Pound = Rumsfeld

RonSonic said:

Bob Martin said:

in 530688 20061117 151005 RonSonic said:

Rumsfield had employees who could successfully invade any country that Pound's
employees could mislabel a urine cup in.

Please remind me : what was the last country his employees successfully invaded ?

Uh, Iraq. Remember, it was in the news.

They have failed to take complete control of the country in the tyranical manner
to which it has been long accustomed but that's a question of politics not
maneuver.

Gotta admit, the whole, invade and conquer thing, they've got that down pretty
good.

Dumbass -

The Iraq War which was successful (the one in 1991), there was no
invading nor conquering. Bush Sr. did the smart thing and stopped at
the border.

This time, they've invaded, but conquered? Saddam Hussein? Sure. The
Baath Party? Yes. Iraq itself? No. We'll leave and there will be a
civil war. It's only a matter of time and our "objective" will not have
been achieved.

"Many months ago it bacame obvious to all but the most ideologically
blinkered that America is losing the war launched to deal with a
chimeric problem (an arsenal of WMD) and to achieve a delusory goal (a
democracy that would inspire emulation, transforming the region)." -
George F. Will, conservative pundit

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On 16 Nov 2006 13:50:32 -0800, "Bill C" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Anyone notice the both bluster and attack everyone who questions them?
Both are presiding over a major setback at best, both seem to be
protecting corrupt administrations, but at least the US has finally
gotten rid of scumsfeld.
When's the sporting world gonna be as smart as GWB?
Bill C

Pound is strange. A few years ago he was not at all agressive in
pursuing dopers. After the Salt Lake City Olympics, some journalists
asked the bronze medallist in the women's pursuit, who is outspoken
about fighting doping, if she thought the two people ahead of her in
that event were clean and she said something like "Not really." Pound
went ballistic, calling Scott's remarks irresponsible and pointing out
that those athletes had been tested.

Interestingly, over the course of the following year or two those two
athletes lost their medals due to doping and Scott eventually got the
gold (I think she's the only athlete to win bronze, silver and gold in
the same event).

dumbass,

i forgot about the pound and beckie scott feud, looking back that
might've been a real turning point. he probably came out of that
feeling like the doping athletes made him look like a fool, which would
explain his current hostility.

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

MagillaGorilla said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On 16 Nov 2006 13:50:32 -0800, "Bill C" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

>Anyone notice the both bluster and attack everyone who questions them?
>Both are presiding over a major setback at best, both seem to be
>protecting corrupt administrations, but at least the US has finally
>gotten rid of scumsfeld.
>When's the sporting world gonna be as smart as GWB?
>Bill C

Pound is strange. A few years ago he was not at all agressive in
pursuing dopers. After the Salt Lake City Olympics, some journalists
asked the bronze medallist in the women's pursuit, who is outspoken
about fighting doping, if she thought the two people ahead of her in
that event were clean and she said something like "Not really." Pound
went ballistic, calling Scott's remarks irresponsible and pointing out
that those athletes had been tested.

Interestingly, over the course of the following year or two those two
athletes lost their medals due to doping and Scott eventually got the
gold (I think she's the only athlete to win bronze, silver and gold in
the same event).

Now instead of being sloppy and weak, Pound is reckless to try to look
strong.

Give me a specific example fo when Pound was reckless?

Denouncing Landis before Landis's B sample was tested.

But in most cases the B-sample confirms the A-sample (>99% of the time).
Even when it doesn't that doesn't mean the rider is innocent, but only
that the B-sample tested below the cut-off. And in those cases, the
A-sample was borderline over the cut-off, so it's not like the person is
truly negative, but rather that the concentration of banned substance
found was merely near the cut-off.

For example Marion Jones A-sample was probably like 80.5% and her
B-sample was 79.4%. Since 80% is the cut-off, she had to be declared
negative. But someone who didn't take EPO would be nowhere near those
numbers.

The people at USADA still think Jones took EPO.

Magilla

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Chris said:

I don't think there is another practical option for the bosses to have
chosen.

<snip>

Dumbass -

In the US, Major League Baseball, the National Football League and the
National Basketball Association all test for drugs and none of them are
under the umbrella of WADA.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

But that's only because none of those leagues select the players for the
Olympics. The only reason cycling is governed by WADA and USADA is
because they want to be able to select the athletes for the Olympics.

Magilla

MagillaGorilla said:

Quoted message said:

In the US, Major League Baseball, the National Football League and the
National Basketball Association all test for drugs and none of them are
under the umbrella of WADA.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

But that's only because none of those leagues select the players for the
Olympics. The only reason cycling is governed by WADA and USADA is
because they want to be able to select the athletes for the Olympics.

Dumbass -

And that's where the UCI is stupid.

They should let some other org. select Olympics riders and control the
drug testing process themselves. That way they could handle positives
more discreetly. The way it's handled now, there is a simultaneous
"testing process" going on in the press and the process is
overshadowing the racing.

You won't see that in the NFL even though their drug "problem" is
likely much more pervasive than in cycling. The result: ESPN reports on
the actual football being played.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

MagillaGorilla said:

But in most cases the B-sample confirms the A-sample (>99% of the time).
Even when it doesn't that doesn't mean the rider is innocent, but only
that the B-sample tested below the cut-off. And in those cases, the
A-sample was borderline over the cut-off, so it's not like the person is
truly negative, but rather that the concentration of banned substance
found was merely near the cut-off.

For example Marion Jones A-sample was probably like 80.5% and her
B-sample was 79.4%. Since 80% is the cut-off, she had to be declared
negative. But someone who didn't take EPO would be nowhere near those
numbers.

The people at USADA still think Jones took EPO.

So what? The reason the cutoffs are where they are is so that
people can defend the testing process by saying that it is
conservatively defined so that an A and a B false positive
hardly ever happen. The have-it-both-ways position is then
to retroactively say, well the B sample was nearly positive,
so it counts even though it doesn't meet the criteria for a positive,
especially since we have reason to believe Marion Jones and
Adam Bergman are dirty dog dopers anyway. That increases
the number of dopers you can catch, at the price of making
it look like the process has no integrity.

When the process looks bad, even people who really did
get busted can use it for propaganda. Even your pal Ty-Ty
gets mileage out of every time [censored] Pound shooots his
mouth off.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

MagillaGorilla said:

But in most cases the B-sample confirms the A-sample (>99% of the time).
Even when it doesn't that doesn't mean the rider is innocent, but only
that the B-sample tested below the cut-off. And in those cases, the
A-sample was borderline over the cut-off, so it's not like the person is
truly negative, but rather that the concentration of banned substance
found was merely near the cut-off.

For example Marion Jones A-sample was probably like 80.5% and her
B-sample was 79.4%. Since 80% is the cut-off, she had to be declared
negative. But someone who didn't take EPO would be nowhere near those
numbers.

The people at USADA still think Jones took EPO.

So what? The reason the cutoffs are where they are is so that
people can defend the testing process by saying that it is
conservatively defined so that an A and a B false positive
hardly ever happen. The have-it-both-ways position is then
to retroactively say, well the B sample was nearly positive,
so it counts even though it doesn't meet the criteria for a positive,
especially since we have reason to believe Marion Jones and
Adam Bergman are dirty dog dopers anyway.

They're (correctly) assuming that the general public isn't going to be interested
enough in the process to be aware (let alone care) that the difference is close as
that. They rely on the public believing that "it's a scientific test, so it can't be
wrong."

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

MagillaGorilla said:

Quoted message said:

But in most cases the B-sample confirms the A-sample (>99% of the time).
Even when it doesn't that doesn't mean the rider is innocent, but only
that the B-sample tested below the cut-off.

Quoted message said:

So what? The reason the cutoffs are where they are is so that
people can defend the testing process by saying that it is
conservatively defined so that an A and a B false positive
hardly ever happen. The have-it-both-ways position is then
to retroactively say, well the B sample was nearly positive,

Its called fuzzy doping.

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 18:15:08 +0200, Donald Munro <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Bob Martin said:

Quoted message said:

Please remind me : what was the last country his employees successfully invaded ?

RonSonic said:

Uh, Iraq. Remember, it was in the news.

Depends on how you define conquer.

Ya know, if the greatest criticism of our fighting men is that they lack the
will to methodically stomp a people into submission, I can live with that.

Ron

Donald Munro said:

Bob Martin said:

Quoted message said:

Please remind me : what was the last country his employees successfully invaded ?

RonSonic said:

Uh, Iraq. Remember, it was in the news.

Depends on how you define conquer.

Actually, it depends on how you define "success."

The Rumsfeld metric for mission acccomplishment was
summarized neatly many years before Rummy first put
pen to memo paper:

"You can't break eggs without making an omelet -
That's what they tell the eggs."
-- Randall Jarrell

Ben

On Nov 19, 1:19 pm, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
Actually, it depends on how you define "success."

Quoted message said:

The Rumsfeld metric for mission acccomplishment was
summarized neatly many years before Rummy first put
pen to memo paper:

"You can't break eggs without making an omelet -
That's what they tell the eggs."
-- Randall Jarrell

Ben

Hey Ben
Rummy and his buddies are happy as hell. They drove up oil prices
making more fields here in the US economically viable while increasing
profits for all their other oil friends.
They've awarded shtiloads of no-bid or rigged contracts to their
friends who've delivererd either nothing, or faulty goods as documented
by the GAO, but they were ordered paid by Bush and Co. no matter how
egregious the faults were.
They have "privatized" tons of the military functions, at outrageous
cost, to their friends.
When Bush declared "Mission Accomplished!!", what he meant was
breaking our military, embarrassing the Country, and setting the table
for his war proffiteering friends.
Success on all counts judged by their scumbag standards.
Bill C

Bill C said:

When Bush declared "Mission Accomplished!!", what he meant was
breaking our military, embarrassing the Country, and setting the table
for his war proffiteering friends.
Success on all counts judged by their scumbag standards.
Bill C

Click on the report from Fresno:
http://www.sftt.org/

Americans die and Bush profits.
Bill C

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

RonSonic said:

Rumsfield is vastly more competent than Pound.

What evidence is there of this?

Google J. D. Searle, Rumsfeld

but then http://www.dorway.com/indexnew.html

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

Donald Munro said:

Bob Martin said:

>Please remind me : what was the last country his employees successfully
>invaded ?

RonSonic said:

Uh, Iraq. Remember, it was in the news.

Depends on how you define conquer.

Actually, it depends on how you define "success."

Well, if you go by the George W. Bush definition, "success" can be many different
things. Since he's made it clear that the troops are going to be there until after
he's out of office, then "victory" is anything that *doesn't* involve removing the
troops.

Quoted message said:

The Rumsfeld metric for mission acccomplishment was
summarized neatly many years before Rummy first put
pen to memo paper:

"You can't break eggs without making an omelet -
That's what they tell the eggs."
-- Randall Jarrell

Yep.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article <[email hidden]>,

RonSonic said:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 18:15:08 +0200, Donald Munro <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Bob Martin said:

>Please remind me : what was the last country his employees successfully
>invaded ?

RonSonic said:

Uh, Iraq. Remember, it was in the news.

Depends on how you define conquer.

Ya know, if the greatest criticism of our fighting men is that they lack the
will to methodically stomp a people into submission, I can live with that.

The complaints are not aimed at the soldiers, it's at the people above them
making the decisions that put them into this situation. The thing about wars is they
aren't very frequently as easily defined in terms of "victory" as, say, a bike race.
A rider crosses in front of everyone else and it's pretty clear-cut they won (yeah,
I know that's a gross oversimplification now that Pound is involved). In war,
particularly this one, there are circumstances beyond merely beating the other
country's army that will determine whether or not there is a real "victory." Iraq
was *far* more unstable than the neocons ever considered. They were ill served by
the Iraqi "Freedom Fighters" like Chalabi. They took a book called "The Arab Mind"
as gospel, even though any real Arabs could have told them it was a cartoonishly
drawn set of generalizations about "Arabs" and how they think. In particular, they
were ill-informed about the factionalization of the country. The Powell Doctrine
from GW 1 seems to have been the better choice.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article <[email hidden]>, "Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

RonSonic said:

Rumsfield is vastly more competent than Pound.

What evidence is there of this?

Google J. D. Searle, Rumsfeld

but then http://www.dorway.com/indexnew.html

It's also worth noting that Rumsfeld was on the board of directors of ABB, a
company that was awarded the contract to build two light water reactors for North
Korea in early 2000. He was involved in lobbying for ABB to get the job, according
to other board members. Of course, two years later, North Korea became part of the
"Axis of Evil." Heh...

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

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

Quoted message said:

"You can't break eggs without making an omelet -
That's what they tell the eggs."
-- Randall Jarrell

Ham and eggs: A day's work for a chicken, a lifetime commitment for a pig.

Quoted message said:

MagillaGorilla said:

But in most cases the B-sample confirms the A-sample (>99% of the time).
Even when it doesn't that doesn't mean the rider is innocent, but only
that the B-sample tested below the cut-off. And in those cases, the
A-sample was borderline over the cut-off, so it's not like the person is
truly negative, but rather that the concentration of banned substance
found was merely near the cut-off.

For example Marion Jones A-sample was probably like 80.5% and her
B-sample was 79.4%. Since 80% is the cut-off, she had to be declared
negative. But someone who didn't take EPO would be nowhere near those
numbers.

The people at USADA still think Jones took EPO.

So what? The reason the cutoffs are where they are is so that
people can defend the testing process by saying that it is
conservatively defined so that an A and a B false positive
hardly ever happen. The have-it-both-ways position is then
to retroactively say, well the B sample was nearly positive,
so it counts even though it doesn't meet the criteria for a positive,
especially since we have reason to believe Marion Jones and
Adam Bergman are dirty dog dopers anyway. That increases
the number of dopers you can catch, at the price of making
it look like the process has no integrity.

When the process looks bad, even people who really did
get busted can use it for propaganda. Even your pal Ty-Ty
gets mileage out of every time [censored] Pound shooots his
mouth off.

Since the cut-off is determined by WADA/USADA to begin with, what real
difference does it make if they decide to lower it?

Also, you do know Bergman confessed to using EPO, right, thus proving
the EPO test in his case was correct. And USADA had the cojones to call
Jones's B-sample negative. So what exactly is it are you crying about?

Thanks,

Magilla

Howard Kveck said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

MagillaGorilla said:

But in most cases the B-sample confirms the A-sample (>99% of the time).
Even when it doesn't that doesn't mean the rider is innocent, but only
that the B-sample tested below the cut-off. And in those cases, the
A-sample was borderline over the cut-off, so it's not like the person is
truly negative, but rather that the concentration of banned substance
found was merely near the cut-off.

For example Marion Jones A-sample was probably like 80.5% and her
B-sample was 79.4%. Since 80% is the cut-off, she had to be declared
negative. But someone who didn't take EPO would be nowhere near those
numbers.

The people at USADA still think Jones took EPO.

So what? The reason the cutoffs are where they are is so that
people can defend the testing process by saying that it is
conservatively defined so that an A and a B false positive
hardly ever happen. The have-it-both-ways position is then
to retroactively say, well the B sample was nearly positive,
so it counts even though it doesn't meet the criteria for a positive,
especially since we have reason to believe Marion Jones and
Adam Bergman are dirty dog dopers anyway.

They're (correctly) assuming that the general public isn't going to be interested
enough in the process to be aware (let alone care) that the difference is close as
that. They rely on the public believing that "it's a scientific test, so it can't be
wrong."

Begman confessed to using EPO, so what exactly are you saying?

Magilla

Kurgan Gringioni said:

MagillaGorilla said:

Quoted message said:

In the US, Major League Baseball, the National Football League and the
National Basketball Association all test for drugs and none of them are
under the umbrella of WADA.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

But that's only because none of those leagues select the players for the
Olympics. The only reason cycling is governed by WADA and USADA is
because they want to be able to select the athletes for the Olympics.

Dumbass -

And that's where the UCI is stupid.

They should let some other org. select Olympics riders and control the
drug testing process themselves. That way they could handle positives
more discreetly. The way it's handled now, there is a simultaneous
"testing process" going on in the press and the process is
overshadowing the racing.

You won't see that in the NFL even though their drug "problem" is
likely much more pervasive than in cycling. The result: ESPN reports on
the actual football being played.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

The reason why the UCI and USAC will never be like the NFL, NBA, or MLB
is because they are too greedy in wanting to control the Olympic
selections and reap the money from this Olympic control. So I think
it's hilarious that because of this greed to control the entire sport,
they get dragged through the mud with these doping cases.

Without controlling the Olympics, USAC and the UCI would lose a lot of
money and power. Remember something: the UCI and USAC do not control
the most prestigious races on their calendars...without the Olympics,
cycling federations like the UCI and USAC would be relegated to being
almost frivolous.

Magilla