Lance Armstrong's stance should be . . .

Lance is an idiot if he comes out and admits he was 'doping.'

That would the stupidest thing he could do. He should stay the
course but modify the course somewhat. He should say he
passed all the WADA anti-doping controls because they
set limits and he and his team worked hard to stay UNDER
those limits.

Lance should say the limits were put there for a reason. That
reason being that if you were over the limits you were doping,
by definition. If you were under the limits you were not doping,
by definition as the limits define doping.

Using performance enhancers is only a violation provided
those performance enhancers come in OVER the limits set
by WADA who decided what those limits are and who tested
those limits. Those cyclists WADA found above the limits are
guilty of doping. Those cyclists WADA found below the limits
are not guilty. Lance should maintain he was doing his part
to abide by the rules and he should assert that he was doing
a damned good job of abiding by the rules as evidenced by
passing all the WADA controls.

This logic cannot be assailed let alone defeated. Lance
should claim that's his story and he's sticking to it. After all,
what's WADA anti-doping controls other than a charade
if even WADA doesn't recognize those limits as the arbiter
of doping.

--
Sir Gregory

Sir Gregory Hall, Esq· wrote:

Lance is an idiot if he comes out and admits he was 'doping.'

-snip-

This is the problem with the 24-hour news world we live in. Why should
you care what LA does or doesn't do? And why do you think we care what
you think LA should do? He's a guy who won a bunch of bike races a few
years ago who's now in trouble for doping - this is not exactly unusual,
you know.

Take a few weeks off from reading cycling news web sites and magazines -
you'll feel much better, really you will. Spend time thinking about
your own life and the lives of those dear to you.

-S-

On Saturday, January 5, 2013 5:08:31 PM UTC-8, Steve Freides wrote:
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq· wrote:



Lance is an idiot if he comes out and admits he was 'doping.'



-snip-



This is the problem with the 24-hour news world we live in. Why should

you care what LA does or doesn't do? And why do you think we care what

you think LA should do? He's a guy who won a bunch of bike races a few

years ago who's now in trouble for doping - this is not exactly unusual,

you know.



Take a few weeks off from reading cycling news web sites and magazines -

you'll feel much better, really you will. Spend time thinking about

your own life and the lives of those dear to you.



-S-


Steve:

What? Are you a retard?

Jane Doe

On 06/01/2013 1:58 AM, Jane Doe wrote:
On Saturday, January 5, 2013 5:08:31 PM UTC-8, Steve Freides wrote:
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq· wrote:



Lance is an idiot if he comes out and admits he was 'doping.'



-snip-



This is the problem with the 24-hour news world we live in. Why should

you care what LA does or doesn't do? And why do you think we care what

you think LA should do? He's a guy who won a bunch of bike races a few

years ago who's now in trouble for doping - this is not exactly unusual,

you know.



Take a few weeks off from reading cycling news web sites and magazines -

you'll feel much better, really you will. Spend time thinking about

your own life and the lives of those dear to you.



-S-


Steve:

What? Are you a retard?

Jane Doe

Jane,

I suspect that you are a conservative. So what?

--
Chris

'Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it
every six months.'

(Oscar Wilde.)

"Steve Freides" wrote in message
...
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq· wrote:

Lance is an idiot if he comes out and admits he was 'doping.'

-snip-

This is the problem with the 24-hour news world we live in. Why should you
care what LA does or doesn't do?

I care because it's about time sombody in this world took
a stand against the insanity of bureaucracies raising the
bar and then retroactively calling somebody affected by
that bar raising a 'doper.' Where does it end. How about
all the folks who got stopped by the police and checked
for drunk driving but blew under the control limit of .08%.

They were never charged with DUI because, by definition,
they were under the limit and the limit defines what DUI
is. This is no different than the WADA limits which define
doping. Under the limit is not doping; over the limit is
doping. So now WADA comes along and says they have
have tests that are more accurate than those given years
ago. They claim they can re-test blood and urine samples
to check again for performance enhancers.

Any way you look at it that's called ex post facto and it
is illegal to charge somebody here in the USA with a
backdated crime or infraction. This is exactly what WADA
is doing. They raised the bar and claimed in ex post facto
fashion that the raised bar is allowed to become a current
rule.

How would you like it if you blew a .06% and a .05% and
a .03% and years later the state you live in lowered the DUI
control to .02% and then RETROACTIVELY charged you
with a crime. Why, you'd be yelling bloody murder yet
you are advocating the very same injustice be foisted off
on Lance Armstrong because you are jealous of what the
man accomplished.

WADA published guidelines. They made known their
anti-doping controls levels for this, that and the other
substance. Lance and his team stayed under these
control limits, for the most part and those who did not
were sanctioned because of their over the limit test
results. That's how it should be. But to go back and
retroactively yell, "DOPER" when a cyclist passed
all the current controls is just plain wrong, stupid,
self-serving and, in my opinion, criminal.

This is a case of WADA trying to have it both ways.
They subjected cyclists to invasive testing pretty much
at any time and at any place. Their established control
limits were the parameters of the testing. Over the limit
the cyclist was guilty of doping. Under the limit he was
not guilty of doping. Except in Lance Armstrong's case
where under the limit has now been declared, after the
fact to be doping.

Rididulous, ludicrous, asinine, stupid, tawdry, embarrassing,
rude, crude and socially unacceptable. The WADA
bureaucracy FAILED to do their job and for their failure
they punish an elite athlete who only worked hard to stay
under the limits WADA established. WADA has no shame.
WADA is a joke because they have defined themselves
as a joke. The UCI is guilty of hiring a joke to to serious
work. The UCI should be fined and removed from sponsoring
any race for two years.


--
Sir Gregory

On 06/01/2013 6:38 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq· wrote:
"Steve Freides" wrote in message
...
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq· wrote:

Lance is an idiot if he comes out and admits he was 'doping.'

-snip-

This is the problem with the 24-hour news world we live in. Why should you
care what LA does or doesn't do?

I care because it's about time sombody in this world took
a stand against the insanity of bureaucracies raising the
bar and then retroactively calling somebody affected by
that bar raising a 'doper.' Where does it end. How about
all the folks who got stopped by the police and checked
for drunk driving but blew under the control limit of .08%.

They were never charged with DUI because, by definition,
they were under the limit and the limit defines what DUI
is. This is no different than the WADA limits which define
doping. Under the limit is not doping; over the limit is
doping. So now WADA comes along and says they have
have tests that are more accurate than those given years
ago. They claim they can re-test blood and urine samples
to check again for performance enhancers.

Any way you look at it that's called ex post facto and it
is illegal to charge somebody here in the USA with a
backdated crime or infraction. This is exactly what WADA
is doing. They raised the bar and claimed in ex post facto
fashion that the raised bar is allowed to become a current
rule.

How would you like it if you blew a .06% and a .05% and
a .03% and years later the state you live in lowered the DUI
control to .02% and then RETROACTIVELY charged you
with a crime. Why, you'd be yelling bloody murder yet
you are advocating the very same injustice be foisted off
on Lance Armstrong because you are jealous of what the
man accomplished.

WADA published guidelines. They made known their
anti-doping controls levels for this, that and the other
substance. Lance and his team stayed under these
control limits, for the most part and those who did not
were sanctioned because of their over the limit test
results. That's how it should be. But to go back and
retroactively yell, "DOPER" when a cyclist passed
all the current controls is just plain wrong, stupid,
self-serving and, in my opinion, criminal.

This is a case of WADA trying to have it both ways.
They subjected cyclists to invasive testing pretty much
at any time and at any place. Their established control
limits were the parameters of the testing. Over the limit
the cyclist was guilty of doping. Under the limit he was
not guilty of doping. Except in Lance Armstrong's case
where under the limit has now been declared, after the
fact to be doping.

Rididulous, ludicrous, asinine, stupid, tawdry, embarrassing,
rude, crude and socially unacceptable. The WADA
bureaucracy FAILED to do their job and for their failure
they punish an elite athlete who only worked hard to stay
under the limits WADA established. WADA has no shame.
WADA is a joke because they have defined themselves
as a joke. The UCI is guilty of hiring a joke to to serious
work. The UCI should be fined and removed from sponsoring
any race for two years.



+1


--
Chris

'Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it
every six months.'

(Oscar Wilde.)

Sir Gregory Hall, Esq· wrote:
"Steve Freides" wrote in message
...
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq· wrote:

Lance is an idiot if he comes out and admits he was 'doping.'

-snip-

This is the problem with the 24-hour news world we live in. Why
should you care what LA does or doesn't do?

I care because it's about time sombody in this world took
a stand against the insanity of bureaucracies raising the
bar and then retroactively calling somebody affected by
that bar raising a 'doper.' Where does it end. How about
all the folks who got stopped by the police and checked
for drunk driving but blew under the control limit of .08%.

The world is full of beaurocratic wrongs. Consider the people who live
not far from me who have yet, thanks to our governmental agencies, not
received any of the promised disaster aid.

Consider any of a lot of other things far worse than how the beaurocrats
who manage bicycling do or don't do their jobs. Your
drunk-but-not-arrested, if we agreed on what constitutes drunk, would be
a far more important concern. I don't agree or disagree, BTW. I don't
drink but the tiniest bit - half a bottle of beer twice a year would be
a fair description. I can't finish an entire one myself, and I
certainly don't drive afterwards. I have no clue what 0.08 alcohol
means nor whether or not it's a good place to draw the line.

Competition exists in many aspects of life, not just sports, and
beaurocracies exist all over the place, too. Let's get it right for the
future and let the past be the past. It's clear we're unable to learn
from it, and it's equally clear that our Puritan heritage here in the US
requires us to hunt out anyone who is less than an upstanding citizen if
they are in the public eye.

Just my opinion, your mileage may vary and all that.

-S-

In article ,
"Steve Freides" wrote:

Sir Gregory Hall, Esq· wrote:

Lance is an idiot if he comes out and admits he was 'doping.'

This is the problem with the 24-hour news world we live in. Why should
you care what LA does or doesn't do? And why do you think we care what
you think LA should do? He's a guy who won a bunch of bike races a few
years ago who's now in trouble for doping - this is not exactly unusual,
you know.

No, he is in trouble because some people accuse him
of doping and cannot let it go. Those are the people
who care too much.

--
Old Fritz

In article ,
"Steve Freides" wrote:

Sir Gregory Hall, Esq· wrote:
"Steve Freides" wrote in message
...
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq· wrote:

Lance is an idiot if he comes out and admits he was 'doping.'

-snip-

This is the problem with the 24-hour news world we live in. Why
should you care what LA does or doesn't do?

I care because it's about time sombody in this world took
a stand against the insanity of bureaucracies raising the
bar and then retroactively calling somebody affected by
that bar raising a 'doper.' Where does it end. How about
all the folks who got stopped by the police and checked
for drunk driving but blew under the control limit of .08%.

The world is full of beaurocratic wrongs. Consider the people who live
not far from me who have yet, thanks to our governmental agencies, not
received any of the promised disaster aid.

Let it go, Steve.

--
Old Fritz

Frederick the Great wrote:

I care because it's about time sombody in this world took
a stand against the insanity of bureaucracies raising the
bar and then retroactively calling somebody affected by
that bar raising a 'doper.' Where does it end. How about
all the folks who got stopped by the police and checked
for drunk driving but blew under the control limit of .08%.

The world is full of beaurocratic wrongs. Consider the people who
live not far from me who have yet, thanks to our governmental
agencies, not received any of the promised disaster aid.

Let it go, Steve.

I have let it go - that was my point and so should we all.

-S-