Southern_Man

Here is a somewhat brief summary of Lance's misdeed. It takes on a lot of the BS rhetoric that Lance and his PR machine spews: http://cavalierfc.tumblr.com/post/30172302298/its-not-about-the-bike "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

He did not fight because he knows there is overwhelming evidence which would prove that he doped and would become public and destroy the myth he has so carefully built up about himself. Things like: Passed 500 tests: This is just an absurd exaggeration. He has not been tested 500 times. Kristin Armstrong has been tested more (a lot more) than Lance Armstrong. Never failed a test: He failed a test for corticosteroids at the 1999 TdF. UCI covered it up with a backdated prescription and TUE. He failed one for EPO at the 2001 TdS. UCI covered it up in exchange for monetary donations of $125,000. I believe a lot of the evidence will come out anyway. A lot of it is out there anyway. USADA has said it was going to release it over the next couple of weeks. I doubt it will make much difference in many people's minds. I think people really don't care that he doped. I don't even think they care that he trafficked and pushed drugs. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Bud light would be a no-no at most drop zones I've been to, but local standards and protocols differ. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I never said that. I simply suggested it to those who think they know how devastating the effects are. But if you think you know about skydiving but have never stepped on a DZ, then more power to you. But, excuse me if I question your experience. This is just a horrible line of reasoning and argumentation, however. What you are implying is that anybody who does have such experiences (specifically just going to NA meetings) is also then going to have the same perspective on the legality of drugs that you have. It is simply not so. I have been to NA meetings. Other people here have other experiences with drugs, including crack. It does not mean we all agree, I certainly do not. Do you really think the war on drugs is working? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

You wouldn't be going to look for a certain (currently absent) bonfirite, would you? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

No, I've made no such judgements about anything being right or wrong or anything in between. That's all subjective. I've only shown that there are no actual damages in such cases. I don't believe the courts agree with you, as they have been quite willing to award damages in such situations. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Sounds like Virginia has more procedural protections than California. Here the health care professional has to then make the case to a magistrate. That Temporary Detention Order is only 48 hours, not 72. Then it has to go to a judge. In this case that was 30 days, but I confess I am not sure it is always that way. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I don't know, as it was a brief conversation in a hallway while we were both on our way somewhere else. From what I can read, which again is not everything printed and certainly not a complete story, the local police took him into custody and it isn't clear to me that the FBI and DHS had anything futher to do with it (meaning I am not sure at all that they attended any interview--typically those are done with the officers out in the waiting room and just the screener with the person). I share a lot of your concerns about the overreaching security laws and the ability to detain for links to terrorism. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Didn't he finish third at the TdF three years ago? Surely some of those riders were cheated out of something and many of them are still active. AFAIK none of the accusations levelled at Armstrong in this case relate to anything that occurred during his comeback. Obviously, the benefits of having trained with drugs for well over a decade don't just go away but I don't think there's any evidence on the table right now to suggest he was following the same program in '09/'10 as he was in '99 - '05. (Besides, it was Wiggins who finshed 4th in '09 and he's just won the thing, so he's probably not too bothered) The charging letter alleges he has blood values consistent with manipulation (EPO or transfusion) in 2009 and 2010. It was part of how they were attempting to get around the statute of limitations. Not sure what his teammates would testify to for those years. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I'm currently dating a non-jumper. Whuffo, whatever. She has made a couple of tandems and attending some events at the DZ with me. She gets why I jump. In our case she has a younger daughter, so our explicit agreement is that she needs mother/daughter time and they spend that time together while I am jumping. It works well for us. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

What did I do to change the subject? Is Crack not part of the war on drugs? Given the current status of politics in our country I'd be thrilled to legalize marijuana for now and work on the rest later. Well, we haven't met in person, but now you have. I assure you that I am hardly the only one who feels that way. It is probably a minority opinion but there are quite a few people in my agency (including some of the substance abuse folks) who share those beliefs. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Didn't he finish third at the TdF three years ago? Surely some of those riders were cheated out of something and many of them are still active. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Nowhere did I make any statement about the addictive properties of crack cocaine. You really think our current war on drugs is working? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Yeah. Just out of curiosity I asked one of my peers in the Emergency services department what percentage of people who were brought in for evaluation she ended up releasing. She said, off the top of her head (so not scientifically valid information) that she ended up not TDO'ing about 1/3 people brought in. I asked if she ever petitioned for a TDO and was denied. She said only once in another jurisdiction (guy overdosed that night) and once in our current jurisdiction. Anyway, that is one person from one agency in VA following the same process. I think this hearing and order was about the second hearing (confining for 30 days), not the TDO. I know a little less about that process. Anyway, just some data as I was curious to know how much of a rubber stamp it is to hospitalize somebody when the cops bring them in. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

So you think the solution is to destroy society by legalizing Crack? How about heroin? Surely you won't mind stepping over all the nodded out junkies and empty syringes on your daily route? Yeah, clearly we should just keep doing what we are doing, you know, since it prevents all those people from taking drugs. Have you ever been to an N.A. meeting? Get back to us after you do. Yes, I have. I appreciate that Ron posts with his clinical background, even if I sometimes disagree with him. I appreciate that you may have some background as well. I work, as Ron did, in a public mental health setting. Substance abuse is not my primary area of service but I am hardly ignorant of the realities of drug use in our society. I have also had much personal contact, including helping people get treatment and being part of a couple of interventions. All of that happened in spite of our current drug laws, which you seem to think work. My experience was helping a good friend who became addicted to alchohol and crack. I attended several dozen A.A. and N.A. meetings. Sadly, my friend could not shake his addiction and died of an overdose. I also remember sitting in those meetings and hearing that someone else who had been there just a few days before had succumbed to substance abuse again. Crack is nothing like alchohol, heroin or even powder cocaine. It is incredibly addicting and it often causes a person to become addicted with just one usage. I am very happy I do not have to live in a world full of crackheads and junkies. If you think the war on drugs is expensive, wait until you see the devestation legalizing crack would cause. Of course, then the liberals would tell us we need to provide housing, food and free medical treatment for these "poor souls" who became addicted by using a legal substance. So, now we have two people with direct experience w/ substance abuse affecting people they care about and who have been to multiple N.A. meetings (and I've experienced/witnessed quite a few other treatment modalities as well) coming to opposite conclusions about the effect of the current war on drugs. So what does any of that prove? Just proves to me that personal experience is not dispositive in guiding political philosophy on this issue. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Good fine, here's another one: http://www.theonion.com/articles/antidoping-agency-has-a-bunch-of-old-tour-de-franc,27331/ "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

So you think the solution is to destroy society by legalizing Crack? How about heroin? Surely you won't mind stepping over all the nodded out junkies and empty syringes on your daily route? Yeah, clearly we should just keep doing what we are doing, you know, since it prevents all those people from taking drugs. Have you ever been to an N.A. meeting? Get back to us after you do. Yes, I have. I appreciate that Ron posts with his clinical background, even if I sometimes disagree with him. I appreciate that you may have some background as well. I work, as Ron did, in a public mental health setting. Substance abuse is not my primary area of service but I am hardly ignorant of the realities of drug use in our society. I have also had much personal contact, including helping people get treatment and being part of a couple of interventions. All of that happened in spite of our current drug laws, which you seem to think work. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I haave read the objection documents. They held him for 8 hours before getting an order. That's an unlawful detention. With the exception of him being released, what happened here is exactly what many on here have argued should be happening wholesale. He posted weird stuff on facebook. No threats. He's just weird. Committed no crime. Charged with no crime. But removed from society. Whew. That was close. No telling how many he would have killed yeterday... Do you really think he was held just on the basis of the Facebook postings? I really don't know. I do agree that if the timelines were not followed that is a huge failure and he should not have been held. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

So you think the solution is to destroy society by legalizing Crack? How about heroin? Surely you won't mind stepping over all the nodded out junkies and empty syringes on your daily route? Yeah, clearly we should just keep doing what we are doing, you know, since it prevents all those people from taking drugs. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I read these debates, discussions and arguments and I see that the liberals always seem like they are coming from somewhere in space. They have hidden agendas that trigger responses that do not relate what they are responding to. I think I have come to an understanding. Liberals are trying to govern and legislate based on intellectual ideals, not reality. Conservatives are trying to govern and legislate based on the current mess we are in, that is to say reality. It's funny that you would call me a liberal. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Haven't read that on any, but may have overlooked it. I thought the photos were often/always the legal property of the video guy, not the DZ? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Here's one specifically for the Lance years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France#Doping_histories_of_Top-10_finishers.2C_1998_-_2012 Predicted Onion Headline: 14 year old from Minnesota awarded TdF titles, Only Clean cyclist to be found. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

What is he on? He's on his phone screaming at his attorneys. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Some digital altimeters can be worn on the write or in the helmet. On the wrist the alarms have no effect. Don't worry about it, as a student you will be using an analog altimeter, almost surely. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

You obviously are having trouble distinguishing the differences between alchohol and a highly addictive substance like crack cocaine. You really should go to an N.A. meeting sometime and talk to people whose lives were devestated after they became addicted from just one toke on a crack pipe. But I'm sure you would not want to associate yourself with "those people". How did legalization of Opium work out for China? How well is our current War on Drugs working? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"