Re: Van Impe situation, by Magilla

[Tom Kunich]

"MagillaGorilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Second, the riders don't wait for a moment of grief to dope. They would
> start creating moments of grief and simply bank on the testers not being
> able to verify that information.

Tell me, what if your employers insurance company showed up at your door
right now and demanded a drug test from you. What would be your reaction?

 

[Tom Kunich]

"MagillaGorilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>> Tell me, what if your employers insurance company showed up at your door
>> right now and demanded a drug test from you. What would be your reaction?
>
> I think the question you are asking is this:
>
> Would I let the drug tester enter my home to test me IF I SIGNED A
> CONTRACT WHEN I WAS ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED IN WHICH THE CONTRACT CLEARLY
> STATED THAT I AGREED TO BE TESTED AT HOME 365 DAYS A YEAR AS PART OF MY
> EMPLOYMENT?"

I hate to point this out but most employment contracts contain essentially
that clause these days. Something tells me that you'd react a great deal
differently than you claim you would.

 

[Amit Ghosh]

On Mar 22, 6:12 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> I hate to point this out but most employment contracts contain essentially
> that clause these days.

if you signed it, it means you agreed to it and can't ***** about it
if it happens.

i don't believe you either that "most" employment contracts have this
clause, i've never experienced it. i've only ever heard of people with
shitty jobs being fired for failing a drug test.

i did however sign a form agreeing to be tested if asked when i took
out my racing license.

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
Amit Ghosh <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Mar 22, 6:12 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> I hate to point this out but most employment contracts contain
>> essentially that clause these days.
>
> if you signed it, it means you agreed to it and can't ***** about it
> if it happens.

WRONG.
>
> i don't believe you either that "most" employment contracts have this
> clause, i've never experienced it. i've only ever heard of people with
> shitty jobs being fired for failing a drug test.
>
WRONG.

> i did however sign a form agreeing to be tested if asked when i took
> out my racing license.

Irrelevant.

 

[MagillaGorilla]

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "MagillaGorilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Tell me, what if your employers insurance company showed up at your
>>> door right now and demanded a drug test from you. What would be your
>>> reaction?
>>
>>
>> I think the question you are asking is this:
>>
>> Would I let the drug tester enter my home to test me IF I SIGNED A
>> CONTRACT WHEN I WAS ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED IN WHICH THE CONTRACT CLEARLY
>> STATED THAT I AGREED TO BE TESTED AT HOME 365 DAYS A YEAR AS PART OF
>> MY EMPLOYMENT?"
>
>
> I hate to point this out but most employment contracts contain
> essentially that clause these days. Something tells me that you'd react
> a great deal differently than you claim you would.
>


Well your little hunch is wrong. So is your statement that "most
employment contracts contain essentially that clause."

I know fo nobody who gets dope tested at home. Cyclists do because they
are dope fiends who dope at home to alter what they do at work. Almost
no other employee does that - at least not intentionally like cyclists.

Magilla

 

[MagillaGorilla]

Sandy wrote:

> Dans le message de
> news:[email protected],
> Amit Ghosh <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
>>On Mar 22, 6:12 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I hate to point this out but most employment contracts contain
>>>essentially that clause these days.
>>
>>if you signed it, it means you agreed to it and can't ***** about it
>>if it happens.
>
>
> WRONG.
>
>>i don't believe you either that "most" employment contracts have this
>>clause, i've never experienced it. i've only ever heard of people with
>>shitty jobs being fired for failing a drug test.
>>
>
> WRONG.
>
>
>>i did however sign a form agreeing to be tested if asked when i took
>>out my racing license.
>
>
> Irrelevant.


Sandy - you are wrong and that is why Kashechkin's lawsuit was
dismissed. The judge even remarked that Kasheckin agreed to be tested
contractually.

Why did Kashechkin's attorney file the lawsuit in Belgian when the UCI
is in Switzerland?

What an idiot. You were one of the idiots saying he could win his case
when it should have been obvious it was a bizarre lawsuit at best.

Magilla

 

[Carl Sundquist]

"MagillaGorilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I know fo nobody who gets dope tested at home. Cyclists do because they
> are dope fiends who dope at home to alter what they do at work. Almost no
> other employee does that - at least not intentionally like cyclists.

The difference being that most workers who get tested are for performance
_de_hancing substances (if it's not a word, it should be), not performance
_en_hancing substances. That is why they do not "dope at home _to_ alter
what they do at work" (my emphasis).

 

[Carl Sundquist]

"MagillaGorilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Why did Kashechkin's attorney file the lawsuit in Belgian when the UCI is
> in Switzerland?

I'm guessing because that is where the Main offices of the European Union
(and affiliated labor laws) are.

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:

> "MagillaGorilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>
> >> Tell me, what if your employers insurance company showed up at your door
> >> right now and demanded a drug test from you. What would be your reaction?
> >
> > I think the question you are asking is this:
> >
> > Would I let the drug tester enter my home to test me IF I SIGNED A
> > CONTRACT WHEN I WAS ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED IN WHICH THE CONTRACT CLEARLY
> > STATED THAT I AGREED TO BE TESTED AT HOME 365 DAYS A YEAR AS PART OF MY
> > EMPLOYMENT?"
>
> I hate to point this out but most employment contracts contain essentially
> that clause these days.

Cite, please.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
Howard Kveck <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> In article <[email protected]>, "Tom Kunich"
> <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> "MagillaGorilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Tell me, what if your employers insurance company showed up at
>>>> your door right now and demanded a drug test from you. What would
>>>> be your reaction?
>>>
>>> I think the question you are asking is this:
>>>
>>> Would I let the drug tester enter my home to test me IF I SIGNED A
>>> CONTRACT WHEN I WAS ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED IN WHICH THE CONTRACT
>>> CLEARLY STATED THAT I AGREED TO BE TESTED AT HOME 365 DAYS A YEAR
>>> AS PART OF MY EMPLOYMENT?"
>>
>> I hate to point this out but most employment contracts contain
>> essentially that clause these days.
>
> Cite, please.


Valid for the US, generally. Not for Europe. US does not have labor
courts, so far as I know. UK is generally following this trend, although it
is reportedly part of Europe.

All SEC licensed agents, brokers, etc.
All international banks I am aware of.
All major insurance companies.
Petroleum companies I have worked with.
Major mass market retailers.
7-11. 8-20 (yes, not in US, but just look at the working hours!).

Not that I was defending Kween's Kounsel.


--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

 

[Howard Kveck]

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

> Dans le message de
> news:[email protected],
> Howard Kveck <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Tom Kunich"
> > <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >
> >> "MagillaGorilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >>> Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Tell me, what if your employers insurance company showed up at
> >>>> your door right now and demanded a drug test from you. What would
> >>>> be your reaction?
> >>>
> >>> I think the question you are asking is this:
> >>>
> >>> Would I let the drug tester enter my home to test me IF I SIGNED A
> >>> CONTRACT WHEN I WAS ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED IN WHICH THE CONTRACT
> >>> CLEARLY STATED THAT I AGREED TO BE TESTED AT HOME 365 DAYS A YEAR
> >>> AS PART OF MY EMPLOYMENT?"
> >>
> >> I hate to point this out but most employment contracts contain
> >> essentially that clause these days.
> >
> > Cite, please.
>
>
> Valid for the US, generally. Not for Europe. US does not have labor
> courts, so far as I know. UK is generally following this trend, although it
> is reportedly part of Europe.
>
> All SEC licensed agents, brokers, etc.
> All international banks I am aware of.
> All major insurance companies.
> Petroleum companies I have worked with.
> Major mass market retailers.
> 7-11. 8-20 (yes, not in US, but just look at the working hours!).

Yes, I'm aware that there are some (or even many) employers that have such
requirements in their employment contracts. I would say that "most" is a very large
stretch, however. In my circle of friends (who are employed in a huge variety of
professions) very few have such requirements.

The only time I've ever had such a stipulation made in employment I told them that
I would not abide by that and that only if they had some valid suspicion of my using
drugs would I take a test. The funny thing was that within an hour of my starting
work there, I spotted someone who was obviously a meth user. This was confirmed by
another employee.

> Not that I was defending Kween's Kounsel.

That goes without saying.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[MagillaGorilla]

Carl Sundquist wrote:
>
> "MagillaGorilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> Why did Kashechkin's attorney file the lawsuit in Belgian when the
>> UCI is in Switzerland?
>
>
> I'm guessing because that is where the Main offices of the European
> Union (and affiliated labor laws) are.



The UCI is who tested Kashechkin and whose license made him eligible for
OOC testing. The UCI is located in Aigle, Switzerland.

Switzerland is not a member of the European Union.

The question sstill stands: why did Kash-n-Check's lawyer file in
Belgian and then wonder why it was dismissed?

Besides the lawsuit being baseless, it wasn't even filed in the correct
court. Let's see Sandy answer that.

Magilla

 

[Bill C]

On Mar 22, 10:57 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>    Yes, I'm aware that there are some (or even many) employers that have such
> requirements in their employment contracts. I would say that "most" is a very large
> stretch, however. In my circle of friends (who are employed in a huge variety of
> professions) very few have such requirements.
>
>    The only time I've ever had such a stipulation made in employment Itold them that
> I would not abide by that and that only if they had some valid suspicion of my using
> drugs would I take a test. The funny thing was that within an hour of my starting
> work there, I spotted someone who was obviously a meth user. This was confirmed by
> another employee.
>
> > Not that I was defending Kween's Kounsel.
>
>    That goes without saying.
>
> --
>                               tanx,
>                                Howard
>
>                         Whatever happened to
>                         Leon Trotsky?
>                         He got an icepick
>                         That made his ears burn.
>
>                      remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Never knew Magilla had ambitions to own his own company town where
there's a monopoly on the job skills you happen to have.
Either you do what the monopoly tells you, you move, get a new
career, or starve.
TThe coal mines in Pa. were great at this. You lived in their houses,
shopped at their stores, did what they said, including voting because
they sent thugs into the booth with you to "help" you vote.
That would all be valid in Magilla's world since they chose to work
for those folks instead of say becoming aeronautical engineers. Maybe
the bike racers could just become roofers and take over the world.
Bill C

 

[Amit Ghosh]

On Mar 23, 10:02 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

> That would all be valid in Magilla's world since they chose to work
> for those folks instead of say becoming aeronautical engineers. Maybe
> the bike racers could just become roofers and take over the world.

dumbass,

stop rolling out that folklore. in this decade most pro cyclists had
better choices than working in a coal mine or some other totally
shitty existence. so that alone isn't enough to rationalize cheating
(which is what you are doing).

tyler hamilton for instance has an economics degree from the
university of colorado. if you tracked down his classmates many of
them are probably making over $100,000/yr.

but when got busted he was on TV winning gold medals and making maybe
over a million riding for phonak.

 

[Bill C]

On Mar 23, 10:51 am, Amit Ghosh <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 10:02 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >  That would all be valid in Magilla's world since they chose to work
> > for those folks instead of say becoming aeronautical engineers. Maybe
> > the bike racers could just become roofers and take over the world.
>
> dumbass,
>
> stop rolling out that folklore. in this decade most pro cyclists had
> better choices than working in a coal mine or some other totally
> shitty existence. so that alone isn't enough to rationalize cheating
> (which is what you are doing).
>
> tyler hamilton for instance has an economics degree from the
> university of colorado. if you tracked down his classmates many of
> them are probably making over $100,000/yr.
>
> but when got busted he was on TV winning gold medals and making maybe
> over a million riding for phonak.

Dude talk about combining unlike elements! WTF does there only being
one place to race bicycles professionally have to do with doping.
Totally seperate issues.
You're right that it's absolutely no excuse for doping. This was
about the way cyclists are treated, and their lack of viable options
in THAT profession.
Cycling absolutely needs to do testing and enforcement, but in a
reasonable, negotiated, totally transparent manner where ALL the
parties have credible input and there is independent outside review.
That way when someone is tagged they can whine all the want, but if
the system works noone will be listening.
I'm sorry that my support for reasonable treatment of working folks
annoys you so much. In this situation the riders have little to no
power, and that needs to be addressed and balanced. Not giving them a
free pass, or putting them in charge, which would be equally as bad,
but giving them a valid stake in making this work well.
Commie Bill C

 

[MagillaGorilla]

Bill C wrote:

> On Mar 23, 10:51 am, Amit Ghosh <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 23, 10:02 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> That would all be valid in Magilla's world since they chose to work
>>>for those folks instead of say becoming aeronautical engineers. Maybe
>>>the bike racers could just become roofers and take over the world.
>>
>>dumbass,
>>
>>stop rolling out that folklore. in this decade most pro cyclists had
>>better choices than working in a coal mine or some other totally
>>shitty existence. so that alone isn't enough to rationalize cheating
>>(which is what you are doing).
>>
>>tyler hamilton for instance has an economics degree from the
>>university of colorado. if you tracked down his classmates many of
>>them are probably making over $100,000/yr.
>>
>>but when got busted he was on TV winning gold medals and making maybe
>>over a million riding for phonak.
>
>
> Dude talk about combining unlike elements! WTF does there only being
> one place to race bicycles professionally have to do with doping.
> Totally seperate issues.
> You're right that it's absolutely no excuse for doping. This was
> about the way cyclists are treated, and their lack of viable options
> in THAT profession.

> Commie Bill C


So you are telling me you "negotiate" all the laws and rules on the
books in your state, county, and at your workplace....or are they simply
dictated to you?

Once you answer this question correctly, you will realize that cyclists
are treated no differently than anyone else in the world.

Magilla

 

[Bill C]

On Mar 23, 11:32 am, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > On Mar 23, 10:51 am, Amit Ghosh <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>On Mar 23, 10:02 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> That would all be valid in Magilla's world since they chose to work
> >>>for those folks instead of say becoming aeronautical engineers. Maybe
> >>>the bike racers could just become roofers and take over the world.
>
> >>dumbass,
>
> >>stop rolling out that folklore. in this decade most pro cyclists had
> >>better choices than working in a coal mine or some other totally
> >>shitty existence. so that alone isn't enough to rationalize cheating
> >>(which is what you are doing).
>
> >>tyler hamilton for instance has an economics degree from the
> >>university of colorado. if you tracked down his classmates many of
> >>them are probably making over $100,000/yr.
>
> >>but when got busted he was on TV winning gold medals and making maybe
> >>over a million riding for phonak.
>
> > Dude talk about combining unlike elements! WTF does there only being
> > one place to race bicycles professionally have to do with doping.
> > Totally seperate issues.
> >  You're right that it's absolutely no excuse for doping. This was
> > about the way cyclists are treated, and their lack of viable options
> > in THAT profession.
> >  Commie Bill C
>
> So you are telling me you "negotiate" all the laws and rules on the
> books in your state, county, and at your workplace....or are they simply
> dictated to you?
>
> Once you answer this question correctly, you will realize that cyclists
> are treated no differently than anyone else in the world.
>
> Magilla- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Dude we're talking workplace conditions. Those are negotiated. The
laws are what they are, and if you don't think those are actually
negotiated too, you are clueless.
Unions - The people who brought you the weekend.
Wada and the UCI are NOT police forces, they have NO law enforcement
powers so why bring LAWS into this? Those are enforced by the police,
and I haven't seen too many cyclists being locked up for violating
them.
Apples and pumpkins dude.
Bill C

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Amit Ghosh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:9a639afe-52e2-472a-8e52-9a8ec2562134@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> tyler hamilton for instance has an economics degree from the
> university of colorado. if you tracked down his classmates many of
> them are probably making over $100,000/yr.

I would be interested in knowing what an economics degree guarantees
someone. By all means tell us what position in what sort of company would
accept an economics degree.

 

[Amit Ghosh]

On Mar 23, 3:17 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> I would be interested in knowing what an economics degree guarantees
> someone. By all means tell us what position in what sort of company would
> accept an economics degree.

dumbass,

who said anything about guarantees.

it's obvious you don't know ****. most bankers, accountants, actuaries
start with an econ. degree before pursuing a postgrad degree or
professional designation.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Amit Ghosh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mar 23, 3:17 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> I would be interested in knowing what an economics degree guarantees
>> someone. By all means tell us what position in what sort of company would
>> accept an economics degree.
>
> who said anything about guarantees.

So what you meant was that a degree in economics actually means little to
nothing in employment?

> it's obvious you don't know ****. most bankers, accountants, actuaries
> start with an econ. degree before pursuing a postgrad degree or
> professional designation.

How about this - three of my cousins are bank presidents. None of them had a
degree in economics.