A cure that's worse than the disease

[RonSonic]

I just happened across this quote again about the Riis admission:

"McQuaid's solution: "I think the way to sort that out is to declare
that there was no winner of the race in 1996. I wouldn't even think of
going down the classification [to search for a clean rider]."

Now think about this from the point of view of either a sponsor or fan. All that
investment of money, emotion, time all waved away because someone didn't like
the way racing was conducted a dozen years ago.

THIS is what's killing cycling. How could you possibly watch a sport, cheer for
anyone or invest money if it all disappears because a rule that had been broken
with a wink for decades suddenly becomes retroactively enforced. Maybe that's
why Eddie Merckx didn't want to talk on the stand, the question of his doping
would come up and he'd have to lie or watch this pack of moral hyenas try to
strip his palmares.

I say we go look at film and video footage of riders getting pushes from fans
uphill and relegate them. Break down the old film and add time penalties for the
guys who hold the water bottle a bit too long on a hand up. Let's dig up the
corpses of the guys who won the first few tours and test their bones for
strychnine. I've seen photos of guys riding with their knees covered in warm
weather, let's DQ that bunch of dirty cheaters. I'm sure we could find enough
rules violations to pretty well change the outcomes of every season in the
sport.

Yeah, this is all a little over the top. But what's the fun in ranting if you
don't let it rip.

Ron

 

[bdbafh]

On May 31, 11:46 am, RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
> I just happened across this quote again about the Riis admission:
>
> "McQuaid's solution: "I think the way to sort that out is to declare
> that there was no winner of the race in 1996. I wouldn't even think of
> going down the classification [to search for a clean rider]."
>
> Now think about this from the point of view of either a sponsor or fan. All that
> investment of money, emotion, time all waved away because someone didn't like
> the way racing was conducted a dozen years ago.
>
> THIS is what's killing cycling. How could you possibly watch a sport, cheer for
> anyone or invest money if it all disappears because a rule that had been broken
> with a wink for decades suddenly becomes retroactively enforced. Maybe that's
> why Eddie Merckx didn't want to talk on the stand, the question of his doping
> would come up and he'd have to lie or watch this pack of moral hyenas try to
> strip his palmares.
>
> I say we go look at film and video footage of riders getting pushes from fans
> uphill and relegate them. Break down the old film and add time penalties for the
> guys who hold the water bottle a bit too long on a hand up. Let's dig up the
> corpses of the guys who won the first few tours and test their bones for
> strychnine. I've seen photos of guys riding with their knees covered in warm
> weather, let's DQ that bunch of dirty cheaters. I'm sure we could find enough
> rules violations to pretty well change the outcomes of every season in the
> sport.
>
> Yeah, this is all a little over the top. But what's the fun in ranting if you
> don't let it rip.
>
> Ron

Next thing you know, they'll invalidate the Immaculate Reception and
dem Stillers 4 Super Bowl victories.

-bdbafh

 

[Carl Sundquist]

"RonSonic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> I just happened across this quote again about the Riis admission:
>
> "McQuaid's solution: "I think the way to sort that out is to declare
> that there was no winner of the race in 1996. I wouldn't even think of
> going down the classification [to search for a clean rider]."
>
> Now think about this from the point of view of either a sponsor or fan.
> All that
> investment of money, emotion, time all waved away because someone didn't
> like
> the way racing was conducted a dozen years ago.


Recognize Boardman for the hour record again?

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Carl Sundquist
('[email protected]') wrote:

> "RonSonic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I just happened across this quote again about the Riis admission:
>>
>> "McQuaid's solution: "I think the way to sort that out is to declare
>> that there was no winner of the race in 1996. I wouldn't even think of
>> going down the classification [to search for a clean rider]."
>>
>> Now think about this from the point of view of either a sponsor or fan.
>> All that
>> investment of money, emotion, time all waved away because someone didn't
>> like
>> the way racing was conducted a dozen years ago.
>
> Recognize Boardman for the hour record again?

Obree?

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

[ This mind intentionally left blank ]

 

[Donald Munro]

bdbafh wrote:
> Next thing you know, they'll invalidate the Immaculate Reception

Immaculate conceptions probably occur as a result of doping too.

 

[[email protected]]

On May 31, 12:52 pm, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Carl Sundquist
>
>
>
>
>
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
> > "RonSonic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> I just happened across this quote again about the Riis admission:
>
> >> "McQuaid's solution: "I think the way to sort that out is to declare
> >> that there was no winner of the race in 1996. I wouldn't even think of
> >> going down the classification [to search for a clean rider]."
>
> >> Now think about this from the point of view of either a sponsor or fan.
> >> All that
> >> investment of money, emotion, time all waved away because someone didn't
> >> like
> >> the way racing was conducted a dozen years ago.
>
> > Recognize Boardman for the hour record again?
>
> Obree?

That's exactly what went through my mind. O'Bree may have been the
only person in professional cycling that wasn't juicing on something
simply because he couldn't afford a cigarette let alone anything else.

 

[Mark]

RonSonic wrote:
> I say we go look at film and video footage of riders getting pushes from fans
> uphill and relegate them. Break down the old film and add time penalties for the
> guys who hold the water bottle a bit too long on a hand up. Let's dig up the
> corpses of the guys who won the first few tours and test their bones for
> strychnine. I've seen photos of guys riding with their knees covered in warm
> weather, let's DQ that bunch of dirty cheaters.

Are knee warmers against the rules in warm weather, or is it just that
they might conceal bionic knees? Wait a minute, are bionic knees
against the rules? What's a decrepit master's fattie to do?

Good points, BTW

Mark J.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>,
[email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:

> On May 31, 12:52 pm, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> in message <[email protected]>, Carl Sundquist
>>
>> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>> > "RonSonic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>>
>> >> I just happened across this quote again about the Riis admission:
>>
>> >> "McQuaid's solution: "I think the way to sort that out is to declare
>> >> that there was no winner of the race in 1996. I wouldn't even think
>> >> of going down the classification [to search for a clean rider]."
>>
>> >> Now think about this from the point of view of either a sponsor or
>> >> fan. All that
>> >> investment of money, emotion, time all waved away because someone
>> >> didn't like
>> >> the way racing was conducted a dozen years ago.
>>
>> > Recognize Boardman for the hour record again?
>>
>> Obree?
>
> That's exactly what went through my mind. O'Bree may have been the
> only person in professional cycling that wasn't juicing on something
> simply because he couldn't afford a cigarette let alone anything else.

Obree, not O'Bree (he's a very nice guy, actually - friendly, modest, and
slightly off the wall).

No, definitely not doped, but I understand the UCI were considering listing
marmalade sandwiches as a banned substance.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Windows 95:
You, you, you! You make a grown man cry...
M. Jagger/K. Richards

 

[Ewoud Dronkert]

Simon Brooke schreef:
> No, definitely not doped, but I understand the UCI were considering listing
> marmalade sandwiches as a banned substance.

Marmite, they should make marmite a banned substance.


--
E. Dronkert

 

[[email protected]]

On May 31, 9:23 am, bdbafh <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Next thing you know, they'll invalidate the Immaculate Reception and
> dem Stillers 4 Super Bowl victories.

They didn't win it in the Immaculate Reception season,
only after. But you probably knew that. If not, you
lose the right to call them "Stillers."

Also, there are persistemt rumors that they were
one of the first teams where experimenting with
steroids was commonplace. I, of course, believe
that they grew strong just by drinking Iron City[*]
and the rumors are put about by jealous Dallas
snobs. Get over it, losers!

-Ben
[*] On the "what does not kill you makes you
stronger" theory.

 

[Donald Munro]

[email protected] wrote:
> [*] On the "what does not kill you makes you
> stronger" theory.

Nietzsche was a doper (Presumably philosophers do LSD).

 

[[email protected]]

On Jun 1, 6:06 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On May 31, 9:23 am, bdbafh <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Next thing you know, they'll invalidate the Immaculate Reception and
> > dem Stillers 4 Super Bowl victories.
>
> They didn't win it in the Immaculate Reception season,
> only after. But you probably knew that. If not, you
> lose the right to call them "Stillers."

Getting beaten by the Dolphins that following week was karmic payback
for the Stealers.

 

[[email protected]]

On Jun 1, 1:28 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jun 1, 6:06 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > On May 31, 9:23 am, bdbafh <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Next thing you know, they'll invalidate the Immaculate Reception and
> > > dem Stillers 4 Super Bowl victories.
>
> > They didn't win it in the Immaculate Reception season,
> > only after. But you probably knew that. If not, you
> > lose the right to call them "Stillers."
>
> Getting beaten by the Dolphins that following week was karmic payback
> for the Stealers.

Or maybe they just weren't that good that year. Not
good enough to beat The Only Undefeated Team Of Destiny,
certainly.

Getting beat by the Stealers on a freak play was karmic
payback for the Raiders and Jack Tatum, who never just
tackled a guy when he could spear him instead.

Ben

 

[[email protected]]

On Jun 1, 7:01 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Getting beat by the Stealers on a freak play was karmic
> payback for the Raiders and Jack Tatum, who never just
> tackled a guy when he could spear him instead.

The Raiders have done more to bring modernization to the rulebook than
any other team, evar. Because of the Raiders, there's the "no spearing
the quarterback while he's lying on the ground" rule, the "no fumbling
forward in the last two minutes of the half" rule, the "no stickum on
body parts" rule, the "no bumping more than 5 yards beyond the line"
rule, the "no handing the ball to another guy to spike" rule
(subsequently replaced), and I'm sure I'm forgetting others.

 

[Michael Press]

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

> On May 31, 9:23 am, bdbafh <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Next thing you know, they'll invalidate the Immaculate Reception and
> > dem Stillers 4 Super Bowl victories.
>
> They didn't win it in the Immaculate Reception season,
> only after. But you probably knew that. If not, you
> lose the right to call them "Stillers."
>
> Also, there are persistemt rumors that they were
> one of the first teams where experimenting with
> steroids was commonplace. I, of course, believe
> that they grew strong just by drinking Iron City[*]
> and the rumors are put about by jealous Dallas
> snobs. Get over it, losers!
>
> -Ben
> [*] On the "what does not kill you makes you
> stronger" theory.

They went from being patsies. With steroids alone they
would have become contenders. They became champions
with Terry Bradshaw. Bradshaw was one of the best
quarterbacks ever by my single criterium. If a
quarterback throws an interception, then walks off the
field with a huge grin of amusement plastered on his
dial, then he is one of the immortals.
Joe Namath, Terry Bradshaw, Joe Montana.

--
Michael Press

 

[RonSonic]

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:35:31 -0000, [email protected] wrote:

>On Jun 1, 7:01 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>> Getting beat by the Stealers on a freak play was karmic
>> payback for the Raiders and Jack Tatum, who never just
>> tackled a guy when he could spear him instead.
>
>The Raiders have done more to bring modernization to the rulebook than
>any other team, evar. Because of the Raiders, there's the "no spearing
>the quarterback while he's lying on the ground" rule, the "no fumbling
>forward in the last two minutes of the half" rule, the "no stickum on
>body parts" rule, the "no bumping more than 5 yards beyond the line"
>rule, the "no handing the ball to another guy to spike" rule
>(subsequently replaced), and I'm sure I'm forgetting others.


Quote from a San Diego waitress when it was Raiders v Bucs in the super bowl
there: "The only people happy to see the Raiders come to town are the bail
bondsmen."

Ron

Ron

Effect pedal demo's up at http://www.soundclick.com/ronsonicpedalry

 

[Revtom]

On May 31, 10:46 am, RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
> I just happened across this quote again about the Riis admission:
>
> "McQuaid's solution: "I think the way to sort that out is to declare
> that there was no winner of the race in 1996. I wouldn't even think of
> going down the classification [to search for a clean rider]."
>
> Now think about this from the point of view of either a sponsor or fan. All that
> investment of money, emotion, time all waved away because someone didn't like
> the way racing was conducted a dozen years ago.
>
> THIS is what's killing cycling. How could you possibly watch a sport, cheer for
> anyone or invest money if it all disappears because a rule that had been broken
> with a wink for decades suddenly becomes retroactively enforced. Maybe that's
> why Eddie Merckx didn't want to talk on the stand, the question of his doping
> would come up and he'd have to lie or watch this pack of moral hyenas try to
> strip his palmares.
>
> I say we go look at film and video footage of riders getting pushes from fans
> uphill and relegate them. Break down the old film and add time penalties for the
> guys who hold the water bottle a bit too long on a hand up. Let's dig up the
> corpses of the guys who won the first few tours and test their bones for
> strychnine. I've seen photos of guys riding with their knees covered in warm
> weather, let's DQ that bunch of dirty cheaters. I'm sure we could find enough
> rules violations to pretty well change the outcomes of every season in the
> sport.
>
> Yeah, this is all a little over the top. But what's the fun in ranting if you
> don't let it rip.
>
> Ron

I know I'm setting myself up for a ton of abuse; I've brought this up
with people in my bike club, and with all of the uproar about the
consideration of ex post facto regulations, maybe it's time for
something really radical. Amnesty. Have the riders 'fess up, come
clean, spill it, give it up. Yes, I doped. No sanctions, no
suspensions. Then, have each National governing body administer blood
sampling, followed by weekly urine samples. The price for non-
compliance is the loss of amnesty, and loss of the rider's job. Since
the UCI and WADA can't handle the problem, and most national bodies
get some form of assistance or subsidy from their governments, the
cost of the initial and weekly sampling will be somewhat easier to
bear. Yes, this sounds like giving up. But what would be given up?
This constant screeching noise coming from the anti-doping idealogues?
The "What?!! Doping?!!" from sponsors? If the riders put up, and the
critics shut up, they can all go back to racing, having turned their
backs on deception, guilt, and recrimination. Cyclists, footballers,
track & field athletes, who, or more importantly, whomever, can go
back to being either clean athletes, or the waiters, bus drivers and
cable TV installers they would have been. Yes, this is a crazy idea,
and very few people will even consider it. But all of the debris
flying around sport is doing more long-term damage than doping is
doing.
Thanks; I'll stand back and wait for the assault to begin.
Tom P.

 

[Bret]

On Jun 1, 12:35 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jun 1, 7:01 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Getting beat by the Stealers on a freak play was karmic
> > payback for the Raiders and Jack Tatum, who never just
> > tackled a guy when he could spear him instead.
>
> The Raiders have done more to bring modernization to the rulebook than
> any other team, evar. Because of the Raiders, there's the "no spearing
> the quarterback while he's lying on the ground" rule, the "no fumbling
> forward in the last two minutes of the half" rule, the "no stickum on
> body parts" rule, the "no bumping more than 5 yards beyond the line"
> rule, the "no handing the ball to another guy to spike" rule
> (subsequently replaced), and I'm sure I'm forgetting others.

I was watching the Raiders-Chiefs game thirty seven years ago when Ben
Davidson speared Len Dawson and I became a Raider hater from that day
forward. When I learned that Kathy Rigby married Davidson, my first
thought was "How could she do that? Doesn't she know what he did to
Len Dawson?" I later moved to Colorado where Raider hating is the
state pastime so it hasn't been hard to keep that theme going.

Bret

 

[Bob Schwartz]

Revtom wrote:
> Thanks; I'll stand back and wait for the assault to begin.

I guess my biggest issue with your proposal is that it's a
pretty major production over something as insignificant and
unimportant as bike racing.

Bob Schwartz

 

[Revtom]

On Jun 2, 12:35 am, Bob Schwartz <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Revtom wrote:
> > Thanks; I'll stand back and wait for the assault to begin.
>
> I guess my biggest issue with your proposal is that it's a
> pretty major production over something as insignificant and
> unimportant as bike racing.
>
> Bob Schwartz

It could be applied to all sports. After all, sport in general is a
multi-national, multi-billion dollar enterprise. Plus, when you think
about it, the only thing a zero-tolerance policy does is get kids
expelled for bringing tableknives to school.

Stay Cool,
Tom P.