http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2472 Always select Genuine Rant™ Brand. Everything else is just words. Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:27:08 -0400 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2472#comment-47149 Rant Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:51:56 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2472#comment-47149 Matt, Don't worry about veering off topic and heading into Rant 2.0 territory. It keeps the conversation interesting. :-) On a more serious note, we don't say it often enough, but thanks for your service. Freedom ain't free, as someone once observed.
Don’t worry about veering off topic and heading into Rant 2.0 territory. It keeps the conversation interesting.

On a more serious note, we don’t say it often enough, but thanks for your service. Freedom ain’t free, as someone once observed.]]> http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2472#comment-47146 Jeff Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:10:30 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2472#comment-47146 Matt, Yes. The irony of your workday sucks and the 21-year old drinking law vs. military service has zero basis in logic or the concept of fairness. Thank you for your service! Jeff Yes. The irony of your workday sucks and the 21-year old drinking law vs. military service has zero basis in logic or the concept of fairness. Thank you for your service!
Jeff]]> http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2472#comment-47145 Matt Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:24:23 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2472#comment-47145 ahhh....Monaco...Mexico...both start with M...both have 6 letters... close enough for my addled brain (guess I'd best start taking notes, as my few remaining brain cells are failing fast now!) I stand corrected Jeff...thanks. Always good to get the facts right (thats why I come here!) And as to the Fed 'coercing' states to fall in line...using the drinking age is a good one that still has my panties in a bunch after all these years. I'm retired military...as a young Navy lad (under 21) I vividly recall having my 'right' to have a drink yanked away from me (was stationed right here in CA when the state finally caved to the Feds pressure and stopped serving to under 21 even on base). I STILL think that law SUCKS! Old enough to die for your country but can't have a drink. Good thing we have responsible lawmakers looking out for us (sorry rant..this is heading quickly towards Rant2.0 territory). And btw: happy Veterans day ya'll! Once again ME the retired Vet is here at work, while my wife the NON vet (but is a gov employee) is home with pay. Guess I'm a bit crabby this morning. The annual joke at our house. Guess I've officially strayed from the topic. Oops.
And as to the Fed ‘coercing’ states to fall in line…using the drinking age is a good one that still has my panties in a bunch after all these years. I’m retired military…as a young Navy lad (under 21) I vividly recall having my ‘right’ to have a drink yanked away from me (was stationed right here in CA when the state finally caved to the Feds pressure and stopped serving to under 21 even on base). I STILL think that law SUCKS! Old enough to die for your country but can’t have a drink. Good thing we have responsible lawmakers looking out for us (sorry rant..this is heading quickly towards Rant2.0 territory).

And btw: happy Veterans day ya’ll! Once again ME the retired Vet is here at work, while my wife the NON vet (but is a gov employee) is home with pay. Guess I’m a bit crabby this morning. The annual joke at our house. Guess I’ve officially strayed from the topic. Oops.]]> http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2472#comment-47144 Rant Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:48:11 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2472#comment-47144 Actually, in one sense, you're both right. Rasmussen was at one time licensed in Mexico and a year or two later, he was licensed in Monaco. At the 2007 Tour, when the whole "where was he training" fiasco occurred, Rasmussen was racing with a license from Monaco. http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2472#comment-47143 Jeff Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:42:56 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2472#comment-47143 I have a bit more time now, so here is a, hopefully, more reasoned response. The federal government will sometimes coerce states to fall in line. An example is the federal government denying highway funds to states that failed to enact their standard of a 21-year old drinking law. Individual states were free to have 18-year old drinking laws, and many did, but faced with federal highway funds being denied, each eventually caved IIRC. Under the W. Bush administration, it was policy to raid medical marijuana facilities, regardless of state law. The Obama administration recently reversed that policy. Each professional rider has to be licensed. The contract for the license requires each rider to submit to drug testing via the current WADA formula. Riders can be tested at random or be targeted for testing. Riders can be tested under the authority of the UCI regardless of their location. They can also be tested by the ADA of the nation where they are physically located at a given time. Each upper level professional rider must participate in a “whereabouts program”, which is under the auspices of the UCI. Each rider is required to state a location where he/she will be during one hour of every day. If the rider is not there when a tester arrives, he/she may be contacted (cell phone/blackberry/other) and has a limited amount of time to present hem/herself to the tester (actually collector/pooper scooper). I’m not a fan of Oscar Pereiro, but he had an interesting encounter with the pooper scoopers recently that resulted in him providing a sample in a restaurant lobby near a bathroom where he was in view of some patrons naked from the ankles to his chest. Now folks, that’s entertainment, and not the good kind. The Chicken’s license was issued by Monaco, not Mexico. (IIRC, the Chicken’s wife is from Mexico?) The Monaco federation decided his 2-year suspension. The Chicken didn’t fail any drug tests. He was probably targeted and was also probably tested more than average. However, he was not suspended for a failed drug test. He was suspended for fraudulent actions regarding the whereabouts system. He lied about where he was too often and was given a 2-year suspension. A U.S. licensed rider does not necessarily equate to more doping controls. However there is one or more U.S. licensed rider(s) who are tested more than average. Lance Armstrong is tested much more than average. The leader and winner of stages of major stage races will be tested more than others. Domestiques not finishing close to the front are chosen at random and sometimes targeted. In addition, the UCI has a bio passport program that tests each rider for baselines and at somewhat regular intervals. If their blood values are deemed suspicious, then they may be targeted with more frequent testing. I’d generally agree with your last paragraph and add a recommendation to follow the money.
The federal government will sometimes coerce states to fall in line. An example is the federal government denying highway funds to states that failed to enact their standard of a 21-year old drinking law. Individual states were free to have 18-year old drinking laws, and many did, but faced with federal highway funds being denied, each eventually caved IIRC. Under the W. Bush administration, it was policy to raid medical marijuana facilities, regardless of state law. The Obama administration recently reversed that policy.

Each professional rider has to be licensed. The contract for the license requires each rider to submit to drug testing via the current WADA formula. Riders can be tested at random or be targeted for testing. Riders can be tested under the authority of the UCI regardless of their location. They can also be tested by the ADA of the nation where they are physically located at a given time. Each upper level professional rider must participate in a “whereabouts program”, which is under the auspices of the UCI. Each rider is required to state a location where he/she will be during one hour of every day. If the rider is not there when a tester arrives, he/she may be contacted (cell phone/blackberry/other) and has a limited amount of time to present hem/herself to the tester (actually collector/pooper scooper). I’m not a fan of Oscar Pereiro, but he had an interesting encounter with the pooper scoopers recently that resulted in him providing a sample in a restaurant lobby near a bathroom where he was in view of some patrons naked from the ankles to his chest. Now folks, that’s entertainment, and not the good kind.

The Chicken’s license was issued by Monaco, not Mexico. (IIRC, the Chicken’s wife is from Mexico?) The Monaco federation decided his 2-year suspension. The Chicken didn’t fail any drug tests. He was probably targeted and was also probably tested more than average. However, he was not suspended for a failed drug test. He was suspended for fraudulent actions regarding the whereabouts system. He lied about where he was too often and was given a 2-year suspension.

A U.S. licensed rider does not necessarily equate to more doping controls. However there is one or more U.S. licensed rider(s) who are tested more than average. Lance Armstrong is tested much more than average. The leader and winner of stages of major stage races will be tested more than others. Domestiques not finishing close to the front are chosen at random and sometimes targeted. In addition, the UCI has a bio passport program that tests each rider for baselines and at somewhat regular intervals. If their blood values are deemed suspicious, then they may be targeted with more frequent testing.

I’d generally agree with your last paragraph and add a recommendation to follow the money.]]> http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2472#comment-47142 Jeff Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:40:24 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2472#comment-47142 Matt, There are at least a few factual errors in your post. I'll start by pointing out that the "Chicken" did not race with a Mexican license. IIRC it was a license from Monaco? I'll leave it to others to correct incorrect data/assumptions in your post. There are at least a few factual errors in your post. I’ll start by pointing out that the “Chicken” did not race with a Mexican license. IIRC it was a license from Monaco? I’ll leave it to others to correct incorrect data/assumptions in your post.]]> http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2472#comment-47141 Matt Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:57:39 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2472#comment-47141 Interesting topic Rant! It is the ol' Fed vs. State thing. The Fed says "you the states are to make your own laws that are in standing with the people in your state". And occasionally, a state passes a law the Fed doesn't like. So then the Fed says "no, we don't like that law. HERE is how you are going to do it". Oh..but you are still free (and expected) to make your own laws. Just not THAT one. The one example that comes to mind is that here in CA we have voted to allow medical marijuana dispensaries. They have guidelines/rules to follow as to who gets the goods. Yet each one that tries to open is quickly raided by the Feds and shut down as it violates Federal law. But this type of thing obviously spans countries as well...take the cycling doping policies and doping agencies. Wasn't Mr. Rasmussen (Rabobank a few years back, on the birnk of winning the TDF) riding under a Mexican racing liscense (where he had little to no doping controls done)? I seem to recall that. However a rider racing under the banner of say the US faces all KINDS of doping controls...in and out of competition. Hardly a fair playing field. How the NFL will handle this situation might end up being a litmus test that could span the globe if done properly. Sports, corporations, countries...all trying to make fair policy that has the intended effect, leaves no loopholes but is also fair to all concerned parties...I just don't think it will happen. Too many players, egos, power-structures involved. Whatever does happen (my glass is half-empty thoughts) will be half-baked. Just my 2 cents.
The one example that comes to mind is that here in CA we have voted to allow medical marijuana dispensaries. They have guidelines/rules to follow as to who gets the goods. Yet each one that tries to open is quickly raided by the Feds and shut down as it violates Federal law. But this type of thing obviously spans countries as well…take the cycling doping policies and doping agencies.

Wasn’t Mr. Rasmussen (Rabobank a few years back, on the birnk of winning the TDF) riding under a Mexican racing liscense (where he had little to no doping controls done)? I seem to recall that. However a rider racing under the banner of say the US faces all KINDS of doping controls…in and out of competition. Hardly a fair playing field.

How the NFL will handle this situation might end up being a litmus test that could span the globe if done properly. Sports, corporations, countries…all trying to make fair policy that has the intended effect, leaves no loopholes but is also fair to all concerned parties…I just don’t think it will happen. Too many players, egos, power-structures involved. Whatever does happen (my glass is half-empty thoughts) will be half-baked. Just my 2 cents.]]> http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2472#comment-47140 William Schart Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:59:44 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2472#comment-47140 I recall an on-line discussion I had with someone a couple of years back, on some other site discussing the Landis case. As you might recall, there was a certain amount of talk that, if FL did not like how UCI/WADA implemented and enforced the PED policy, he didn't have to work as a pro cyclist, and related to this, there was some talk about how certain states are "work at will" states, were either the employee or the employer have the right to end employment at any time, basically for any reason. I mentioned that, none the less, many businesses had policies in place which limited the right of any particular manager to unilaterally fire and employee, and instead put in place a system of due process to follow. It now occurs to me that perhaps one reason for this is that many companies do operate in different states under different rules, so in one state they well may be able to say "your fired" legally, while in another state they have to jump through hoops to get an employee fired. So, in order to ensure they comply with the rules in all states, and (hopefully) be fair to all employees, the company institutes a policy that complies with the most restrictive laws they operate under. I suspect that it wouldn't be all that hard for the NFL to do something similar. If I counted correctly, the NFL operates in 24 states, although I am not sure how to count, for example, the NY teams that actually play in NJ, and the DC team, which actually plays in Maryland. http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2472#comment-47139 Rant Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:59:47 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2472#comment-47139 William, I wonder if a business such as Home Depot, which has locations around the country, has done just that -- found a solution to certain challenges that manages to stay within the requirements of every state's laws by complying with the strictest requirements. Seems to me that would be a tricky, but effective solution. Rather than having different rules in different states, everyone follows the same rules no matter where they work. Though the creation and maintenance of such policies would be tricky, the day-to-day use would be far simpler than having to track different policies and procedures for each state. If an organization such as Home Depot could do that, then the NFL ought to be able to, as well. There are, no doubt, certain on-the-job requirements that might be contrary to the freedoms we experience off the job. Companies banning the use of alcohol on the job is just such an example. I sure wouldn't want the pilot of an airplane, or a long-haul truck driver working while inebriated, for example. Of course, we're not supposed to drive our own cars while under the influence, no matter whether we're on or off the job, either. But we can drink away from our jobs, provided we don't drive if we're not sober. I suspect there is a line somewhere between giving up some rights or privileges of society for a paycheck and giving up basic rights that shouldn't be infringed. And that line clearly evolves over time. The question in my mind is, where do we draw the line today?
I wonder if a business such as Home Depot, which has locations around the country, has done just that — found a solution to certain challenges that manages to stay within the requirements of every state’s laws by complying with the strictest requirements. Seems to me that would be a tricky, but effective solution. Rather than having different rules in different states, everyone follows the same rules no matter where they work. Though the creation and maintenance of such policies would be tricky, the day-to-day use would be far simpler than having to track different policies and procedures for each state. If an organization such as Home Depot could do that, then the NFL ought to be able to, as well.

There are, no doubt, certain on-the-job requirements that might be contrary to the freedoms we experience off the job. Companies banning the use of alcohol on the job is just such an example. I sure wouldn’t want the pilot of an airplane, or a long-haul truck driver working while inebriated, for example. Of course, we’re not supposed to drive our own cars while under the influence, no matter whether we’re on or off the job, either. But we can drink away from our jobs, provided we don’t drive if we’re not sober.

I suspect there is a line somewhere between giving up some rights or privileges of society for a paycheck and giving up basic rights that shouldn’t be infringed. And that line clearly evolves over time. The question in my mind is, where do we draw the line today?]]> http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2472#comment-47138 William Schart Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:53:45 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2472#comment-47138 This is an interesting situation, and I don't pretend to have answers for it. Could the NFL (or indeed any business) formulate a policy such that it wouldn't conflict with any state law (or at least of those states in which it has a presence). Hard to say, it could be as easy as going with the most restrictive laws, or it may be more complicated. I would think that the NFL, or any sports organization, would be able to prohibit use of any substance they wished, even if the general public were allowed to use said subtance. Certainly, for example, a business can prohibit its employees from using alcoholic beverages while on duty, even if such use would otherwise be legal. Thus, I don't see the situation arising where teams bases in one state might be allowed to use a given PED while teams in other states weren't. I think that can sort of voluntarily waive some of his rights, in the form of "agree to this if you want to work here". For example, in general, one would have the right to refuse to a drug test, absent probable cause, but as an employee, you might well be required to submit to random testing as a condition of employment. But I think that there are limits as to what rights one can "voluntarily" give up, you couldn't be required to submit to capital punishment for a bad performance rating, as an extreme case. Where to line is to be drawn I don't know; it might be determined on a case by case basis, and probably has evolved over time. There was a time when female employees might be subject to termination when they married or got pregnant; such would not be tolerated today.
I would think that the NFL, or any sports organization, would be able to prohibit use of any substance they wished, even if the general public were allowed to use said subtance. Certainly, for example, a business can prohibit its employees from using alcoholic beverages while on duty, even if such use would otherwise be legal. Thus, I don’t see the situation arising where teams bases in one state might be allowed to use a given PED while teams in other states weren’t.

I think that can sort of voluntarily waive some of his rights, in the form of “agree to this if you want to work here”. For example, in general, one would have the right to refuse to a drug test, absent probable cause, but as an employee, you might well be required to submit to random testing as a condition of employment. But I think that there are limits as to what rights one can “voluntarily” give up, you couldn’t be required to submit to capital punishment for a bad performance rating, as an extreme case. Where to line is to be drawn I don’t know; it might be determined on a case by case basis, and probably has evolved over time. There was a time when female employees might be subject to termination when they married or got pregnant; such would not be tolerated today.]]>