If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...

[Doug Taylor]

>> http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12315.0.html
>>
>> Deal with it
>
>How's your FFA, Future Fascists of America, career coming. Have you
>gotten around to applying for the racial profiling division of
>Gonzales' "Justice??" dept? We all know the bastards are all guilty,
>and I'm sure you could produce some confessions and stats to prove we
>should lock 'em all up in camps and only let out those who can
>"prove", to your satisfaction they are innocent.
> It's alittle more work to have to invent the evidence, but Hey if
>that's what it takes to get those bastards you just KNOW are guilty,
>then so be it, right?

You're in la al land.

Cheating in athletics has NOTHING to do with: a) the criminal justice
system and/or the U.S. Constitution; and b) politics.

The rules against cheating are private according to the sport; they
are not public. The penalty for a cheat is suspension, not
incarceration.

That reactions to cheating have nothing to do with politics is clear
from the fact that real and true usenet neocon Jesus Freak fascists,
such as Kunich and Hickey - agree with YOU and support Landis.
Explain that, brainiac.

What cheating does have to do with are old school concepts such as
honor and integrity.

The only integrity I see in Landis case is that he adheres to the code
of silence and doesn't rat out other cheats. Honor among thieves.
Great. I'm SO impressed. That is what perpetuates the problem. So,
throw Lemond and lab technicians under the bus so you can get off and
retain your stolen Yellow Jersey.

But whatever. People like Schwartz take the position that although
Landis is obviously guilty, he has every right to challenge the
testing and do what he is doing within the system to protect his
career. It is impossible to argue against that; I have to concede the
point.

But I am saying is that obviously guilty and self centered schmucks
like Landis and O.J. deserve no respect for beating their respective
systems, and GETTING AWAY WITH IT.

Meanwhile, riders with the status of Riis and Zabel are coming clean
in droves. Yeah, a little late, but better late than never.

So, the honor and integrity apparently are not quite dead and might
just see a resurgence. We'll see. But Landis will always be a
schmuck

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:[email protected],
Doug Taylor <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

> The rules against cheating are private according to the sport; they
> are not public. The penalty for a cheat is suspension, not
> incarceration.
>
> That reactions to cheating have nothing to do with politics

I wrote this before, but it seems worth repeating, here :

"The International Olympic Committee has, for a long time, focused on
pharmaceutical cheating. It is popular knowledge that sports were a major
propaganda instrument for the Old World Order of Iron Curtain days.
Reasonable belief held that athletes of communist countries were achieving
victories based on chemistry. This was a carryover of the policy of
fighting [no, not a Godwin point] ******, who sought to prove that the aryan
race has inherent superiority, again a propaganda matter.

So, with the "free" world taking the lead, a culture of inquisition arose to
challenge the wins of those bad people. In consequence, a moralizing
economic interest group - doping specialists - snowballed their specialty
into a sky-is-falling crusade, and by relying on ancient fears of domination
by slavs and asians, moved the process onward, lobbied against what was
presented as national systemic cheating, and asked the awkward question :
"Does your nation support pumping drugs into people to gain the rewards that
should fall to those who use their natural ability and personal dedication
to reach the same levels of competitiveness ?" Tough to answer "yes".
--
Sandy
-
"Our knowledge is a little island in a great ocean of non-knowledge."
- Edward O. Wilson"

 

[Bob Schwartz]

Doug Taylor wrote:
> But whatever. People like Schwartz take the position that although
> Landis is obviously guilty, he has every right to challenge the
> testing and do what he is doing within the system to protect his
> career. It is impossible to argue against that; I have to concede the
> point.

Dumbass,

You've been arguing passionately against that. Your position has
consistently been to wipe your ass with Due Process brand toilet
paper.

Just wanted to point that out.

You know, Lafferty-ism has a few distinct characteristics:
- Intense and irrational dislike of a Tour de France winner
based on an emotional attachment to something of no personal
importance.
- An inability to let an argument drop without getting in
the last word. Dumbass.

Bob Schwartz

 

[RicodJour]

On May 27, 9:02 am, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> But I am saying is that obviously guilty and self centered schmucks
> like Landis and O.J. deserve no respect for beating their respective
> systems, and GETTING AWAY WITH IT.

You're equating brutal murders with cheating at bike racing... Yeah,
sure. They're IDENTICAL situations. I should have seen it myself.

In case you're such a "self centered schmuck", that you can't
differentiate between the two, here's the clue.
One is a moral outrage that violates every creed and belief system.
The other is a bike race.

Righteous indignation is almost a lost art in this day and age. No
one gets worked up over nothing anymore. Maybe you should post over
on alt.oj.did.it and really work up a good head of steam.

R

 

[Bill C]

On May 27, 9:02 am, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12315.0.html
>
> >> Deal with it
>
> >How's your FFA, Future Fascists of America, career coming. Have you
> >gotten around to applying for the racial profiling division of
> >Gonzales' "Justice??" dept? We all know the bastards are all guilty,
> >and I'm sure you could produce some confessions and stats to prove we
> >should lock 'em all up in camps and only let out those who can
> >"prove", to your satisfaction they are innocent.
> > It's alittle more work to have to invent the evidence, but Hey if
> >that's what it takes to get those bastards you just KNOW are guilty,
> >then so be it, right?
>
> You're in la al land.
>
Fair and just due process is just that, and should be accorded to
everyone in all cases, not just serious criminal cases. If not then
you whip out the stats that say minorities are involved with more
criminal violations than their percentage of the population would
warrant and use that to discriminate against them.
You seem to feel that, just because, doping is widespread that,
somehow, excuses them from being treated justly and properly.
Where do you apply actual justice, misdemeanors, minor felonies, DUI,
drug posession? Where on your scale do you start actually treating
people fairly and properly?
Bill C

> Cheating in athletics has NOTHING to do with: a) the criminal justice
> system and/or the U.S. Constitution; and b) politics.
>
> The rules against cheating are private according to the sport; they
> are not public. The penalty for a cheat is suspension, not
> incarceration.
>
> That reactions to cheating have nothing to do with politics is clear
> from the fact that real and true usenet neocon Jesus Freak fascists,
> such as Kunich and Hickey - agree with YOU and support Landis.
> Explain that, brainiac.
>
> What cheating does have to do with are old school concepts such as
> honor and integrity.
>
> The only integrity I see in Landis case is that he adheres to the code
> of silence and doesn't rat out other cheats. Honor among thieves.
> Great. I'm SO impressed. That is what perpetuates the problem. So,
> throw Lemond and lab technicians under the bus so you can get off and
> retain your stolen Yellow Jersey.
>
> But whatever. People like Schwartz take the position that although
> Landis is obviously guilty, he has every right to challenge the
> testing and do what he is doing within the system to protect his
> career. It is impossible to argue against that; I have to concede the
> point.
>
> But I am saying is that obviously guilty and self centered schmucks
> like Landis and O.J. deserve no respect for beating their respective
> systems, and GETTING AWAY WITH IT.
>
> Meanwhile, riders with the status of Riis and Zabel are coming clean
> in droves. Yeah, a little late, but better late than never.
>
> So, the honor and integrity apparently are not quite dead and might
> just see a resurgence. We'll see. But Landis will always be a
> schmuck

 

[Doug Taylor]

On 27 May 2007 10:24:14 -0700, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
> Fair and just due process is just that, and should be accorded to
>everyone in all cases, not just serious criminal cases.

Well, dude, good thing you are just another nerd posting on usenet and
not a competing in the NFL, which has one of the more successful and
acclaimed anti-performance enhancing drug policies.

Again, unlike the criminal justice system, where the concept of due
process is key in any free or enlightened society, the NFL is strictly
private: they can do whatever they want, subject to acceptance by the
player's union.

All players in the League are tested once a year, and are subject to
weekly random tests during the pre-season, season, and post season.
If a player refuses a test or tests positive, bingo, GUILTY. No
Johnny Cochran calling the procedure or the science into question. No
circus. No assassination of the character of witnesses. The player
is immediately subject to sanctions; although they have the right of
appeal to the NFL commissioner. Lots of luck, there.

"Fair and just due process?" Who cares? It's PRIVATE and totally
their call. And, the system arguably is more successful preventing
performance enhancing drug use than any other US Pro sport, or any
sport.

Good for them, I say. Better for the players, the owners, AND the
fans.

 

[[email protected]]

On May 27, 9:02 am, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:


> You're in la al land.
>
> Cheating in athletics has NOTHING to do with: a) the criminal justice
> system and/or the U.S. Constitution; and b) politics.
>
> The rules against cheating are private according to the sport; they
> are not public. The penalty for a cheat is suspension, not
> incarceration.
>

dumbass,

that's correct. cycling made the mistake of going down that stupid
path instead of handling the problem like one would handle an internal
matter in a well run business.

 

[RicodJour]

On May 27, 8:44 pm, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 27 May 2007 10:24:14 -0700, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Fair and just due process is just that, and should be accorded to
> >everyone in all cases, not just serious criminal cases.
>
> "Fair and just due process?" Who cares? It's PRIVATE and totally
> their call. And, the system arguably is more successful preventing
> performance enhancing drug use than any other US Pro sport, or any
> sport.

Many would say that private, whether capitalized or not, more or less
equates to fair and just. Assuming all of the other stuff is fair and
just.

While you're crowing about the silly yankee-pig-dog sport of American
football, everyone is already way ahead of you in agreeing that the
cyclists unions sucks. Besides that, the same stuff goes on (the
article is a couple of years old, but it's not necessary for me to do
your research for you):
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/29/60II/main683747.shtml

BTW, Fijian canoe racing is remarkably free of drugs, except for the
chain-chuggin of kava.

> Good for them, I say. Better for the players, the owners, AND the
> fans.

Yay!

R

 

[Bill C]

On May 27, 8:44 pm, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 27 May 2007 10:24:14 -0700, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Fair and just due process is just that, and should be accorded to
> >everyone in all cases, not just serious criminal cases.
>
> Well, dude, good thing you are just another nerd posting on usenet and
> not a competing in the NFL, which has one of the more successful and
> acclaimed anti-performance enhancing drug policies.
>
> Again, unlike the criminal justice system, where the concept of due
> process is key in any free or enlightened society, the NFL is strictly
> private: they can do whatever they want, subject to acceptance by the
> player's union.
>
> All players in the League are tested once a year, and are subject to
> weekly random tests during the pre-season, season, and post season.
> If a player refuses a test or tests positive, bingo, GUILTY. No
> Johnny Cochran calling the procedure or the science into question. No
> circus. No assassination of the character of witnesses. The player
> is immediately subject to sanctions; although they have the right of
> appeal to the NFL commissioner. Lots of luck, there.
>
> "Fair and just due process?" Who cares? It's PRIVATE and totally
> their call. And, the system arguably is more successful preventing
> performance enhancing drug use than any other US Pro sport, or any
> sport.
>
> Good for them, I say. Better for the players, the owners, AND the
> fans.

Do you REALLY think the NFL testing policy catches anyone but complete
morons, and actually works to clean up the sport?
Of course the massively powerful NFLPA signed onto it because it's
nothing more than a PR gimmick.
Check out section 1C in particular:

http://www.nflpa.org/pdfs/RulesAndRegs/Drug_Policy_2006.pdf
Notice that the NFLPA can unilaterally remove a lab from doing
testing and they then negotiate on another lab.

Here's the steroids stuff:
Notice it's urine only and full of holes.
http://www.nflpa.org/pdfs/RulesAndRegs/BannedSubstances.pdf

Really strong union, good PR, protection from abuses, and very little
chance of catching anyone who isn't a complete imbecile ifor either
rec drugs or steroid related stuff.
Cycling basically had this policy before all the scandals started.
You think there's any chance in hell of implementing anything close
to cycling's program in any major US sport? I'll give you a hint both
the NFLPA and MLBPA have said hell will be frozen over before they
allow blood testing.
The Unions here provide the balance that is totally absent in
cycling.
Bill C
Bill C

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

> On May 27, 8:44 pm, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 27 May 2007 10:24:14 -0700, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Fair and just due process is just that, and should be accorded to
> > >everyone in all cases, not just serious criminal cases.
> >
> > Well, dude, good thing you are just another nerd posting on usenet and
> > not a competing in the NFL, which has one of the more successful and
> > acclaimed anti-performance enhancing drug policies.
> >
> > Again, unlike the criminal justice system, where the concept of due
> > process is key in any free or enlightened society, the NFL is strictly
> > private: they can do whatever they want, subject to acceptance by the
> > player's union.
> >
> > All players in the League are tested once a year, and are subject to
> > weekly random tests during the pre-season, season, and post season.
> > If a player refuses a test or tests positive, bingo, GUILTY. No
> > Johnny Cochran calling the procedure or the science into question. No
> > circus. No assassination of the character of witnesses. The player
> > is immediately subject to sanctions; although they have the right of
> > appeal to the NFL commissioner. Lots of luck, there.
> >
> > "Fair and just due process?" Who cares? It's PRIVATE and totally
> > their call. And, the system arguably is more successful preventing
> > performance enhancing drug use than any other US Pro sport, or any
> > sport.
> >
> > Good for them, I say. Better for the players, the owners, AND the
> > fans.
>
> Do you REALLY think the NFL testing policy catches anyone but complete
> morons, and actually works to clean up the sport?
> Of course the massively powerful NFLPA signed onto it because it's
> nothing more than a PR gimmick.
> Check out section 1C in particular:
>
> http://www.nflpa.org/pdfs/RulesAndRegs/Drug_Policy_2006.pdf
> Notice that the NFLPA can unilaterally remove a lab from doing
> testing and they then negotiate on another lab.
>
> Here's the steroids stuff:
> Notice it's urine only and full of holes.
> http://www.nflpa.org/pdfs/RulesAndRegs/BannedSubstances.pdf

The science here is beyond me: what holes do you see in their
'roid-testing regimen?

I would note that I suspect the aerobic enhancements of EPO would be of
minimal benefit to any football player.

> Really strong union, good PR, protection from abuses, and very little
> chance of catching anyone who isn't a complete imbecile ifor either
> rec drugs or steroid related stuff.
> Cycling basically had this policy before all the scandals started.
> You think there's any chance in hell of implementing anything close
> to cycling's program in any major US sport? I'll give you a hint both
> the NFLPA and MLBPA have said hell will be frozen over before they
> allow blood testing.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

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

> On May 27, 8:44 pm, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 27 May 2007 10:24:14 -0700, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Fair and just due process is just that, and should be accorded to
> > >everyone in all cases, not just serious criminal cases.
> >
> > "Fair and just due process?" Who cares? It's PRIVATE and totally
> > their call. And, the system arguably is more successful preventing
> > performance enhancing drug use than any other US Pro sport, or any
> > sport.
>
> Many would say that private, whether capitalized or not, more or less
> equates to fair and just. Assuming all of the other stuff is fair and
> just.
>
> While you're crowing about the silly yankee-pig-dog sport of American
> football, everyone is already way ahead of you in agreeing that the
> cyclists unions sucks. Besides that, the same stuff goes on (the
> article is a couple of years old, but it's not necessary for me to do
> your research for you):
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/29/60II/main683747.shtml

Would it give an advantage? "Yes," says Black, who speaks from personal
experience. While directing a drug-testing lab at Vanderbilt University,
he took some Stanozolol for research purposes.

"I must have been around 40 when I was injected with Stanozolol," says
Black. "And I pretty much felt like I was 18 again.

LIVEDRUNK does not endorse drug use, even the really good ones.

What?

> > Good for them, I say. Better for the players, the owners, AND the
> > fans.
>
> Yay!

Rico: what's the average life expectancy of an NFL football player?

Better for the players,

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

 

[[email protected]]

On May 28, 7:20 am, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:

> Rico: what's the average life expectancy of an NFL football player?

A possibly more relevant question is how it compares to other sports:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=17436206

 

[Bill C]

On May 28, 1:18 am, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 27, 8:44 pm, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 27 May 2007 10:24:14 -0700, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Fair and just due process is just that, and should be accorded to
> > > >everyone in all cases, not just serious criminal cases.
>
> > > Well, dude, good thing you are just another nerd posting on usenet and
> > > not a competing in the NFL, which has one of the more successful and
> > > acclaimed anti-performance enhancing drug policies.
>
> > > Again, unlike the criminal justice system, where the concept of due
> > > process is key in any free or enlightened society, the NFL is strictly
> > > private: they can do whatever they want, subject to acceptance by the
> > > player's union.
>
> > > All players in the League are tested once a year, and are subject to
> > > weekly random tests during the pre-season, season, and post season.
> > > If a player refuses a test or tests positive, bingo, GUILTY. No
> > > Johnny Cochran calling the procedure or the science into question. No
> > > circus. No assassination of the character of witnesses. The player
> > > is immediately subject to sanctions; although they have the right of
> > > appeal to the NFL commissioner. Lots of luck, there.
>
> > > "Fair and just due process?" Who cares? It's PRIVATE and totally
> > > their call. And, the system arguably is more successful preventing
> > > performance enhancing drug use than any other US Pro sport, or any
> > > sport.
>
> > > Good for them, I say. Better for the players, the owners, AND the
> > > fans.
>
> > Do you REALLY think the NFL testing policy catches anyone but complete
> > morons, and actually works to clean up the sport?
> > Of course the massively powerful NFLPA signed onto it because it's
> > nothing more than a PR gimmick.
> > Check out section 1C in particular:
>
> >http://www.nflpa.org/pdfs/RulesAndRegs/Drug_Policy_2006.pdf
> > Notice that the NFLPA can unilaterally remove a lab from doing
> > testing and they then negotiate on another lab.
>
> > Here's the steroids stuff:
> > Notice it's urine only and full of holes.
> >http://www.nflpa.org/pdfs/RulesAndRegs/BannedSubstances.pdf
>
> The science here is beyond me: what holes do you see in their
> 'roid-testing regimen?
>
> I would note that I suspect the aerobic enhancements of EPO would be of
> minimal benefit to any football player.
>

> Ryan Cousineau [email protected]://www.wiredcola.com/
> "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
> to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hey Ryan
A lot of the newer water based steroids are gone in days at most from
your system and then a lot of the newer stuff won't show on urine
tests, just blood.
So these guys are all millionaires with access to serious newer drugs
that you aren't going to find using a urine test at all too.
About the only way to get caught is to be taking old oil based ****
and only an idiot is doing that. The people like Alzado and others
admitted using Hgh way back when and the NFL still doesn't test for it
and is hostile to the concept.

http://www.charlotte.com/456/story/69486.html

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0005AF2D-C69A-1FFD-869A83414B7F0000
Quoted:
Still, the cat-and-mouse game that is athletic drug testing continues.
The trouble is that the mice are fast-moving targets that never stop
evolving. "We're looking forward for our next research project, and
that includes looking for other designer steroids," Catlin reports.
Perhaps they can pounce before the mouse disappears.

and that's the core problem. Both baseball and the NFL are using urine
testing which is less effective and most any change to the policy has
to be renegotiated with the unions who aren't going to give an inch
until they are absolutely forced to.
If and when a few people get caught, switch to something else and
keep going. Neither sport is interested in getting into, or will allow
the mess cycling is in to happen to it. They'll keep spinning a
testing program just good enough to catch the blatant idiots and
that'll keep the good PR going even though it really isn't doing much.
The other side is that they are allowed, especially in football, to
take so many drugs, painkillers etc...that what'd light up a Wada test
is all perfectly good and covered for them. If they banned opiates and
other painkillers you'd have to double the roster sizes just to have
bodies that could play.
I don't think anyone takes either sports testing program seriously as
science, or enforcement in private.
Bill C

 

[Doug Taylor]

On 27 May 2007 19:12:10 -0700, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

>Do you REALLY think the NFL testing policy catches anyone but complete
>morons, and actually works to clean up the sport?

Who knows? It is reputed to be the most successful of the three major
US Pro sports. But maybe it's total b.s. as you imply.

My central point, in reply to another post, was that the principle of
"due process" which exists in the US criminal justice system, does not
necessarily apply to or exist at all in private organizations such as
the NFL.

Moving back to cycling: I suppose you could classify Floyd Landis a
complete moron for keeping that testosterone patch on his nuts for too
long, eh? What a dumbass way to lose a yellow jersey. Duh!

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:[email protected],
Doug Taylor <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On 27 May 2007 19:12:10 -0700, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Do you REALLY think the NFL testing policy catches anyone but
>> complete morons, and actually works to clean up the sport?
>
> Who knows? It is reputed to be the most successful of the three major
> US Pro sports. But maybe it's total b.s. as you imply.
>
> My central point, in reply to another post, was that the principle of
> "due process" which exists in the US criminal justice system, does not
> necessarily apply to or exist at all in private organizations such as
> the NFL.

If the "process" used in the NFL is a commercial arbitral process, the
enforcement of an award from such a panel may be attacked in court on very
few grounds, but the principal two grounds are the inequity of the process
as it unfolded, and the inherently "unfairness" of the procedure. A loser
in arb may apply to the court for a declaration that the award is invalid in
the same way a winning side can ask the court to confirm the arbitral award.

It's your NFL, so I guess you know about the proceedings' conduct and
whether they always meet the standards for confirmation.

 

[Doug Taylor]

On Mon, 28 May 2007 21:50:18 +0200, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:


>> My central point, in reply to another post, was that the principle of
>> "due process" which exists in the US criminal justice system, does not
>> necessarily apply to or exist at all in private organizations such as
>> the NFL.
>
>If the "process" used in the NFL is a commercial arbitral process, the
>enforcement of an award from such a panel may be attacked in court on very
>few grounds, but the principal two grounds are the inequity of the process
>as it unfolded, and the inherently "unfairness" of the procedure. A loser
>in arb may apply to the court for a declaration that the award is invalid in
>the same way a winning side can ask the court to confirm the arbitral award.
>
>It's your NFL, so I guess you know about the proceedings' conduct and
>whether they always meet the standards for confirmation.

It's anybody's who wants to find it on the web:

http://www.nflpa.org/pdfs/rulesandregs/BannedSubstances.pdf

Read Appendix D:

If the player tests positive, he is guilty ipso facto.
The player can appeal to the commissioner and THEN request a hearing.
As a practical matter, a positive test is unlikely to be reversed.