Zabriskie IQ test

[Donald Munro]

From CN:
"You want that the testing will be 100% accurate. You don't want to end up
paying a year's salary [out of error]. You sign this document hoping that
they act in good faith because I am acting in good faith, but you never
know and I just hope for the best."

He may have difficulty passing an IQ test if he really believes the UCI or
WADA act in good faith.

[derFahrer@gmail.com]

On Jun 28, 4:45 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> He may have difficulty passing an IQ test if he really believes the UCI or
> WADA act in good faith.

1. what's the pass/fail criteria for an IQ test?

2. whoever said bike racers were intelligent? (I is wun)

[bob sullivan]

Well, geez, what choice does he have? He wants to ride the Tour (guess
he's still on the bubble, though), so he's got to sign the thing. He's
got to hope for the best. I hope it doesn't blow up in his (or anybody
else's) face, because I have serious misgivings about the testing
procedures.

~bob s.

Donald Munro wrote:
> From CN:
> "You want that the testing will be 100% accurate. You don't want to end up
> paying a year's salary [out of error]. You sign this document hoping that
> they act in good faith because I am acting in good faith, but you never
> know and I just hope for the best."
>
> He may have difficulty passing an IQ test if he really believes the UCI or
> WADA act in good faith.

[Geraard Spergen]

Donald Munro wrote:
> From CN:
> "You want that the testing will be 100% accurate. You don't want to end up
> paying a year's salary [out of error]. You sign this document hoping that
> they act in good faith because I am acting in good faith, but you never
> know and I just hope for the best."
>
> He may have difficulty passing an IQ test if he really believes the UCI or
> WADA act in good faith.

This does reek of a one-sided contract. Where's the clause that says if
LNDD screws up the chain of custody that they owe the rider a year of
the lab's profit? Or if McQ is accused of strong-arming the lab for
desired results that he is suspended for 2 years?

[Phil Holman]

<derFahrer@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183039774.327828.51240@n60g2000hse.googlegro ups.com...
> On Jun 28, 4:45 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> He may have difficulty passing an IQ test if he really believes the
>> UCI or
>> WADA act in good faith.
>
> 1. what's the pass/fail criteria for an IQ test?

Enough cerebral horsepower to breath.

>
> 2. whoever said bike racers were intelligent? (I is wun)
>

Street smarts makes for good road sense.

Phil H

[Simon Brooke]

in message <00cf7a50$0$21618$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Geraard Spergen
('GSpergen@spammagnet.net') wrote:

> Donald Munro wrote:
>> From CN:
>> "You want that the testing will be 100% accurate. You don't want to end
>> up paying a year's salary [out of error]. You sign this document hoping
>> that they act in good faith because I am acting in good faith, but you
>> never know and I just hope for the best."
>>
>> He may have difficulty passing an IQ test if he really believes the UCI
>> or WADA act in good faith.
>
> This does reek of a one-sided contract. Where's the clause that says if
> LNDD screws up the chain of custody that they owe the rider a year of
> the lab's profit? Or if McQ is accused of strong-arming the lab for
> desired results that he is suspended for 2 years?

Or if Pound deliberately leaks lab results he pays the rider a year of his
salary?

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken. I found a rather battered tube of Araldite
resin in the bottom of the toolbag.

[RonSonic]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:13:07 +0100, Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:

>in message <00cf7a50$0$21618$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Geraard Spergen
>('GSpergen@spammagnet.net') wrote:
>
>> Donald Munro wrote:
>>> From CN:
>>> "You want that the testing will be 100% accurate. You don't want to end
>>> up paying a year's salary [out of error]. You sign this document hoping
>>> that they act in good faith because I am acting in good faith, but you
>>> never know and I just hope for the best."
>>>
>>> He may have difficulty passing an IQ test if he really believes the UCI
>>> or WADA act in good faith.
>>
>> This does reek of a one-sided contract. Where's the clause that says if
>> LNDD screws up the chain of custody that they owe the rider a year of
>> the lab's profit? Or if McQ is accused of strong-arming the lab for
>> desired results that he is suspended for 2 years?
>
>Or if Pound deliberately leaks lab results he pays the rider a year of his
>salary?

If ANYONE leaks lab results he hacks up a years pay AND gets suspended for 2
years from lab work (or whatever) and another 2 years from pro sports lab work.
Let's see if French and EU labor laws would tolerate that.

Ron

[RicodJour]

On Jun 29, 5:13 am, Simon Brooke <s...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:
> in message <00cf7a50$0$21618$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>, Geraard Spergen
>
> > This does reek of a one-sided contract. Where's the clause that says if
> > LNDD screws up the chain of custody that they owe the rider a year of
> > the lab's profit? Or if McQ is accused of strong-arming the lab for
> > desired results that he is suspended for 2 years?
>
> Or if Pound deliberately leaks lab results he pays the rider a year of his
> salary?

I'd be more biblical and go for the pound of Pound's flesh.

R

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:or1a83l2rb33q4rb8nh9uf9ahoe9cehdhr@4ax.com,
RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:13:07 +0100, Simon Brooke
> <simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> in message <00cf7a50$0$21618$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Geraard
>> Spergen ('GSpergen@spammagnet.net') wrote:
>>
>>> Donald Munro wrote:
>>>> From CN:
>>>> "You want that the testing will be 100% accurate. You don't want
>>>> to end up paying a year's salary [out of error]. You sign this
>>>> document hoping that they act in good faith because I am acting in
>>>> good faith, but you never know and I just hope for the best."
>>>>
>>>> He may have difficulty passing an IQ test if he really believes
>>>> the UCI or WADA act in good faith.
>>>
>>> This does reek of a one-sided contract. Where's the clause that
>>> says if LNDD screws up the chain of custody that they owe the rider
>>> a year of the lab's profit? Or if McQ is accused of strong-arming
>>> the lab for desired results that he is suspended for 2 years?
>>
>> Or if Pound deliberately leaks lab results he pays the rider a year
>> of his salary?
>
> If ANYONE leaks lab results he hacks up a years pay AND gets
> suspended for 2 years from lab work (or whatever) and another 2 years
> from pro sports lab work. Let's see if French and EU labor laws would
> tolerate that.
>
> Ron

Short answer - NO.

[bob sullivan]

RonSonic wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:13:07 +0100, Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> in message <00cf7a50$0$21618$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Geraard Spergen
>> ('GSpergen@spammagnet.net') wrote:
>>
>>> Donald Munro wrote:
>>>> From CN:
>>>> "You want that the testing will be 100% accurate. You don't want to end
>>>> up paying a year's salary [out of error]. You sign this document hoping
>>>> that they act in good faith because I am acting in good faith, but you
>>>> never know and I just hope for the best."
>>>>
>>>> He may have difficulty passing an IQ test if he really believes the UCI
>>>> or WADA act in good faith.
>>> This does reek of a one-sided contract. Where's the clause that says if
>>> LNDD screws up the chain of custody that they owe the rider a year of
>>> the lab's profit? Or if McQ is accused of strong-arming the lab for
>>> desired results that he is suspended for 2 years?
>> Or if Pound deliberately leaks lab results he pays the rider a year of his
>> salary?
>
> If ANYONE leaks lab results he hacks up a years pay AND gets suspended for 2
> years from lab work (or whatever) and another 2 years from pro sports lab work.
> Let's see if French and EU labor laws would tolerate that.
>
> Ron

And then, after they've served their two-year suspension, they're
banned for another two years from working in a lab where ProTour
riders' samples are tested. ;)

~bob s.

[Mark]

RicodJour wrote:
> On Jun 29, 5:13 am, Simon Brooke <s...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:
>> in message <00cf7a50$0$21618$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>, Geraard Spergen
>>
>>> This does reek of a one-sided contract. Where's the clause that says if
>>> LNDD screws up the chain of custody that they owe the rider a year of
>>> the lab's profit? Or if McQ is accused of strong-arming the lab for
>>> desired results that he is suspended for 2 years?
>> Or if Pound deliberately leaks lab results he pays the rider a year of his
>> salary?
>
> I'd be more biblical and go for the pound of Pound's flesh.
>
> R

You're thinking Shakespeare (Merchant of Venice), not the bible.

Mark J.

[RicodJour]

On Jun 29, 1:01 pm, Mark <remove.mandmlj.t...@remove.comcast.this.net>
wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
> > On Jun 29, 5:13 am, Simon Brooke <s...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >> Or if Pound deliberately leaks lab results he pays the rider a year of his
> >> salary?
>
> > I'd be more biblical and go for the pound of Pound's flesh.
>
>
> You're thinking Shakespeare (Merchant of Venice), not the bible.

No, I'm not quoting Shylock and I know what I'm thinking, thank you
very much. Biblical has more than one definition - look it up. If I
said I am going to go medieval on your ass, would you read that to
mean that I was going to take your ass back in time, or simply beat
the crap out of you?

R

[Mark]

RicodJour wrote:
> On Jun 29, 1:01 pm, Mark <remove.mandmlj.t...@remove.comcast.this.net>
> wrote:
>> RicodJour wrote:
>>> On Jun 29, 5:13 am, Simon Brooke <s...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> Or if Pound deliberately leaks lab results he pays the rider a year of his
>>>> salary?
>>> I'd be more biblical and go for the pound of Pound's flesh.
>>
>> You're thinking Shakespeare (Merchant of Venice), not the bible.
>
> No, I'm not quoting Shylock and I know what I'm thinking, thank you
> very much. Biblical has more than one definition - look it up. If I
> said I am going to go medieval on your ass, would you read that to
> mean that I was going to take your ass back in time, or simply beat
> the crap out of you?

Pardon me, I clearly have /no/ idea what you were thinking when you
wrote "biblical." That's after taking your advice and looking it up.
Please enlighten me.

Mark J.

[RicodJour]

On Jun 29, 3:31 pm, Mark <remove.mandmlj.t...@remove.comcast.this.net>
wrote:
>
> Pardon me, I clearly have /no/ idea what you were thinking when you
> wrote "biblical." That's after taking your advice and looking it up.
> Please enlighten me.

Think King Solomon. Harsh yet effective judgments. That sort of
thing.

I wrote biblical for a reason. If I'd written Biblical, I would have
meant something different.

BTW, if you really want to, there's a nifong load more to criticize
about my musings then my choice of words.

R

[bob sullivan]

RicodJour wrote:
> On Jun 29, 3:31 pm, Mark <remove.mandmlj.t...@remove.comcast.this.net>
> wrote:
>> Pardon me, I clearly have /no/ idea what you were thinking when you
>> wrote "biblical." That's after taking your advice and looking it up.
>> Please enlighten me.
>
> Think King Solomon. Harsh yet effective judgments. That sort of
> thing.
>
> I wrote biblical for a reason. If I'd written Biblical, I would have
> meant something different.
>
> BTW, if you really want to, there's a nifong load more to criticize
> about my musings then my choice of words.
>
> R

<pedantic>You mean "*than* my choice of words".</pedantic>

;)

~bob s.

[RicodJour]

On Jun 29, 6:36 pm, bob sullivan <bsull...@comcast.net> wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
> > On Jun 29, 3:31 pm, Mark <remove.mandmlj.t...@remove.comcast.this.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Pardon me, I clearly have /no/ idea what you were thinking when you
> >> wrote "biblical." That's after taking your advice and looking it up.
> >> Please enlighten me.
>
> > Think King Solomon. Harsh yet effective judgments. That sort of
> > thing.
>
> > I wrote biblical for a reason. If I'd written Biblical, I would have
> > meant something different.
>
> > BTW, if you really want to, there's a nifong load more to criticize
> > about my musings then my choice of words.
>
> > R
>
> <pedantic>You mean "*than* my choice of words".</pedantic>
>
> ;)

Excellent example, Bob!

R