UCI investigation of Cox's death

[datakoll]

scientific autopsy/research of athlete's pathologic conditions
possibly casued by drug use is positive not negative: no good reason
to knee jerk or moralize about it.

 

[RonSonic]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:47:16 -0000, datakoll <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>scientific autopsy/research of athlete's pathologic conditions
>possibly casued by drug use is positive not negative: no good reason
>to knee jerk or moralize about it.

No but if I die young I want detectives to investigate, not the UCI.

Ron

 

[datakoll]

On Aug 6, 7:47 pm, RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:47:16 -0000, datakoll <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >scientific autopsy/research of athlete's pathologic conditions
> >possibly casued by drug use is positive not negative: no good reason
> >to knee jerk or moralize about it.
>
> No but if I die young I want detectives to investigate, not the UCI.
>
> Ron

Florida Sheriff's cleaner than UCI ??

 

[Fred Fredburger]

datakoll wrote:
> On Aug 6, 7:47 pm, RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:47:16 -0000, datakoll <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> scientific autopsy/research of athlete's pathologic conditions
>>> possibly casued by drug use is positive not negative: no good reason
>>> to knee jerk or moralize about it.
>> No but if I die young I want detectives to investigate, not the UCI.
>>
>> Ron
>
> Florida Sheriff's cleaner than UCI ??
>

Yeah. Even Alabama Sheriffs.

 

[Howard Kveck]

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

> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:47:16 -0000, datakoll <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >scientific autopsy/research of athlete's pathologic conditions
> >possibly casued by drug use is positive not negative: no good reason
> >to knee jerk or moralize about it.
>
> No but if I die young I want detectives to investigate, not the UCI.

Oh, so you want detectives, not defectives. The nerve...

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[RonSonic]

On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:59:56 -0000, datakoll <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Aug 6, 7:47 pm, RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:47:16 -0000, datakoll <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >scientific autopsy/research of athlete's pathologic conditions
>> >possibly casued by drug use is positive not negative: no good reason
>> >to knee jerk or moralize about it.
>>
>> No but if I die young I want detectives to investigate, not the UCI.
>>
>> Ron
>
> Florida Sheriff's cleaner than UCI ??

If I had to bet... yeah. At least I understand the sheriffs and which way they
bend. UCI, I haven't a damn clue what's wrong with them.

Ron

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 6, 3:47 pm, datakoll <[email protected]> wrote:
> scientific autopsy/research of athlete's pathologic conditions
> possibly casued by drug use is positive not negative: no good reason
> to knee jerk or moralize about it.


An autopsy or investigation in the case of a
healthy person who dies unsually young is fine,
and often SOP. However, an investigation that
begins with the preconception that it's looking
for signs of a condition caused by drug use is,
surprise, very possibly going to turn up signs
of drug use, whether real or not. There are a
lot of conditions that could be caused by any
number of factors, including drugs or something
else; yet if you already have an answer in your
head, it tends to crowd out the alternatives.

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 7, 9:21 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Aug 6, 3:47 pm, datakoll <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > scientific autopsy/research of athlete's pathologic conditions
> > possibly casued by drug use is positive not negative: no good reason
> > to knee jerk or moralize about it.
>
> An autopsy or investigation in the case of a
> healthy person who dies unsually young is fine,
> and often SOP. However, an investigation that
> begins with the preconception that it's looking
> for signs of a condition caused by drug use is,
> surprise, very possibly going to turn up signs
> of drug use, whether real or not. There are a
> lot of conditions that could be caused by any
> number of factors, including drugs or something
> else; yet if you already have an answer in your
> head, it tends to crowd out the alternatives.

Dumbass,

Those WMDs have got to be somewhere.

 

[datakoll]

On Aug 7, 4:12 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 7, 9:21 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 6, 3:47 pm, datakoll <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > scientific autopsy/research of athlete's pathologic conditions
> > > possibly casued by drug use is positive not negative: no good reason
> > > to knee jerk or moralize about it.
>
> > An autopsy or investigation in the case of a
> > healthy person who dies unsually young is fine,
> > and often SOP. However, an investigation that
> > begins with the preconception that it's looking
> > for signs of a condition caused by drug use is,
> > surprise, very possibly going to turn up signs
> > of drug use, whether real or not. There are a
> > lot of conditions that could be caused by any
> > number of factors, including drugs or something
> > else; yet if you already have an answer in your
> > head, it tends to crowd out the alternatives.
>
> Dumbass,
>
> Those WMDs have got to be somewhere.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

cox is a white rat