And specifically, Armstrong actually has naturally 'large' red blood cells making him more efficient at exchanging oxygen. His resting heart rate in peak condition was like 30 beats a minute - that's dead for most people yet for him it's fine because he can process oxygen that much better.
Now take a massive endurance race and gee the guy who can process the most oxygen the quickest happens to be the best ever at it. Shocking!
And lets not forget he went through ridiculously bad cancer treatments. Perhaps he's learned to deal with a level of pain most others haven't. Again, a massive endurance race where the best able to cope with sustained pain won again and again. Shocking!
My argument is that why is taking 'extra' Human Growth Hormone banned, yet NFL kick returns can suck on pure oxygen right on the sidelines after a long run so they can play again sooner?
To my understanding he only failed "1/2" a test. Meaning his A sample failed, but his B sample didn't. Which is Passing the test. Only if BOTH samples fail is it considered a failed test.
The tests were good enough to catch many many many other cyclists. Including the greatest cyclist ever, Edy Merckx back in the 60s.
Even if you follow their testimony to conclude he cheated...so did literally everybody else. The vast numbers of actual drug test fails speak to that clearly.
So in the end, he was perhaps better at hiding the cheating, but he was still massively better at actual cycling than any other cyclist at the time who was also very likely cheating as well.
Sign up for Security system monitoring....cancel after one month with installed stickers and signage. Works like a champ. Better yet, 'borrow' a sign from someone else and just put it in your yard.
Anyone looking to break in will just go to the next house without a sign.
So you're in favor of vigilantism? The situation you describe is text book taking the law into your own hands. I'm sure the kid would "have rarely felt as justified" if he'd turned around and shot you either. Doesn't make it right, but hey he felt justified in doing it so it must have been ok?
We all the right to be an asshole. It's called free speech.
Uh, wearing a T-Shirt with a message is most definitely 'speech'. See the DeCSS fun where the code was put on a T-shirt than then was protected as 'speech'.
Delta is not the government. However there were multiple government entities represented there and they weren't telling Delta to stand down, they were trying to take this guy in for *more* questioning.
You treat authority with respect...when they deserve it. Simply wearing a T-Shirt is NOT treating them with disrespect.
Going by what we know of the situation, he did nothing to warrant such intensive treatment by multiple (armed) security guards. He said he clearly stated it was mocking the state of security and thus is without doubt free speech. If authority can't deal with being mocked, its rather an American tradition, then well we have bigger problems as a nation than we're talking about here.
I find it hard to believe people actually spent time reading a shirt. That's a lot of print so it wasn't like it was in 4 inch letters, and it's upside down around a circle.
It's a *whole lot* more believable that said general public saw a 'furriner' and was uncomfortable with him.
I'll stand by that the TSA should have been telling the locals and Delta to stand down and let the guy board. If the rest of the plane is uncomfortable, they are more than free to get off and take a different flight. But HE shouldn't have been booted off because someone else was uncomfortable.
The point is it's a very slippery slope. If you start accommodating authority simply to accommodate them without a valid reason, authority starts expecting more than they are entitled. Why is wearing a T-shirt mocking the TSA bad when wearing a turban is protected? Both instances are in the same damned constitutional amendment.
Freedom of religion and speech. The FUNDAMENTAL foundations of our country should not be taken so lightly.
If Delta booted him over the objections of the Feds and local security that's one thing. In this case the feds and locals were in agreement with Delta and that's a problem.
Rule 1, when dealing with people with authority. Treat them with respect.
Funny I thought 'Rule 1' was 'Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech'
Silly me.
There are times when security trumps free speech ("Fire!" in a theater, etc.) but those are few and rightly heavily restricted. Wearing a fucking T-Shirt mocking someone is NOT one of those cases.
Can those in power overreact? Sure, but that doesn't make it right.
Indeed. I'm not by nature a conspiracy nut, but there's an old adage about controlling a population by restricting movements...this starts to look like a well greased slope...
Hourly pay is besides the point, this is only for salaried people, since by definition hourly people are paid 'by the hour' and working more hours means more pay.
You aren't paid for 40 hours a week, you're paid a salary to get the job done regardless of how long it takes. Obviously there are workplace laws to prevent wholesale abuse and an employer can't make you work a certain amount over 'normal' hours continually.
This again is besides the point here, we're talking about people who 'willingly' are choosing a different set of compensation variables than you did. Theirs involves trading flexibility for slightly longer hours.
This is routine in tele-work scenarios. People are expected to work more hours for being able to work at home. You as the employee get both the reduction in travel time to and from work AND don't pay the expense for that travel that you normally would. What does the employer get out of that? Employees that aren't as easily managed or communicated with or worked with, etc. The 'remote' changes the situation, so the employer is within reason asking for a little bit more from the employee to allow them the flexibility to work from home.
Slashdot Mirror
If everybody is wearing stilts and I'm still the tallest...I'm still the tallest and yes I'll bask in that.
The sport has been diminished, but not by Armstrong.
And specifically, Armstrong actually has naturally 'large' red blood cells making him more efficient at exchanging oxygen. His resting heart rate in peak condition was like 30 beats a minute - that's dead for most people yet for him it's fine because he can process oxygen that much better.
Now take a massive endurance race and gee the guy who can process the most oxygen the quickest happens to be the best ever at it. Shocking!
And lets not forget he went through ridiculously bad cancer treatments. Perhaps he's learned to deal with a level of pain most others haven't. Again, a massive endurance race where the best able to cope with sustained pain won again and again. Shocking!
My argument is that why is taking 'extra' Human Growth Hormone banned, yet NFL kick returns can suck on pure oxygen right on the sidelines after a long run so they can play again sooner?
Both are exactly the same thing...
Who among the testimony givers hasn't been caught? And how would you know if they tested positive but aren't being charged to get a plea bargain?
To my understanding he only failed "1/2" a test. Meaning his A sample failed, but his B sample didn't. Which is Passing the test. Only if BOTH samples fail is it considered a failed test.
Sources?
a guilty verdict is not an impossibility.
No but an Overturn on Appeal is guaranteed...
Witness testimony is horrendously bad.
The tests were good enough to catch many many many other cyclists. Including the greatest cyclist ever, Edy Merckx back in the 60s.
Even if you follow their testimony to conclude he cheated...so did literally everybody else. The vast numbers of actual drug test fails speak to that clearly.
So in the end, he was perhaps better at hiding the cheating, but he was still massively better at actual cycling than any other cyclist at the time who was also very likely cheating as well.
Why? Because of the smell of dead and rotting sharks (with lasers on heads) lying on the floor?
You need to buy more expensive meat for the dogs.
Hardly
Look, defenseless babies!
And you're free.
Sign up for Security system monitoring....cancel after one month with installed stickers and signage. Works like a champ. Better yet, 'borrow' a sign from someone else and just put it in your yard.
Anyone looking to break in will just go to the next house without a sign.
TSA was CREATED by Congress you moron. It IS the government. Their power is granted by...wait for it...CONGRESS...using...wait for it again....LAWS.
Some of the best selling hollywood movies and TV shows are the ones where someone is mistreated in some way then fights back
Because a fictional story exists and makes us feel good, it's ok in real life. Just wow.
So you're in favor of vigilantism? The situation you describe is text book taking the law into your own hands. I'm sure the kid would "have rarely felt as justified" if he'd turned around and shot you either. Doesn't make it right, but hey he felt justified in doing it so it must have been ok?
We all the right to be an asshole. It's called free speech.
Perhaps you missed the part where multiple local and federal security guards were questioning him...
Uh, wearing a T-Shirt with a message is most definitely 'speech'. See the DeCSS fun where the code was put on a T-shirt than then was protected as 'speech'.
Delta is not the government. However there were multiple government entities represented there and they weren't telling Delta to stand down, they were trying to take this guy in for *more* questioning.
You treat authority with respect...when they deserve it. Simply wearing a T-Shirt is NOT treating them with disrespect.
Going by what we know of the situation, he did nothing to warrant such intensive treatment by multiple (armed) security guards. He said he clearly stated it was mocking the state of security and thus is without doubt free speech. If authority can't deal with being mocked, its rather an American tradition, then well we have bigger problems as a nation than we're talking about here.
I find it hard to believe people actually spent time reading a shirt. That's a lot of print so it wasn't like it was in 4 inch letters, and it's upside down around a circle.
It's a *whole lot* more believable that said general public saw a 'furriner' and was uncomfortable with him.
I'll stand by that the TSA should have been telling the locals and Delta to stand down and let the guy board. If the rest of the plane is uncomfortable, they are more than free to get off and take a different flight. But HE shouldn't have been booted off because someone else was uncomfortable.
The point is it's a very slippery slope. If you start accommodating authority simply to accommodate them without a valid reason, authority starts expecting more than they are entitled. Why is wearing a T-shirt mocking the TSA bad when wearing a turban is protected? Both instances are in the same damned constitutional amendment.
Freedom of religion and speech. The FUNDAMENTAL foundations of our country should not be taken so lightly.
If Delta booted him over the objections of the Feds and local security that's one thing. In this case the feds and locals were in agreement with Delta and that's a problem.
he was then surrounded by agents with both the TSA and a crew from the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority
It was not ONLY the TSA being stupid but they and their directives to all security agencies are at the heart of this type of issue.
They also weren't there telling the local security to stand down because they had already checked him...
Rule 1, when dealing with people with authority. Treat them with respect.
Funny I thought 'Rule 1' was 'Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech'
Silly me.
There are times when security trumps free speech ("Fire!" in a theater, etc.) but those are few and rightly heavily restricted. Wearing a fucking T-Shirt mocking someone is NOT one of those cases.
Can those in power overreact? Sure, but that doesn't make it right.
Nobody said they HAVE to abide by it. Funny thing though, if they don't *voluntarily* abide by it, I avoid using their services.
Indeed. I'm not by nature a conspiracy nut, but there's an old adage about controlling a population by restricting movements...this starts to look like a well greased slope...
To reiterate: This doesn't work for YOU, I get that, but you're claiming it doesn't work for ANYONE, which you simply can't do and be credible.
How do you get the public to not care about the TSA?
Make an Air Traffic Control system so vulnerable nobody will want to fly...
FAIL is a valid certification...
Hourly pay is besides the point, this is only for salaried people, since by definition hourly people are paid 'by the hour' and working more hours means more pay.
You aren't paid for 40 hours a week, you're paid a salary to get the job done regardless of how long it takes. Obviously there are workplace laws to prevent wholesale abuse and an employer can't make you work a certain amount over 'normal' hours continually.
This again is besides the point here, we're talking about people who 'willingly' are choosing a different set of compensation variables than you did. Theirs involves trading flexibility for slightly longer hours.
This is routine in tele-work scenarios. People are expected to work more hours for being able to work at home. You as the employee get both the reduction in travel time to and from work AND don't pay the expense for that travel that you normally would. What does the employer get out of that? Employees that aren't as easily managed or communicated with or worked with, etc. The 'remote' changes the situation, so the employer is within reason asking for a little bit more from the employee to allow them the flexibility to work from home.
This is no different at all.