Bravo **** Pound

[B. Lafferty]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
> (I asked):
>> > So is WADA going to be given power to arrest athletes and drag them
>> > into these interrogations, Brian?
>>
>> That is unlikely. However, national governments are stakeholders in
>> WADA.
>> Closer cooperation between national police forces and WADA is a real and
>> openly discussed possibility.
>
> Like having private corporations running the red light camera scam?

No. Like having a public entity known as the State investigate what is
criminal activity.

>
> Just because it's "openly discussed"...
>
> So you're in favor of **** Pound being able to sic the pigs onto
> whomever stands up to him? Because that's what is next.

Strawman.

>
> Tell me he doesn't come off as being just a teensy-bit power mad?
> ("Marion Jones better watch her mouth or I'll take all her medals
> away!")
>
> An old question: When you are accused, which of your protections are
> *you* willing to give up? Cool with you if you are penalized ("can't
> ride the Tour") or even jailed if your name, or code for what might be
> your name, appears on some list allegedly found by a WADA operative who
> drops the dime on you-- or has the power to force you into an
> interrogation room?

If I am accused, or anyone else for that matter, I expect due process under
the laws of the jurisdiction in which I am charged. The irony here is that
dopers will actually have more rights in criminal proceedings than in CAS
tribunals.

>
> (I posted):
>> > The "excrement" is the testing protocols that can't catch dopers.
>
> (response):
>>> You're entitled to your opinion. We'll just have to disagree.
>
> The **** protocols *create* the situation where a rider can never be
> sure the guy next to him isn't doping. That's the foundation, right
> there. I think you understand that but won't admit doping in sports to
> be a problem without a solution (absent perfect testing).

Doping in sport is a problem without an absolute solution. That doesn't
mean that there isn't much more that can be done as evidenced by the police
power of the state in Spain. .


>
> Absent perfection, where is the humility? Not with WADA and Pound,
> that's for sure.

Pound isn't being paid to be humble. He's the official IOC lightening rod.

>
> (I wrote):
>> > But, you could wind up with the white socks, black shorts, and
>> > sponsorless (national?) teams if Pound and his ilk can stir up enough
>> > ****. And, just like amateur athletics everywhere, people will continue
>> > do anything to win, even for a $20 plastic trophy.
>
> (response):
>> That wouldn't be all that bad. It was fun to race in the 1970s. And it's
>> difficult to pay for preparation as it exists today without the money in
>> professional sports. BTW, I don't think I've ever seen a plastic trophy
>> at
>> a bicycle race that cost a much as $20.
>
> Yup, destroy the sport while (as you noted earlier, approx.) WADA
> drinks champagne.
> The War on People continues.

Hyperbole. If the sport is destroyed, it will be from the pros and their
support personel who have ****** in the livingroom for decades, particlarly
since the early 1990s. The sport will survive, as another poster noted. It
won't be on OLN or another network, but you'll be able to follow the remains
via the web. You'll even have more time to ride your bicycle and maybe race
it too for plastic medals and trophies.

>
> BTW, I could show you a trophy that might have cost that $20 and more,
> even in the early 80's <g>. --D-y

That's nice, but you needn't go to the trouble. Consider recycling it in a
future race.

>

 

[Carl Sundquist]

"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> That is unlikely. However, national governments are stakeholders in WADA.
> Closer cooperation between national police forces and WADA is a real and
> openly discussed possibility.
>

Why not just have L'Equipe as the central agency for information
distribution?

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:uE8Eg.14060$yO4.6901@dukeread02...
>
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> That is unlikely. However, national governments are stakeholders in
>> WADA. Closer cooperation between national police forces and WADA is a
>> real and openly discussed possibility.
>>
>
> Why not just have L'Equipe as the central agency for information
> distribution?

There will be more than a few team pr people out of work who would love to
do that.

 

[[email protected]]

B. Lafferty wrote:
> No. Like having a public entity known as the State investigate what is
> criminal activity.

How about murders, corrupt politicians, other real criminals, some of
whom have a whole lot more teeth...

> > So you're in favor of **** Pound being able to sic the pigs onto
> > whomever stands up to him? Because that's what is next.
>
> Strawman.

No. **** drops the dime and the oinkers go after the objet du jour.
Like Marion Jones. She really ****** him off.

> If I am accused, or anyone else for that matter, I expect due process under
> the laws of the jurisdiction in which I am charged. The irony here is that
> dopers will actually have more rights in criminal proceedings than in CAS
> tribunals.

You're only pointing out faults in the "sporting system" with that
remark. Big ones, too.

> Doping in sport is a problem without an absolute solution. That doesn't
> mean that there isn't much more that can be done as evidenced by the police
> power of the state in Spain.

Police, state, power (take the commas out). Pound drops the dime...

> Pound isn't being paid to be humble. He's the official IOC lightening rod.

He doesn't have fair testing protocols. In place, he offers bluster and
intimidation.

> Hyperbole. If the sport is destroyed, it will be from the pros and their
> support personel who have ****** in the livingroom for decades, particlarly
> since the early 1990s. The sport will survive, as another poster noted. It
> won't be on OLN or another network, but you'll be able to follow the remains
> via the web. You'll even have more time to ride your bicycle and maybe race
> it too for plastic medals and trophies.

The pros are scapegoats, whatever their guilt by commission. Performing
pawns.

> That's nice, but you needn't go to the trouble. Consider recycling it [trophy] in a
> future race.

Not this one. The chrome is all flaked off anyhow. '82, it was a very
good year... --D-y

 

[RonSonic]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 23:08:44 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article
><[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> If big-dollar sponsorship started to go away
>> because the riders are all getting popped, then blame the dopers, not
>> us. I'll feel no real loss. I'd certainly miss the OLN coverage, but
>> I'd be satisfied with reading about it (like we used to do back in the
>> day).
>
>It would be better given the World Wide Web. I read the
>live updates before watching TV coverage; as reading them
>is dramatic for me.

I'm here to tell you, the TdF was invented for prose, that is its medium.
Nothing else has the perspective. I'll still watch, but I always read first.

Ron

 

[RonSonic]

On 14 Aug 2006 16:14:38 -0700, "CowPunk" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> Yup, destroy the sport while (as you noted earlier, approx.) WADA
>> drinks champagne.
>> The War on People continues.
>
>Ditto... From reading the WADA reports on the Tour, IMHO it sounds like
>a
>bunch of egotistical Dr.'s got a free trip to watch the Tour, complete
>with pit passes. "Who cares what happens to the sport, at least we
>got to party in France on someone elses dime".
>
>It seems that people forget these guys have families and mortgages just
>like everyone else. I would even go so far as to say that most Dr's
>and
>scientist are more corrupt and unethical than your average blue-collar
>guy.

Did you catch that Bob Roll interview from another thread. Very interesting the
way he brought the subject of social class into this. That cycling is a working
man's game and they are indeed considered beneath the writers, promoters,
doctors and just about everyone else in that orbit.

Ron

 

[Donald Munro]

Michael Press wrote:
>> **** is five pounds of excrement in a four pound bag.

Howard Kveck wrote:
> A.K.A. a blivet. Though that's usually referring to "ten pounds of **** in a five
> pound sack."

A blivet must then be the SI unit of human shittiness.

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

> He is playing the role the IOC (or at least some of its leaders) think
> they need. But those anti-doping hunters should try to be a little more
> lucid, considering what's happening with cyclism, Cyclism is possibly
> the main target for the anti-doping politics, with disastrous results.
> A necessary condition for such a politics to be effective is that the
> risk of being caught should be much higher than the possibility of
> taking advantage of it. Of course that's not the case. I estimate that
> the percentage of participants to the Tour de France who had used
> banned substances during or just before the Tour and have been caught,
> about 1 % (although I might a bit too optimistic).

You're wrong there. About 180 riders start the TdF each year. Of them,
relatively few are first-timers; the maximum number of tours ridden is
16, and the average number of tours a pro rider rides in his career is
probably six or eight. So in a ten year period about 450 riders total
take part.

Suppose everyone doped. Then if 1% of those who doped were caught, four
or five would have been caught.

Now, I can't remember for certain how many people who've ridden in the
TdF have been caught doping in the past ten years, but it's a lot more
than three - even if you discount those accused by Operacion Puerto,
against whom there is as yet no solid evidence.

From memory:

1998: 8xFestina
....
2002: Raimondas Rumsas
2004: Christophe Brandt, David Millar, Jesus Manzano, Tyler Hamilton
2005: Roberto Heras
2006: Floyd Landis

I know there are more, but that's 15. So if every rider in the Tour
dopes, that's at least 3.33% chance of getting caught. But if, as I
believe, the majority - say 60% - of the riders /don't/ dope, then
that's at least an 8.33% chance of being caught. And seeing being caught
now means effectively a four year ban from being able to make your
living from cycling, I think 8.33% is getting close to the point where
someone who is riding for a living is going to say that's not worth it.

Of course, someone who wants to win at all costs, someone who's going for
glory, may think an 8% risk - or an 80% risk - is worth taking.

This situation is bad, but it's not as bad as it's painted - by either
end of the argument.

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

;; I'd rather live in sybar-space

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

>> Yup, destroy the sport while (as you noted earlier, approx.) WADA
>> drinks champagne.
>> The War on People continues.
>
> Hyperbole.  If the sport is destroyed, it will be from the pros and
> their support personel who have ****** in the livingroom for decades,
> particlarly since the early 1990s.  The sport will survive, as another
> poster noted.  It won't be on OLN or another network, but you'll be
> able to follow the remains via the web.  You'll even have more time to
> ride your bicycle and maybe race it too for plastic medals and
> trophies.

It isn't like that. I know, I've organised two very minor local races
this year. Organising a bike race - even a little one - causes an
enormous amount of complexity and disruption. Negotiating with local
government and the police about road closures, consulting with and
placating local residents, organising alternative parking for residents,
signing up marshals, making sure you have the right road signage, enough
hi-vis jackets, food, water...

And that's before you worry about rolling closures, motor-cycle mobile
marshals, cars for commissaires and judges, accommodation, and all the
added complexities of a major stage race. Without television and the
income it brings, these big races just won't happen. They will be too
expensive to put on. That doesn't mean there won't be smaller races -
but compare the Grand Boucle Feminin (which doesn't get much TV
coverage) with le Tour (which does).

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Drivers in the UK kill more people every single year than
;; Al Qaeda have ever killed worldwide in any single year.

 

[benjo maso]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in message <[email protected]>, benjo maso
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> He is playing the role the IOC (or at least some of its leaders) think
>> they need. But those anti-doping hunters should try to be a little more
>> lucid, considering what's happening with cyclism, Cyclism is possibly
>> the main target for the anti-doping politics, with disastrous results.
>> A necessary condition for such a politics to be effective is that the
>> risk of being caught should be much higher than the possibility of
>> taking advantage of it. Of course that's not the case. I estimate that
>> the percentage of participants to the Tour de France who had used
>> banned substances during or just before the Tour and have been caught,
>> about 1 % (although I might a bit too optimistic).
>
> You're wrong there. About 180 riders start the TdF each year. Of them,
> relatively few are first-timers; the maximum number of tours ridden is
> 16, and the average number of tours a pro rider rides in his career is
> probably six or eight. So in a ten year period about 450 riders total
> take part.
>
> Suppose everyone doped. Then if 1% of those who doped were caught, four
> or five would have been caught.
>
> Now, I can't remember for certain how many people who've ridden in the
> TdF have been caught doping in the past ten years, but it's a lot more
> than three - even if you discount those accused by Operacion Puerto,
> against whom there is as yet no solid evidence.
>
> From memory:
>
> 1998: 8xFestina
> ...
> 2002: Raimondas Rumsas
> 2004: Christophe Brandt, David Millar, Jesus Manzano, Tyler Hamilton
> 2005: Roberto Heras
> 2006: Floyd Landis

How many of them were caught during the Tour? The Festina's of course and
Floyd Landis. But Landis was the only one who tested positive. And by the
way, Christophe Brandt was later exonorated and Manzono was fired by his
team, not because he tested positive, but for having a woman in his hotel
room during the 2003 Vuelta (which is not - not yet? - on the WADA list). So
although the risk of getting caught in the course of one's career is
definitely more than 1 %, participating in a Tour is pretty safe.

> I know there are more, but that's 15. So if every rider in the Tour
> dopes, that's at least 3.33% chance of getting caught. But if, as I
> believe, the majority - say 60% - of the riders /don't/ dope,

A few days after the Landis scandal I was at a meeting with some journalists
and ex-pros. They were taking a little poll about the percentage of TdF
participants who were really "clean". The results fluctuated between 5 and
15 %. of course, there is no proof they were right, but 60 % seems to me
extremely optimistic.

> then that's at least an 8.33% chance of being caught. And seeing being
> caught
> now means effectively a four year ban from being able to make your
> living from cycling, I think 8.33% is getting close to the point where
> someone who is riding for a living is going to say that's not worth it.
>
> Of course, someone who wants to win at all costs, someone who's going for
> glory, may think an 8% risk - or an 80% risk - is worth taking.
>
> This situation is bad, but it's not as bad as it's painted - by either
> end of the argument.

Even if the risk is 8 %, it's relatively small. Probably safer than tax
fraud.

Benjo

 

[B. Lafferty]

"benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> in message <[email protected]>, benjo maso
>> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>
>>> He is playing the role the IOC (or at least some of its leaders) think
>>> they need. But those anti-doping hunters should try to be a little more
>>> lucid, considering what's happening with cyclism, Cyclism is possibly
>>> the main target for the anti-doping politics, with disastrous results.
>>> A necessary condition for such a politics to be effective is that the
>>> risk of being caught should be much higher than the possibility of
>>> taking advantage of it. Of course that's not the case. I estimate that
>>> the percentage of participants to the Tour de France who had used
>>> banned substances during or just before the Tour and have been caught,
>>> about 1 % (although I might a bit too optimistic).
>>
>> You're wrong there. About 180 riders start the TdF each year. Of them,
>> relatively few are first-timers; the maximum number of tours ridden is
>> 16, and the average number of tours a pro rider rides in his career is
>> probably six or eight. So in a ten year period about 450 riders total
>> take part.
>>
>> Suppose everyone doped. Then if 1% of those who doped were caught, four
>> or five would have been caught.
>>
>> Now, I can't remember for certain how many people who've ridden in the
>> TdF have been caught doping in the past ten years, but it's a lot more
>> than three - even if you discount those accused by Operacion Puerto,
>> against whom there is as yet no solid evidence.
>>
>> From memory:
>>
>> 1998: 8xFestina
>> ...
>> 2002: Raimondas Rumsas
>> 2004: Christophe Brandt, David Millar, Jesus Manzano, Tyler Hamilton
>> 2005: Roberto Heras
>> 2006: Floyd Landis
>
> How many of them were caught during the Tour? The Festina's of course and
> Floyd Landis. But Landis was the only one who tested positive. And by the
> way, Christophe Brandt was later exonorated and Manzono was fired by his
> team, not because he tested positive, but for having a woman in his hotel
> room during the 2003 Vuelta (which is not - not yet? - on the WADA list).
> So although the risk of getting caught in the course of one's career is
> definitely more than 1 %, participating in a Tour is pretty safe.
>
> > I know there are more, but that's 15. So if every rider in the Tour
>> dopes, that's at least 3.33% chance of getting caught. But if, as I
>> believe, the majority - say 60% - of the riders /don't/ dope,
>
> A few days after the Landis scandal I was at a meeting with some
> journalists and ex-pros. They were taking a little poll about the
> percentage of TdF participants who were really "clean". The results
> fluctuated between 5 and 15 %. of course, there is no proof they were
> right, but 60 % seems to me extremely optimistic.
>
>> then that's at least an 8.33% chance of being caught. And seeing being
>> caught
>> now means effectively a four year ban from being able to make your
>> living from cycling, I think 8.33% is getting close to the point where
>> someone who is riding for a living is going to say that's not worth it.
>>
>> Of course, someone who wants to win at all costs, someone who's going for
>> glory, may think an 8% risk - or an 80% risk - is worth taking.
>>
>> This situation is bad, but it's not as bad as it's painted - by either
>> end of the argument.
>
> Even if the risk is 8 %, it's relatively small. Probably safer than tax
> fraud.
>
> Benjo

A number of top pros have been caught for tax fraud/problems. Didn't that
happen to Freddy M. and VDB?

 

[Donald Munro]

benjo maso wrote:
> and Manzono was fired by his team, not because he tested positive,
> but for having a woman in his hotel room during the 2003 Vuelta
> (which is not - not yet? - on the WADA list).

But if it can be proved that having a woman in your hotel room causes an
increase in testosterone then pound of excrement would probably ban it.
And if it was the team managers wife then you would get some adrenaline as
an extra.

 

[benjo maso]

"Donald Munro" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> benjo maso wrote:
>> and Manzono was fired by his team, not because he tested positive,
>> but for having a woman in his hotel room during the 2003 Vuelta
>> (which is not - not yet? - on the WADA list).
>
> But if it can be proved that having a woman in your hotel room causes an
> increase in testosterone then pound of excrement would probably ban it.
> And if it was the team managers wife then you would get some adrenaline as
> an extra.


I hope that **** Pound won't read this, but - as I wrote two weeks ago -
ex-pro Mariano Martinez, winner of the polka dot jersey in 1978, always
slept with his wife the day before an important mountain stage, being
convinced the increase of testorone helped him to climb better. He even
conceived his daughter the day before a Puy-de-Dôme stage. Strangely enough
he didn't win. .

Benjo

 

[[email protected]]

Michael Press wrote:
>
>
> Again speaking hypothetically, dismissing the charges
> against Landis will take up the gauntlet, poke **** Pound
> in the eye, and give Landis some kind of career in the
> USA.

Not necessarily; WADA and the UCI have the right to appeal decisions by
the national federations, and have done so many times to sanction
athletes that had been given a pass.

-dB

 

[Stu Fleming]

benjo maso wrote:

> I hope that **** Pound won't read this, but - as I wrote two weeks ago -
> ex-pro Mariano Martinez, winner of the polka dot jersey in 1978, always
> slept with his wife the day before an important mountain stage, being
> convinced the increase of testorone helped him to climb better. He even
> conceived his daughter the day before a Puy-de-Dôme stage. Strangely enough
> he didn't win. .

Several professional footballers, George Best included, have had
competitions from time to time to see who can have sex (not with each
other, obviously) the closest to kick-off time. I think the record is
around 30 seconds prior.

The practicalities of this are left as an exercise for the reader.
(oh heather, please tell me you are reading)

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in message <[email protected]>, B.
> Lafferty ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>>> Yup, destroy the sport while (as you noted earlier, approx.) WADA
>>> drinks champagne.
>>> The War on People continues.
>>
>> Hyperbole. If the sport is destroyed, it will be from the pros and
>> their support personel who have ****** in the livingroom for decades,
>> particlarly since the early 1990s. The sport will survive, as another
>> poster noted. It won't be on OLN or another network, but you'll be
>> able to follow the remains via the web. You'll even have more time to
>> ride your bicycle and maybe race it too for plastic medals and
>> trophies.
>
> It isn't like that. I know, I've organised two very minor local races
> this year. Organising a bike race - even a little one - causes an
> enormous amount of complexity and disruption. Negotiating with local
> government and the police about road closures, consulting with and
> placating local residents, organising alternative parking for residents,
> signing up marshals, making sure you have the right road signage, enough
> hi-vis jackets, food, water...
>
> And that's before you worry about rolling closures, motor-cycle mobile
> marshals, cars for commissaires and judges, accommodation, and all the
> added complexities of a major stage race. Without television and the
> income it brings, these big races just won't happen. They will be too
> expensive to put on. That doesn't mean there won't be smaller races -
> but compare the Grand Boucle Feminin (which doesn't get much TV
> coverage) with le Tour (which does).

A bicycle race need not be that complicated. Find a nice closed loop
(parks and college campuses abound with them) and arrange for early Sunday
morning usage. For many years, Vito Petrucci did just that on Long Island
at the Westbury state college campus. You got one number per year to pin on
your back. Several signs announcing that a bike race is under way don't cost
that much to make. Dayglow vests for marshalls at any road entry points are
a minimal one time cost. It cost us $5 to race and all the money collected
went back into prizes. Frankly, it would be nice to see the sport move back
to that kind of communal racing. It would be nice to see racing club
structure move toward a more communal non-elite sponsor driven
organizational model as well. Have you read "Bikie? British author. Can't
recall his name off the top of my head.

 

[[email protected]]

B. Lafferty wrote:
>> A bicycle race need not be that complicated. Find a nice closed loop
> (parks and college campuses abound with them) and arrange for early Sunday
> morning usage.

Or a weekday night, given the right course. Stalled housing
developments can be great (possible free portapottys).

> It would be nice to see racing club
> structure move toward a more communal non-elite sponsor driven
> organizational model as well.

FWIW:
http://www.violetcrown.org/

There's an old line that gets used from time to time:

(Q) "What do I get for joining VC?"
(A) "NOTHING!"

"Rider reimbursement" btw is gas money. I got $50 one year when I went
to road nats.

Just to say, a healthy perspective on a hobby/avocation/passtime.
Contrast to the local "elites" (gag me) is very noticeable.

(to the point):
But that's for us who are pros away from the bike.

Driving away sponsors from pro teams is stupid, any way you try to
slice it.

You diss "omerta" but it worked better than what they're doing now.

Excluding racers from the Tour for (supposedly; were these coded
names?) being on a list?
Wow, that would make setting someone up so easy-- you might not even
have to have any doping actually taking place! But who cares, as we
fight against the scourge of drugs!

Dork Pound is selling an illusion. Some foolish people are buying it.
Big, big problem.

The line "I had to burn that village to save it" offered by another
poster really sums up the insanity. Refers to another situation where
piling up bodies didn't solve any problems, if you'll remember. --D-y

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> B. Lafferty wrote:
> >> A bicycle race need not be that complicated. Find a nice closed loop
> > (parks and college campuses abound with them) and arrange for early Sunday
> > morning usage.
>
> Or a weekday night, given the right course. Stalled housing
> developments can be great (possible free portapottys).
>
> > It would be nice to see racing club
> > structure move toward a more communal non-elite sponsor driven
> > organizational model as well.
>
> FWIW:
> http://www.violetcrown.org/
>
> There's an old line that gets used from time to time:
>
> (Q) "What do I get for joining VC?"
> (A) "NOTHING!"
>
> "Rider reimbursement" btw is gas money. I got $50 one year when I went
> to road nats.
>
> Just to say, a healthy perspective on a hobby/avocation/passtime.
> Contrast to the local "elites" (gag me) is very noticeable.
>
> (to the point):
> But that's for us who are pros away from the bike.
>
> Driving away sponsors from pro teams is stupid, any way you try to
> slice it.
>
> You diss "omerta" but it worked better than what they're doing now.
>
> Excluding racers from the Tour for (supposedly; were these coded
> names?) being on a list?
> Wow, that would make setting someone up so easy-- you might not even
> have to have any doping actually taking place! But who cares, as we
> fight against the scourge of drugs!
>
> Dork Pound is selling an illusion. Some foolish people are buying it.
> Big, big problem.
>
> The line "I had to burn that village to save it" offered by another
> poster really sums up the insanity. Refers to another situation where
> piling up bodies didn't solve any problems, if you'll remember. --D-y

D-y,

What the hell do you propose? WADA and the UCI are not even doing the
"full-court-press" on doping yet, but big names are getting nabbed.
WADA even has the right to target specific riders, yet they don't even
bother to do so. They don't need to. The fish practically jump into
the net!

I don't think the goal is to have official WADA testing "clean up" the
sport. The goal is to show the UCI (and the teams) that testing is
their own job to do, and they'd best get on with doing it.

I think Pound is trying to say: "clean your own house so we don't have
to do it for you"

 

[h squared]

Stu Fleming wrote:


> Several professional footballers, George Best included, have had
> competitions from time to time to see who can have sex (not with each
> other, obviously) the closest to kick-off time. I think the record is
> around 30 seconds prior.
>
> The practicalities of this are left as an exercise for the reader.
> (oh heather, please tell me you are reading)

1. the winner must have been the footballer equivalent of a sprinter?
(i don't know anything about football)

2. why have i wasted so much time paying attention to bicycle racers and
not footballers?

heather
3. i mostly always read your posts, dumbass

 

[yeahyeah]

Stu Fleming wrote:
> benjo maso wrote:
>
> > I hope that **** Pound won't read this, but - as I wrote two weeks ago -
> > ex-pro Mariano Martinez, winner of the polka dot jersey in 1978, always
> > slept with his wife the day before an important mountain stage, being
> > convinced the increase of testorone helped him to climb better. He even
> > conceived his daughter the day before a Puy-de-Dôme stage. Strangely enough
> > he didn't win. .
>
> Several professional footballers, George Best included, have had
> competitions from time to time to see who can have sex (not with each
> other, obviously) the closest to kick-off time. I think the record is
> around 30 seconds prior.
>

Please tell me the 30 seconds prior is the finishing time of the act,
not the beginning.

So *that's* why they wear those loose shirts and baggy shorts.