribes or recommends HGH is de facto acting against the

patient's

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

interest.

If a physician prescribed hgh for a healthy individual not in medical

need

Quoted message said:

of hgh, that would be unethical, illegal and a criminal offense in

all

Quoted message said:

jurisdictions that I'm aware of. In as much as Ferrari was found

guilty, I

Quoted message said:

would assume the same under Italian law. It amounts to malpractice

under

Quoted message said:

our civil law.

Dumbass -

Cyclingnews.com comments on bike racing. Bike racing is entertainment.
Therefore, cyclingnews is essentially a publication that reports on a
specific area of the entertainment industry. So who the [censored] cares
whether he's got a mark on his record or not? It's entertainment, for
god's sake.

I think Ferrari's knowledge of doping makes him a *better* columnist.
He has a good idea of what's going down.

Paging Jeff Jones: KEEP DR. FERRARI
Thank you very much and have a nice day.

K. Gringioni

B. Lafferty said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Let me ask you this. HGH administered to healthy people has been
show to have and immediate effect on the left ventricle of the heart
greatly increasing the risk of heart attack and death. If the good

doctor

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

recommended the use of hgh, as he apparently did according to the
testimony at the trail, then the good doctor has quite possibly helped
to cause the death cyclists or at the very least put them at risk.

[and]

Quoted message said:

http://www.endocrine-society.gr/hormones/pdf/1_2004/teyx37-45.pdf Take
a look at page 41 under 2.Side effects of GH abuse.

Quoted message said:

If a physician prescribed hgh for a healthy individual not in medical
need of hgh, that would be unethical, illegal and a criminal offense in
all jurisdictions that I'm aware of. In as much as Ferrari was found
guilty, I would assume the same under Italian law. It amounts to
malpractice under our civil law.

Would it be considered malpractice under our civil law if, at the time
that a particular therapy was administered, a physician did not know that
it would be dangerous? Just wondering. I would have thought malpractice
meant something different.