UTTER BS

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

On Jun 20, 4:13 pm, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Excuse me but what "loyalty oath" were you required to sign?

Quoted message said:

The current oath, which is a slightly abridged version of the original
oath that appears as Article 20, section 3 of the California
Constitution. Aren't you familiar with it? It's here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_20

You'll have to excuse me here Robert but possibly you could make it clear to
me why you'd object to vowing to keep the laws and Constitution of the
people who are paying you?

You could always go to work in private industry which doesn't require such
things.

The Constitution has many noble and attractive features.
Many people, in fact, support it of their own free will.
This makes it a damn shame that some powerful people value
it so little, that they think the only way to defend the
Constitution is to arm-twist people into signing oaths
to it in the HR office on their first day at work.

In fact I think it devalues the Constitution to make
it something you sign off on while shuffling through
a pile of forms - health plan, key deposit, Constitution,
ID card form, dental co-pay, ...

It's worth it not to have to work with you though.

Ben

Quoted message said:

Riders get a slap on the wrist ($1000?) ($50? that sounds better) and
a one-race suspension. Then they join the peolton again. Next positive
(A and B, of course, which must be submitted within 24 hours of the
event where the pos. test was found), it's a hundred bucks, and one
more race event (one day) missed. Results are "relegated" as they say
in the USA. Sooner or later, a big race would be missed by a rider
found positive in a preceeding event. Big disincentive to go along
with the doping structure instituted by teams and rule makers.

Presumably the offending rider gets a yellow card waved in his directionm,
or perhaps even a red card if he throws his water bottle at someone in
addition to taking on some orange juice.

Donald Munro said:

Quoted message said:

Riders get a slap on the wrist ($1000?) ($50? that sounds better) and
a one-race suspension. Then they join the peolton again. Next positive
(A and B, of course, which must be submitted within 24 hours of the
event where the pos. test was found), it's a hundred bucks, and one
more race event (one day) missed. Results are "relegated" as they say
in the USA. Sooner or later, a big race would be missed by a rider
found positive in a preceeding event. Big disincentive to go along
with the doping structure instituted by teams and rule makers.

Presumably the offending rider gets a yellow card waved in his direction,
or perhaps even a red card if he throws his water bottle at someone in
addition to taking on some orange juice.

You're suggesting this
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3575155883726359029

Which would play out like this
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1853851463341709904

Okay. I'm in.

R

Quoted message said:

I was proposing time penalties for every rider on the team, but no
suspensions. A suspension just lets the team replace the rider with
another rider of unknown doping status. Actually, I had proposed
anonymizing the test results so no one would know exactly which rider
was doping -- though the team would have a pretty strong incentive to
figure it out.

Ten seconds, first offence? Fifteen, for the second? Something like
that?

Anonymizing IRT to rider names, but publishing the substances found
present (positive)?

IOW "we'll find this if you use it"?

NASCAR is going somewhat beserk, of course, since that new cahwr
(cawhr?) is a comin' ee-in. Hope they don't lose their cool
completely. --D-y

Quoted post said:

Ten seconds, first offence? Fifteen, for the second? Something like
that?

Something like that. But the idea is that since the doping postiive is
anonymized, everyone on the team is penalized X seconds. Or X minutes.
The anonymization would be done by combining the urine, which allows
you to test 9x as many riders per test. That raises the probability of
detecting a positive and, as Ben has pointed out via Bart, an
increased risk of getting caught is a better deterrent than increased
penalties.

Quoted message said:

Anonymizing IRT to rider names, but publishing the substances found
present (positive)?

Yup. And, of course, not anonymized wrt to the team. The team will
have an incentive to figure out who the positive was, which they don't
have now.

Quoted message said:

Quoted post said:

Ten seconds, first offence? Fifteen, for the second? Something like
that?

Something like that. But the idea is that since the doping postiive is
anonymized, everyone on the team is penalized X seconds. Or X minutes.
The anonymization would be done by combining the urine, which allows
you to test 9x as many riders per test. That raises the probability of
detecting a positive and, as Ben has pointed out via Bart, an
increased risk of getting caught is a better deterrent than increased
penalties.

Quoted message said:

Anonymizing IRT to rider names, but publishing the substances found
present (positive)?

Yup. And, of course, not anonymized wrt to the team. The team will
have an incentive to figure out who the positive was, which they don't
have now.

If you combine the urine and only one guy is using that's nearly a factor
of ten dilution, which means the user can dope more and not get caught
because he will still be below the detection limit once the urine is
combined. How this would effect testing testosterone/epitestosterone
ratios is even more complicated. Furthermore, there might be huge issues
in proving reliability of the test now that you are using combined samples.
I like the idea of team penalties, but pooling urine doesn't sound like a
good idea from a scientific or aesthetic standpoint.

It all comes down to money, you have to test each rider individually
each day and that costs too much.

--
Bill Asher

William Asher said:

If you combine the urine and only one guy is using that's nearly a factor
of ten dilution, which means the user can dope more and not get caught
because he will still be below the detection limit once the urine is
combined.

My understanding is that WADA has been claiming that detection limits
are way below the "performance enhancement" level, and that they've
been setting boundaries on what constitutes a "positive" way above
normal levels. At least, that's the argument the WADA was making. Of
course, they may have been lying about what they could detect, or
where they were setting the positivity criteria.

Quoted message said:

William Asher said:

If you combine the urine and only one guy is using that's nearly a factor
of ten dilution, which means the user can dope more and not get caught
because he will still be below the detection limit once the urine is
combined.

My understanding is that WADA has been claiming that detection limits
are way below the "performance enhancement" level, and that they've
been setting boundaries on what constitutes a "positive" way above
normal levels. At least, that's the argument the WADA was making. Of
course, they may have been lying about what they could detect, or
where they were setting the positivity criteria.

dumbass,

this "pee-cocktail" idea was discussed here before. i think it's even
been used in the past.

Quoted message said:

... and supporting regulations say that I
can be prosecuted for perjury if I later say that I signed it under
duress. So, I have never said that I objected to it.

Now that is what I call funny.

[email hidden] wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

this "pee-cocktail" idea was discussed here before. i think it's even
been used in the past.

Yeah, but that was in the context of kinky sex, not drug testing.

--
Bill Asher

Quoted message said:

William Asher said:

If you combine the urine and only one guy is using that's nearly a
factor of ten dilution, which means the user can dope more and not
get caught because he will still be below the detection limit once
the urine is combined.

My understanding is that WADA has been claiming that detection limits
are way below the "performance enhancement" level, and that they've
been setting boundaries on what constitutes a "positive" way above
normal levels. At least, that's the argument the WADA was making. Of
course, they may have been lying about what they could detect, or
where they were setting the positivity criteria.

Ok, substitute "positive level" for "detection limit" and see if it makes
any sense to dilute the urine by a factor of ten.

Also, you could have several guys load up on epitestosterone so that when
the samples are pooled, there isn't a high ratio for testosterone to
epitestosterone for the team yet none of the epitestosterone taking riders
get popped for eiptestosterone ask a masking agent.

--
Bill Asher

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You could always go to work in private industry which doesn't require such
things.

I've had to pee in a bottle for the last few jobs I've had. I have no
idea why.

Quoted message said:

The Constitution has many noble and attractive features.

Yeah, the really great part is how utterly ineffective the
constitution was in establishing a (limited) government with
enumerated powers, and having it stay that way. That is, it failed at
the #1 task.

Quoted message said:

Many people, in fact, support it of their own free will.

Most people have no clue what it says or what happened way back when.

I support doping rights of dogs of my own free will. Stupidly
meaningless because I don't know what the doping rights of dogs are, I
just know I support them.

Quoted message said:

This makes it a damn shame that some powerful people value
it so little, that they think the only way to defend the
Constitution is to arm-twist people into signing oaths
to it in the HR office on their first day at work.

It is as if you are surprised at what has happened. It was
inevitable. It is the nature of the beast, even when people have good
intentions. A conspiracy is unnecessary to arrive a bad effects.

In any case, there is no duty to tell the truth to a barbarian inside
the gates.

Quoted message said:

In fact I think it devalues the Constitution to make
it something you sign off on while shuffling through
a pile of forms - health plan, key deposit, Constitution,
ID card form, dental co-pay, ...

It has turned out to be little more than a parchment barrier. If
there was ever any value, it could only be in that other nations are
even worse, or that it provided *some* stalling in the growth of
today's massive welfare-warfare state.

I believe that in your heart you have good intentions. But to the
extent that what you learned in poly-sci class reflects your general
political commentary, I only wish you had gotten a lot more weeks of
sleep in.

William Asher said:

Yeah, but that was in the context of kinky sex, not drug testing.

I suppose they don't have to be mutually exclusive.

William Asher said:

Also, you could have several guys load up on epitestosterone so that when
the samples are pooled, there isn't a high ratio for testosterone to
epitestosterone for the team yet none of the epitestosterone taking riders
get popped for eiptestosterone ask a masking agent.

Cool. Then when they do an IRMS the synthetic stuff will stick out
like a sore thumb and it will be proof of team-organized doping.

SLAVE of THE STATE said:

Now that is what I call funny.

I sort of like it that your taxes pay my salary, too.

SLAVE of THE STATE said:

Quoted message said:

Now that is what I call funny.

rechungREMOVETHIS said:

I sort of like it that your taxes pay my salary, too.

Just wait until after the revolution. Pomeranians can bite too.

Quoted message said:

William Asher said:

Also, you could have several guys load up on epitestosterone so that
when the samples are pooled, there isn't a high ratio for
testosterone to epitestosterone for the team yet none of the
epitestosterone taking riders get popped for eiptestosterone ask a
masking agent.

Cool. Then when they do an IRMS the synthetic stuff will stick out
like a sore thumb and it will be proof of team-organized doping.

But I thought the IRMS was so expensive they only did that when the ratio
was out of whack. If they are going to do that for each team each day,
that is going to get pricey. Anyway, my suspicion is that if they did do
IRMS routinely, they would DQ the podium for each stage, anyone who wore
the yellow jersey, and all the random testees (not testes, mind you).
This, aside from the cost, is probably why they don't do IRMS routinely.
Unless they do it routinely already. I'ld look that up but I'm in the mood
to get flamed.

--
Bill Asher

William Asher said:

But I thought the IRMS was so expensive they only did that when the ratio
was out of whack.

Yes. Basically, they do IRMS when the A sample exceeds some screening
level. In the Landis case, the T-E ratio was off in the screen so they
did an IRMS to verify a particular molecule. But they wouldn't need to
do an IRMS on every sample -- if there was organized team doping going
on to manipulate something like T-E, it would have to be done for the
entire race.

Quoted message said:

William Asher said:

But I thought the IRMS was so expensive they only did that when the
ratio was out of whack.

Yes. Basically, they do IRMS when the A sample exceeds some screening
level. In the Landis case, the T-E ratio was off in the screen so they
did an IRMS to verify a particular molecule. But they wouldn't need to
do an IRMS on every sample -- if there was organized team doping going
on to manipulate something like T-E, it would have to be done for the
entire race.

Ok, so you do the IRMS once at the end of the race and it's no big deal. I
see your point. But you still hate America.

--
Bill Asher

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

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

You'll have to excuse me here Robert but possibly you could make it clear
to
me why you'd object to vowing to keep the laws and Constitution of the
people who are paying you?

Oh, I don't object to keeping the laws and protecting the Constitution
against enemies both foreign and domestic. Especially the domestic
part--that's why I fight you. And notice that the oath I signed says
that it was of my own free will, and supporting regulations say that I
can be prosecuted for perjury if I later say that I signed it under
duress. So, I have never said that I objected to it.

However, signing such an oath is quite similar to signing the proposed
UCI oath.

Quoted message said:

You could always go to work in private industry which doesn't require
such
things.

Yeah, but I sort of like it that 1) I've signed an oath to keep the
laws and protect the Constitution, and you haven't; and 2) I
especially like it that your taxes pay my salary while enabling me to
subvert the minds of young impressionable students to my own nefarious
ends, muuahHAHAHA.

Sorry, but in case you missed it I was in the service and so I took and
oath. And since I worked in top secret scientific research I also signed one
as well. So perhaps you really are just demonstrating that you're rather
naive.

BTW, you don't sign a loyalty oath to a private business because if they
don't like you they have the right to kick your big mouth right out the
door.