Sandy said:But of course the sutpid comment was intended to be provocative, not to
represent either thought or opinion of merit. To solicit the dump of feces
that it deserves. "It" is the attribute of the neutered version of a
person. Believe what you will, this ape is still trying to go fast, but the
velocity downward is greater than the horizontal forward.
My comment is thhe current policy of WADA and the one that Van chImpe
agreed to abide by. As you sit here and post that my suggestion is
intended only to be provocative is laughable considering that not only
is it the current WADA/UCI policy, it will not change for next year.
And when Van chImpe takes out his UCI license next year he will once
agree to be tested 365/24/7.
And the next cyclist who complains will also be an idiot for complaining
since they agreed to 365/24/7 testing.
My argument would win a court of law because it deals with facts and
contracts. Your argument sounds like it comes from a 3 year old.
Quoted message said:
A reminder, nonetheless: all the riders are presumed not to violate the
rules. Presumed to be non guilty. Well, yes, that's how the rules read.
But the practice is the opposite.
Your presumption is wrong. OOC testing relies on riders producing a
sample when demanded. If they don't they are presmued guilty. I
suggest you read the rules, which the riders agreed to when they took
out a UCI license.
Magilla