| |
Main
Date: 03 Aug 2007 18:13:37
From: Bill C
Subject: When's it enough??
|
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/aug07/aug04news
Barloworld rejects calls for UCI investigation of Cox's death
By Susan Westemeyer
Quoted:
Cox died Wednesday morning of complications following surgery on a leg
artery.
The South African cyclist started his pro career with the team Amore &
Vita, whose manager Ivano Fanini this week said that he hoped the
death was not related to doping. "How many riders have resorted to
EPO, which renders the blood dense and can cause serious vascular
problems." He called on the UCI to "open an investigation into the
true cause of this death."
That is just so fucked up and disgusting. The anti-doping zealots and
their belief everyone is a scumbag, and total lack of respect for
anyone or anything makes me want to puke. I wonder if he's going to
go to the funeral and tell the kids mother, "He was probably a doper,
and killed himself with the stuff. Good thing too!"?
Just when you think humans can't sink much lower...
Bill C
|
|
| |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 18:31:55
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
On Aug 16, 7:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Marian" <marian.rosenb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1187252047.140234.77260@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > But what is cause and what is effect? It has already been determined
> > that many people who use ecstacy are self-medicating for depression
> > that they don't even realize they have.
>
> Determined by whom?
dunno. But the idea isn't unheard of.
"It is likely that many compulsive ecstasy users are unconsciously
trying to self-medicate their depression. (Of course, Ecstasy is not
an effective daily antidepressant and may actually exacerbate symptoms
of depression.)"
http://www.dancesafe.org/documents/druginfo/depression.php
|
| | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 14:00:02
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
"SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com > wrote in message
news:1187400715.838212.6840@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 16, 7:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "Marian" <marian.rosenb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1187252047.140234.77260@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > But what is cause and what is effect? It has already been determined
>> > that many people who use ecstacy are self-medicating for depression
>> > that they don't even realize they have.
>>
>> Determined by whom?
>
> dunno. But the idea isn't unheard of.
>
> "It is likely that many compulsive ecstasy users are unconsciously
> trying to self-medicate their depression. (Of course, Ecstasy is not
> an effective daily antidepressant and may actually exacerbate symptoms
> of depression.)"
> http://www.dancesafe.org/documents/druginfo/depression.php
This was my point - looney mythology isn't any better than looney anything
else. People who use drugs aren't "self medicating" - they're dopers.
|
| |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 08:14:07
From: Marian
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
On Aug 14, 12:06 am, "Jim Flom" <jim.flomREM...@telus.net > wrote:
> "Kyle Legate" <lega...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5hs5qbF3m6cukU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
> > Jim Flom wrote:
>
> >> Never received your emailed retort.
>
> > Interesting. I double checked my sent mails, the address was correct.
> > Maybe I'm filtered as junk (hey hey HEY. no murmuring from the audience).
>
> >> Science's strength is also its weakness in the hands of dummies. You or
> >> I might want to seize the position we prefer based this or that study
> >> (e.g., global warming). The fact is that I can't isolate the one
> >> article/study and conclude pot causes psychosis as if it is some kind of
> >> natural law, and you can't walk away from the meta-analysis study and
> >> simply dismiss it (well you could but it would be dishonest science
> >> convincing only yourself). What it does do is add to the body of
> >> knowledge as we keep growing in our understanding of cannabis. And one
> >> another. Peace love dove...
>
> > Well, I know now that if I graduate to regular heavy use I should keep my
> > eyes open for signs of psychosis. Maybe marijuana and rbr have something
> > in common.
>
> I just came across this quote that I had clipped and its context, addressing
> the frequency question, that I pulled from the article:
> "'... we think the evidence is strong enough that people should be made
> aware that if they use cannabis they have an increased risk of having a
> psychotic episode. Especially if they use it on a regular basis.'
> "-- Stanley Zammit of Cardiff University, one of the researchers who found
> that people who had used marijuana at least once were 41 per cent more
> likely to experience psychosis, including schizophrenia, hallucinations and
> hearing voices, than those who had never used the drug. Frequent pot
> smokers -- defined as daily or weekly users of marijuana -- had a 50-200 per
> cent greater likelihood."
>
> Notice that the experience of psychosis "includes" but is not limited to
> schizophrenia. As the E.R. doc said, many people have the one experience of
> delusional thinking, that is, drug-induced psychosis, and back off of the
> weed and don't have a recurring experience. These experiences would never
> be recorded as schizophrenia.
But what is cause and what is effect? It has already been determined
that many people who use ecstacy are self-medicating for depression
that they don't even realize they have.
-M
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 19:14:13
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
"Marian" <marian.rosenberg@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1187252047.140234.77260@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> But what is cause and what is effect? It has already been determined
> that many people who use ecstacy are self-medicating for depression
> that they don't even realize they have.
Determined by whom?
|
| |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 11:45:27
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
On Aug 13, 9:06 am, "Jim Flom" <jim.flomREM...@telus.net > wrote:
> "Kyle Legate" <lega...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5hs5qbF3m6cukU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jim Flom wrote:
>
> >> Never received your emailed retort.
>
> > Interesting. I double checked my sent mails, the address was correct.
> > Maybe I'm filtered as junk (hey hey HEY. no murmuring from the audience).
>
> >> Science's strength is also its weakness in the hands of dummies. You or
> >> I might want to seize the position we prefer based this or that study
> >> (e.g., global warming). The fact is that I can't isolate the one
> >> article/study and conclude pot causes psychosis as if it is some kind of
> >> natural law, and you can't walk away from the meta-analysis study and
> >> simply dismiss it (well you could but it would be dishonest science
> >> convincing only yourself). What it does do is add to the body of
> >> knowledge as we keep growing in our understanding of cannabis. And one
> >> another. Peace love dove...
>
> > Well, I know now that if I graduate to regular heavy use I should keep my
> > eyes open for signs of psychosis. Maybe marijuana and rbr have something
> > in common.
>
> I just came across this quote that I had clipped and its context, addressing
> the frequency question, that I pulled from the article:
> "'... we think the evidence is strong enough that people should be made
> aware that if they use cannabis they have an increased risk of having a
> psychotic episode. Especially if they use it on a regular basis.'
Assuming for the moment it is true, yeah, an "episode" -- not
"permanent psychosis" as CV said at least twice.
> "-- Stanley Zammit of Cardiff University, one of the researchers who found
> that people who had used marijuana at least once were 41 per cent more
> likely to experience psychosis, including schizophrenia, hallucinations and
> hearing voices, than those who had never used the drug. Frequent pot
> smokers -- defined as daily or weekly users of marijuana -- had a 50-200 per
> cent greater likelihood."
>
> Notice that the experience of psychosis "includes" but is not limited to
> schizophrenia. As the E.R. doc said, many people have the one experience of
> delusional thinking, that is, drug-induced psychosis, and back off of the
> weed and don't have a recurring experience.
So weed usage is self-regulating in this sense.
I offer free advice: don't smoke weed.
I was advised to stop posting to rbr. Good advice, really -- better
than mine.
> These experiences would never
> be recorded as schizophrenia.
|
| |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 11:35:31
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
On Aug 6, 7:20 am, "Jim Flom" <jim.flomREM...@telus.net > wrote:
> Grow ops get busted all the time around here, but
> you wonder what it is all accomplishing.
It accomplishes welfare for drug cops, judges, lawyers, and jailers.
|
| |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 01:10:58
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
Bill C wrote:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/aug07/aug04news
http://www.velonews.com/train/articles/13064.0.html
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 06:50:21
From:
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
On Aug 5, 11:20 pm, Kyle Legate <lega...@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
> It was spiked, perhaps with a dusting of PCP. If the dealer gets his
> supply from bikers it's likely to happen time to time. Unadulterated pot
> will not promote psychosis, but bikers looking to supply the strongest
> stuff in the city are prone to adding a little extra to the buds.
Always interesting to see comments like this from Kyle despite the
medical literature to the contrary.
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 20:39:35
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
On Aug 5, 5:53 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
> RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Not just cyclists. It's the Bob Ojeda Syndrome. From Wiki:
> > He pitched well in 1988 but was involved in what some consider one of
> > the most ridiculous accidents in baseball history when he severed the
> > tip of his left middle finger while trimming his hedges in mid-
> > September.
>
> I do not believe the stories athletes tell when
> recounting their injuries. Hedge trimming accident?
> Puhleeeze. A local baseball player suffered serious
> injuries in the off-season, told come crapola story,
> found out he was doing motorcycle stunts in a parking
> lot. Some athlete broke his wrist, said it happened
> when the golf cart stopped abruptly; yeah, he was drunk
> and riding on top of the golf cart. Anybody believes
> these stories lacks a critical facility. They injure
> themselves doing stupid shit.
Yeah, like in Ojeda's case, trimming hedges instead of having a
gardener do it. Whether he was drunk, doped or deranged, WTF does it
matter? It's an athlete getting injured gardening theme, not the
usual athlete lying and making stupid excuses theme.
R
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 03:33:47
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
On Aug 5, 2:55 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
> Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:
> > > But a half century
> > > of bio-engineering by potheads has
> > > created a weed that is so strong, that
> > > regular use will cause a certain mental
> > > breakdown.
>
> > Potheads doing bio-engineering must be a haphazard process, a bit like
> > Shakespeare's monkeys or beavis and butthead do astrophysics.
>
> I'm sure Benjamin is a perfectly adequate astrophysicist.
Sorry dude, what was that? I was looking at
my hand. Have you ever looked at your hand,
I mean _really_ looked at it?
Hey, got any Clif bars?
Ben
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 00:01:00
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
-
HOLD THE MAYO!!!
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 16:28:12
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
On Aug 5, 5:29 am, Crescentius Vespasianus <jazzyb...@hotmail.com >
wrote:
> > Trying to link everything negative that happens to doping is
> > ridiculous.
> > Did you take "Reefer Madness" for an accurate documentary?
> > This was a scumbag publicity grab. As Howard suggested it has a lot
> > more in common with Fred Phelps than a decent human being.
> > Bill C
>
> ----------------
> Funny you brought up reefer madness,
> because I read a news story the other
> day that the predictions of permanent
> psychosis caused by regular smoking of
> pot has now become reality. Of course
> when they made reefer madness, it was a
> cartoon, because the weed in those days
> was more likely to give you headache
> than get you high. But a half century
> of bio-engineering by potheads has
> created a weed that is so strong, that
> regular use will cause a certain mental
> breakdown.
Dumbass -
That is such an incredible load of crock.
In this country we are surrounded by potheads who function very well.
Personally, I don't like the stuff (puts me to sleep), but have plenty
of friends who are chronic. Don't see any signs of psychosis in any of
them.
Other recreational drugs, ya, but not marijuana.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 18:47:53
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
In article <1186356492.440691.154100@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com >,
Kurgan Gringioni <kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Aug 5, 5:29 am, Crescentius Vespasianus <jazzyb...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > Trying to link everything negative that happens to doping is
> > > ridiculous.
> > > Did you take "Reefer Madness" for an accurate documentary?
> > > This was a scumbag publicity grab. As Howard suggested it has a lot
> > > more in common with Fred Phelps than a decent human being.
> > > Bill C
> >
> > ----------------
> > Funny you brought up reefer madness,
> > because I read a news story the other
> > day that the predictions of permanent
> > psychosis caused by regular smoking of
> > pot has now become reality. Of course
> > when they made reefer madness, it was a
> > cartoon, because the weed in those days
> > was more likely to give you headache
> > than get you high. But a half century
> > of bio-engineering by potheads has
> > created a weed that is so strong, that
> > regular use will cause a certain mental
> > breakdown.
>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> That is such an incredible load of crock.
>
> In this country we are surrounded by potheads who function very well.
> Personally, I don't like the stuff (puts me to sleep), but have plenty
> of friends who are chronic. Don't see any signs of psychosis in any of
> them.
Oh, I can buy what he said if you define "permanent psychosis" and "a certain
mental breakdown" as being really forgetful and not very considerate. Otherwise, no.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 00:46:22
From: Jim Flom
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1186356492.440691.154100@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 5, 5:29 am, Crescentius Vespasianus <jazzyb...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> > Trying to link everything negative that happens to doping is
>> > ridiculous.
>> > Did you take "Reefer Madness" for an accurate documentary?
>> > This was a scumbag publicity grab. As Howard suggested it has a lot
>> > more in common with Fred Phelps than a decent human being.
>> > Bill C
>>
>> ----------------
>> Funny you brought up reefer madness,
>> because I read a news story the other
>> day that the predictions of permanent
>> psychosis caused by regular smoking of
>> pot has now become reality. Of course
>> when they made reefer madness, it was a
>> cartoon, because the weed in those days
>> was more likely to give you headache
>> than get you high. But a half century
>> of bio-engineering by potheads has
>> created a weed that is so strong, that
>> regular use will cause a certain mental
>> breakdown.
>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> That is such an incredible load of crock.
>
> In this country we are surrounded by potheads who function very well.
> Personally, I don't like the stuff (puts me to sleep), but have plenty
> of friends who are chronic. Don't see any signs of psychosis in any of
> them.
>
> Other recreational drugs, ya, but not marijuana.
Dumbass -
Anecdotal. The study said subjects are 200 times more likely to experience
a psychotic episode than non-smokers. Anecdotally, I've seen it recently in
a close family member first-hand. Scared the sh*t out of us (and I was a
daily user back in the day). While we there getting a mental health eval
done, the E.R. doc told us despite what all the advocates for relaxed laws
here in permissive Canada say, he's seen multiple cases of psychotic
delusional thinking in that E.R. from nothing more than the whacky tobacky.
It's real. We've seen it.
JF
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 17:12:25
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
Jim Flom wrote:
> Scared the sh*t out of us (and I was a daily user back in the day).
The sermons must have been disjointed.
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 18:17:01
From: Jim Flom
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
"Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:46b73a4b$0$4368$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
> Jim Flom wrote:
>> Scared the sh*t out of us (and I was a daily user back in the day).
>
> The sermons must have been dis_jointed_.
They really went to pot.
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 16:55:07
From: Jim Flom
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
"Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:46b73a4b$0$4368$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
> Jim Flom wrote:
>> Scared the sh*t out of us (and I was a daily user back in the day).
>
> The sermons must have been disjointed.
I was more into the Carlos Castaneda at the time, and between the weed and
the peyote, they seemed simply fascinating. To me anyway.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 08:20:33
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
Jim Flom wrote:
>
> Anecdotal. The study said subjects are 200 times more likely to experience
> a psychotic episode than non-smokers. Anecdotally, I've seen it recently in
> a close family member first-hand. Scared the sh*t out of us (and I was a
> daily user back in the day). While we there getting a mental health eval
> done, the E.R. doc told us despite what all the advocates for relaxed laws
> here in permissive Canada say, he's seen multiple cases of psychotic
> delusional thinking in that E.R. from nothing more than the whacky tobacky.
> It's real. We've seen it.
>
It was spiked, perhaps with a dusting of PCP. If the dealer gets his
supply from bikers it's likely to happen time to time. Unadulterated pot
will not promote psychosis, but bikers looking to supply the strongest
stuff in the city are prone to adding a little extra to the buds.
You're in BC, right? The only sure solution is to grow it yourself.
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 14:20:52
From: Jim Flom
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
"Kyle Legate" <legatek@hotmail.com > wrote...
>>
> It was spiked, perhaps with a dusting of PCP. If the dealer gets his
> supply from bikers it's likely to happen time to time. Unadulterated pot
> will not promote psychosis, but bikers looking to supply the strongest
> stuff in the city are prone to adding a little extra to the buds.
>
> You're in BC, right? The only sure solution is to grow it yourself.
I'd be curious to see you substantiate the above, because I think you're
wrong. The user was smoking daily and throughout the day. But you've got a
point on the latter. The Vancouver Sun reported a year or two ago that the
likelihood of jail time for running a (marijuana) grow-op (eration) does not
tilt higher than 50% until the _seventh_ conviction, and even then it's only
about a 52% likelihood. Grow ops get busted all the time around here, but
you wonder what it is all accomplishing.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 20:27:09
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
Jim Flom wrote:
> "Kyle Legate" <legatek@hotmail.com> wrote...
>> It was spiked, perhaps with a dusting of PCP. If the dealer gets his
>> supply from bikers it's likely to happen time to time. Unadulterated pot
>> will not promote psychosis, but bikers looking to supply the strongest
>> stuff in the city are prone to adding a little extra to the buds.
>>
>> You're in BC, right? The only sure solution is to grow it yourself.
>
> I'd be curious to see you substantiate the above, because I think you're
> wrong.
>
A quick google search turns up lots of information, including:
http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/pubs/pcp.pdf
http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/drug_guide/PCP
Specifically, the "how is it used?" section
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001945.htm
"Some cases of severe delirium, hallucinations, and violence have also
been reported. Such cases should raise suspicion that the marijuana may
have been laced with another agent, such as PCP."
And many, many others.
Anecdotally, when I was living in the land of plenty I obtained a sample
once which produced significant feelings of agitation and panic, and
that was through ingesting a single hit from a pipe. Rigorous testing
alongside an independent sample proved that these feelings were
reproducible, even months apart, and attributed to that single batch.
Knowing that the supplier obtained his product through contacts within
the Hell's Angels I concluded that this particular sample was
contaminated with another drug, most likely PCP since a small quantity
of powder could go unnoticed on the sweet, sweet buds.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 22:50:19
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
"Kyle Legate" <legatek@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:5hp7fvF3jniulU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001945.htm
> "Some cases of severe delirium, hallucinations, and violence have also
> been reported. Such cases should raise suspicion that the marijuana may
> have been laced with another agent, such as PCP."
"suspicion" - Kyle, our expert on doping, seems to be as fast on the draw
for newsarticles as he is for accused riders.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 19:28:54
From: Jim Flom
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
"Kyle Legate" <legatek@hotmail.com > wrote...
>
> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001945.htm
> "Some cases of severe delirium, hallucinations, and violence have also
> been reported. Such cases should raise suspicion that the marijuana may
> have been laced with another agent, such as PCP."
Actually, this citation, your excerpt included, plus the sentence above it:
"Unpleasant effects that may occur include depersonalization (inability to
distinguish oneself from others), changed body image, disorientation, and
acute panic reactions or severe paranoia."
supports my argument better than it does yours.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 19:06:41
From: Jim Flom
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
"Kyle Legate" <legatek@hotmail.com > wrote...
>>
> A quick google search turns up lots of information, including:
>
> http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/pubs/pcp.pdf
Says nothing disproving an association of pot with delusional thinking.
> http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/drug_guide/PCP
> Specifically, the "how is it used?" section
Same.
> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001945.htm
> "Some cases of severe delirium, hallucinations, and violence have also
> been reported. Such cases should raise suspicion that the marijuana may
> have been laced with another agent, such as PCP."
Same.
You make a good case for the effects of PCP. What I was asking you to do
Kyle is to both substantiate your assertion that the pot was spiked (you
have no way of knowing), as well as your assertion that "Unadulterated pot
will not promote psychosis."
For example, here's the article on a meta-study that says the opposite.
"Many consider it on par with alcohol or tobacco but the results shows
marijuana poses a danger many smokers underestimate, said Stanley Zammit, a
psychiatrist at Cardiff University and the University of Bristol, who worked
on the study... this study marks one of the most comprehensive, thorough and
reliable reviews of its kind and should serve as a warning, two Danish
researchers wrote in an accompanying comment in the Lancet medical journal,
which published the study on Friday... They said the results mean an
estimated 800 cases of schizophrenia in the United Kingdom could be
prevented each year by ending marijuana consumption.
"We therefore agree with the authors' conclusion that there is now
sufficient evidence to warn young people that cannabis use will increase
their risk of psychosis later in life," they wrote.
The team did not look directly at people who used marijuana but instead
conducted what is called a meta-analysis by reviewing 35 studies in search
of a potential connection between psychotic illness and using marijuana.
They reviewed evidence from studies ranging from one year to 27 years and
only looked at research that did not include people already showing signs of
psychotic illness.
The researchers also adjusted for factors -- like depression or a
susceptibility to harder drugs -- that could one day lead to a mental
disorder to focus more directly on the links between marijuana and
psychosis, Zammit said.
"We have described a consistent association between cannabis use and
psychotic symptoms, including disabling psychotic disorders," the team
wrote.
But both Zammit and the Danish researchers said ultimate proof to show a
direct relationship would be have to come through a randomized trial of
healthy young people and long-term follow-up.
Such a study, however, is unlikely given marijuana is illegal in most
countries and the ethical questions given the drug's known harmful effects,
they said."
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=3424b2ba-790f-453c-86bd-fc5ac41c2232&p=1
I don't think you can access that link so I emailed the article to you.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 08:19:45
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
Jim Flom wrote:
>
> I don't think you can access that link so I emailed the article to you.
>
>
Likewise, I emailed you my retort, but for the benefit of the list:
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/07/does_smoking_cannabis_cause_sc.php
http://tinyurl.com/2936ku
(Pubmed; primary research)
Furthermore, you have to consider who is paying for the research:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/07/the-pot-study.html
This is about as likely as left-handedness causing schizophrenia:
http://strikerdiary.blogspot.com/2007/08/left-handedness-gene-linked-to.html
Also, a brief note to address psychosis:
From the bbc : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6917003.stm "But
Professor Leslie Iverson, from the University of Oxford, said there was
still no conclusive evidence that cannabis use causes psychotic illness.
"Their prediction that 14% of psychotic outcomes in young adults in the
UK may be due to cannabis use is not supported by the fact that the
incidence of schizophrenia has not shown any significant change in the
past 30 years."
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 02:03:59
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
"Kyle Legate" <legatek@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:5hqh83F3kgk8dU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> Furthermore, you have to consider who is paying for the research:
Woga woga woga.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 16:14:44
From: Jim Flom
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote in message
news:jw9ui.14312$Od7.8032@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Kyle Legate" <legatek@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5hqh83F3kgk8dU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> Furthermore, you have to consider who is paying for the research:
>
> Woga woga woga.
Shouldn't that be Wada wada wada?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 16:10:36
From: Jim Flom
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
"Kyle Legate" <legatek@hotmail.com > wrote...
>
> Likewise, I emailed you my retort, but for the benefit of the list:
Never received your emailed retort.
> http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/07/does_smoking_cannabis_cause_sc.php
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2936ku
> (Pubmed; primary research)
Thanks for this. What I'm not seeing in the abstract is factoring in
frequency of use. The article on the meta-analysis cited _heavy_ pot use as
correlating with psychosis. What I see in the abstract you provide doesn't
account for frequency: "METHOD: We used a case register that contained 757
cases of first onset schizophrenia, 182 (24%) of whom had used cannabis in
the year prior to first presentation..." Did they use it once? Once a
month? Etc.
> From the bbc : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6917003.stm "But
> Professor Leslie Iverson, from the University of Oxford, said there was
> still no conclusive evidence that cannabis use causes psychotic illness.
>
> "Their prediction that 14% of psychotic outcomes in young adults in the UK
> may be due to cannabis use is not supported by the fact that the incidence
> of schizophrenia has not shown any significant change in the past 30
> years."
Interesting point. What the context of that statement doesn't provide are
reliable estimates of trends in pot use during that 30 year period. In other
words if the incidence of schizophrenia is unchanged, but pot use is
unchanged it doesn't prove anything. On the other hand, if it has declined
since the '70s (!), it lends weight to the argument that as strains of weed
have grown more potent the risk of psychosis increases with it.
I do like the balance of the BBC article in taking care to provide a couple
of opposing perspectives. But it's also significant that 'Professor Robin
Murray, professor of psychiatry at London's Institute of Psychiatry, said of
the Bristol study: "The studies they looked at were done in the 70s, 80s and
90s. One of the questions they can't address is whether the risk is higher
with the more concentrated skunk forms of cannabis, which are now widely
available."'
Science's strength is also its weakness in the hands of dummies. You or I
might want to seize the position we prefer based this or that study (e.g.,
global warming). The fact is that I can't isolate the one article/study and
conclude pot causes psychosis as if it is some kind of natural law, and you
can't walk away from the meta-analysis study and simply dismiss it (well you
could but it would be dishonest science convincing only yourself). What it
does do is add to the body of knowledge as we keep growing in our
understanding of cannabis. And one another. Peace love dove...
JF
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 02:11:03
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
"Jim Flom" <jim.flomREMOVE@telus.net > wrote in message
news:0Q0ui.81131$tB5.58011@edtnps90...
> "Kyle Legate" <legatek@hotmail.com> wrote...
>>
>> Likewise, I emailed you my retort, but for the benefit of the list:
>
> Never received your emailed retort.
>
>> http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/07/does_smoking_cannabis_cause_sc.php
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2936ku
>> (Pubmed; primary research)
>
> Thanks for this. What I'm not seeing in the abstract is factoring in
> frequency of use. The article on the meta-analysis cited _heavy_ pot use
> as correlating with psychosis. What I see in the abstract you provide
> doesn't account for frequency: "METHOD: We used a case register that
> contained 757 cases of first onset schizophrenia, 182 (24%) of whom had
> used cannabis in the year prior to first presentation..." Did they use it
> once? Once a month? Etc.
Heavy use in most research is considered to be one joint a day.
>> From the bbc : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6917003.stm "But
>> Professor Leslie Iverson, from the University of Oxford, said there was
>> still no conclusive evidence that cannabis use causes psychotic illness.
>>
>> "Their prediction that 14% of psychotic outcomes in young adults in the
>> UK may be due to cannabis use is not supported by the fact that the
>> incidence of schizophrenia has not shown any significant change in the
>> past 30 years."
In the first place schizophrenia is just a single form of psychosis. Bipolar
disorder is probably more common.
In my experience schizophrenia is pretty much set by your genes but bipolar
is more strongly attached to your behavior and learning. Of course I'm sure
that it is also strongly connected by the way you're wired but I think that
the majority of the population go through manic and depressive episodes all
the time and it is the extremes of these states that are considered
psychosis and not the more mild forms which we would all call "normal
consciencionousness".
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 23:16:58
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
Jim Flom wrote:
>
> Never received your emailed retort.
>
Interesting. I double checked my sent mails, the address was correct.
Maybe I'm filtered as junk (hey hey HEY. no murmuring from the audience).
> Science's strength is also its weakness in the hands of dummies. You or I
> might want to seize the position we prefer based this or that study (e.g.,
> global warming). The fact is that I can't isolate the one article/study and
> conclude pot causes psychosis as if it is some kind of natural law, and you
> can't walk away from the meta-analysis study and simply dismiss it (well you
> could but it would be dishonest science convincing only yourself). What it
> does do is add to the body of knowledge as we keep growing in our
> understanding of cannabis. And one another. Peace love dove...
>
Well, I know now that if I graduate to regular heavy use I should keep
my eyes open for signs of psychosis. Maybe marijuana and rbr have
something in common.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 16:06:23
From: Jim Flom
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
"Kyle Legate" <legatek@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:5hs5qbF3m6cukU1@mid.individual.net...
> Jim Flom wrote:
>>
>> Never received your emailed retort.
>>
> Interesting. I double checked my sent mails, the address was correct.
> Maybe I'm filtered as junk (hey hey HEY. no murmuring from the audience).
>
>> Science's strength is also its weakness in the hands of dummies. You or
>> I might want to seize the position we prefer based this or that study
>> (e.g., global warming). The fact is that I can't isolate the one
>> article/study and conclude pot causes psychosis as if it is some kind of
>> natural law, and you can't walk away from the meta-analysis study and
>> simply dismiss it (well you could but it would be dishonest science
>> convincing only yourself). What it does do is add to the body of
>> knowledge as we keep growing in our understanding of cannabis. And one
>> another. Peace love dove...
>>
> Well, I know now that if I graduate to regular heavy use I should keep my
> eyes open for signs of psychosis. Maybe marijuana and rbr have something
> in common.
I just came across this quote that I had clipped and its context, addressing
the frequency question, that I pulled from the article:
"'... we think the evidence is strong enough that people should be made
aware that if they use cannabis they have an increased risk of having a
psychotic episode. Especially if they use it on a regular basis.'
"-- Stanley Zammit of Cardiff University, one of the researchers who found
that people who had used marijuana at least once were 41 per cent more
likely to experience psychosis, including schizophrenia, hallucinations and
hearing voices, than those who had never used the drug. Frequent pot
smokers -- defined as daily or weekly users of marijuana -- had a 50-200 per
cent greater likelihood."
Notice that the experience of psychosis "includes" but is not limited to
schizophrenia. As the E.R. doc said, many people have the one experience of
delusional thinking, that is, drug-induced psychosis, and back off of the
weed and don't have a recurring experience. These experiences would never
be recorded as schizophrenia.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 09:56:17
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
Kyle Legate wrote:
> "Their prediction that 14% of psychotic outcomes in young adults in the
> UK may be due to cannabis use is not supported by the fact that the
> incidence of schizophrenia has not shown any significant change in the
> past 30 years."
However it has been conclusively shown that LSD is bad for elephants:
http://scienceblogs.com/retrospectacle/2007/05/science_vault_how_much_lsd_doe_1.php
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 02:11:39
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
"Jim Flom" <jim.flomREMOVE@telus.net > wrote in message
news:ybuti.96416$xk5.43950@edtnps82...
>
> Anecdotal. The study said subjects are 200 times more likely to
> experience a psychotic episode than non-smokers. Anecdotally, I've seen
> it recently in a close family member first-hand. Scared the sh*t out of
> us (and I was a daily user back in the day). While we there getting a
> mental health eval done, the E.R. doc told us despite what all the
> advocates for relaxed laws here in permissive Canada say, he's seen
> multiple cases of psychotic delusional thinking in that E.R. from nothing
> more than the whacky tobacky. It's real. We've seen it.
You actually are arguing with Henry, the inventor of the greeting,
"Dumbass!"?
He's been on drugs since '81.
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 02:24:27
From: Jim Flom
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote in message
news:vrvti.13260$rR.11783@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Jim Flom" <jim.flomREMOVE@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:ybuti.96416$xk5.43950@edtnps82...
>>
>> Anecdotal. The study said subjects are 200 times more likely to
>> experience a psychotic episode than non-smokers. Anecdotally, I've seen
>> it recently in a close family member first-hand. Scared the sh*t out of
>> us (and I was a daily user back in the day). While we there getting a
>> mental health eval done, the E.R. doc told us despite what all the
>> advocates for relaxed laws here in permissive Canada say, he's seen
>> multiple cases of psychotic delusional thinking in that E.R. from nothing
>> more than the whacky tobacky. It's real. We've seen it.
>
> You actually are arguing with Henry, the inventor of the greeting,
> "Dumbass!"?
Could be worse. I could be arguing with you.
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 13:53:27
From: Crescentius Vespasianus
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
>
> Anecdotal. The study said subjects are 200 times more likely to experience
> a psychotic episode than non-smokers. Anecdotally, I've seen it recently in
> a close family member first-hand. Scared the sh*t out of us (and I was a
> daily user back in the day). While we there getting a mental health eval
> done, the E.R. doc told us despite what all the advocates for relaxed laws
> here in permissive Canada say, he's seen multiple cases of psychotic
> delusional thinking in that E.R. from nothing more than the whacky tobacky.
> It's real. We've seen it.
>
> JF
>
----------------
Of course it's real, the new weed bends
minds in very unfortunate ways. Maybe
the others are still smokin' dirt weed
and getting ripped off, but for the ones
who are getting the real '07 primo
stuff, they are playing a game of
russian roulette. Reefer madness
finally became real in the 21st century.
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 09:06:18
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
On Aug 4, 2:28 pm, Crescentius Vespasianus <jazzyb...@hotmail.com >
wrote:
>
> ---------------
> Do you think that if alcohol was a cause
> in a car fatality, that they should also
> hide that from the public? In the
> 1950's, people were astonished to see so
> many people dying in car crashes, only
> later when the newspapers started
> reporting that alcohol was involved did
> the public start being educated about
> the cause of all these deaths. It's sad
> for the families involved that their
> Dad, or son died in a car crash because
> he was drunk, but the public has a right
> to know what is behind all the mayhem.
Trying to link everything negative that happens to doping is
ridiculous.
Did you take "Reefer Madness" for an accurate documentary?
This was a scumbag publicity grab. As Howard suggested it has a lot
more in common with Fred Phelps than a decent human being.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 05:29:33
From: Crescentius Vespasianus
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
> Trying to link everything negative that happens to doping is
> ridiculous.
> Did you take "Reefer Madness" for an accurate documentary?
> This was a scumbag publicity grab. As Howard suggested it has a lot
> more in common with Fred Phelps than a decent human being.
> Bill C
----------------
Funny you brought up reefer madness,
because I read a news story the other
day that the predictions of permanent
psychosis caused by regular smoking of
pot has now become reality. Of course
when they made reefer madness, it was a
cartoon, because the weed in those days
was more likely to give you headache
than get you high. But a half century
of bio-engineering by potheads has
created a weed that is so strong, that
regular use will cause a certain mental
breakdown.
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 20:20:39
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:
> But a half century
> of bio-engineering by potheads has
> created a weed that is so strong, that
> regular use will cause a certain mental
> breakdown.
Potheads doing bio-engineering must be a haphazard process, a bit like
Shakespeare's monkeys or beavis and butthead do astrophysics.
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 14:55:49
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
In article
<46b61579$0$8618$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com >,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:
> > But a half century
> > of bio-engineering by potheads has
> > created a weed that is so strong, that
> > regular use will cause a certain mental
> > breakdown.
>
> Potheads doing bio-engineering must be a haphazard process, a bit like
> Shakespeare's monkeys or beavis and butthead do astrophysics.
I'm sure Benjamin is a perfectly adequate astrophysicist.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 07:28:04
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
On Aug 5, 4:18 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > They already know what happened, he had a known potential
> > complication, albeit an unlikely one, to the surgical procedure he
> > underwent. It could've happened to anyone.
>
> It was probably not a good idea to fly home so soon after the operation
> given the known circulation problems on long flights, particularly in
> economy class. Apparently he also did some gardening once home which
> probably was also not a good idea. Come to think of it gardening is
> dangerous for cyclists, I seem to recall McEwen (or maybe it was O"Grady)
> injuring their back while gardening just before the tour a few years ago.
Not just cyclists. It's the Bob Ojeda Syndrome. From Wiki:
He pitched well in 1988 but was involved in what some consider one of
the most ridiculous accidents in baseball history when he severed the
tip of his left middle finger while trimming his hedges in mid-
September.
The old cyclists had the right idea. No swimming, no ice cream, don't
use the legs unless you're riding or boinking. That's how they got to
be old cyclists.
R
|
| | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 14:53:53
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
In article
<1186324084.469745.220690@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >,
RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com > wrote:
> On Aug 5, 4:18 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Scott wrote:
> > > They already know what happened, he had a known potential
> > > complication, albeit an unlikely one, to the surgical procedure he
> > > underwent. It could've happened to anyone.
> >
> > It was probably not a good idea to fly home so soon after the operation
> > given the known circulation problems on long flights, particularly in
> > economy class. Apparently he also did some gardening once home which
> > probably was also not a good idea. Come to think of it gardening is
> > dangerous for cyclists, I seem to recall McEwen (or maybe it was O"Grady)
> > injuring their back while gardening just before the tour a few years ago.
>
> Not just cyclists. It's the Bob Ojeda Syndrome. From Wiki:
> He pitched well in 1988 but was involved in what some consider one of
> the most ridiculous accidents in baseball history when he severed the
> tip of his left middle finger while trimming his hedges in mid-
> September.
I do not believe the stories athletes tell when
recounting their injuries. Hedge trimming accident?
Puhleeeze. A local baseball player suffered serious
injuries in the off-season, told come crapola story,
found out he was doing motorcycle stunts in a parking
lot. Some athlete broke his wrist, said it happened
when the golf cart stopped abruptly; yeah, he was drunk
and riding on top of the golf cart. Anybody believes
these stories lacks a critical facility. They injure
themselves doing stupid shit.
> The old cyclists had the right idea. No swimming, no ice cream, don't
> use the legs unless you're riding or boinking. That's how they got to
> be old cyclists.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 05:24:49
From: Scott
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
On Aug 5, 2:18 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > They already know what happened, he had a known potential
> > complication, albeit an unlikely one, to the surgical procedure he
> > underwent. It could've happened to anyone.
>
> It was probably not a good idea to fly home so soon after the operation
> given the known circulation problems on long flights, particularly in
> economy class. Apparently he also did some gardening once home which
> probably was also not a good idea. Come to think of it gardening is
> dangerous for cyclists, I seem to recall McEwen (or maybe it was O"Grady)
> injuring their back while gardening just before the tour a few years ago.
Yeah, he probably shouldn't have flown so soon after the surgery.
|
| |
Date: 04 Aug 2007 20:42:23
From: Scott
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
On Aug 4, 12:28 pm, Crescentius Vespasianus <jazzyb...@hotmail.com >
wrote:
> > That is just so fucked up and disgusting. The anti-doping zealots and
> > their belief everyone is a scumbag, and total lack of respect for
> > anyone or anything makes me want to puke. I wonder if he's going to
> > go to the funeral and tell the kids mother, "He was probably a doper,
> > and killed himself with the stuff. Good thing too!"?
> > Just when you think humans can't sink much lower...
> > Bill C
>
> ---------------
> Do you think that if alcohol was a cause
> in a car fatality, that they should also
> hide that from the public? In the
> 1950's, people were astonished to see so
> many people dying in car crashes, only
> later when the newspapers started
> reporting that alcohol was involved did
> the public start being educated about
> the cause of all these deaths. It's sad
> for the families involved that their
> Dad, or son died in a car crash because
> he was drunk, but the public has a right
> to know what is behind all the mayhem.
They already know what happened, he had a known potential
complication, albeit an unlikely one, to the surgical procedure he
underwent. It could've happened to anyone.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 10:18:19
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
Scott wrote:
> They already know what happened, he had a known potential
> complication, albeit an unlikely one, to the surgical procedure he
> underwent. It could've happened to anyone.
It was probably not a good idea to fly home so soon after the operation
given the known circulation problems on long flights, particularly in
economy class. Apparently he also did some gardening once home which
probably was also not a good idea. Come to think of it gardening is
dangerous for cyclists, I seem to recall McEwen (or maybe it was O"Grady)
injuring their back while gardening just before the tour a few years ago.
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 09:22:48
From: Carl Sundquist
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
"Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:46b5884e$0$8622$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
> It was probably not a good idea to fly home so soon after the operation
> given the known circulation problems on long flights, particularly in
> economy class. Apparently he also did some gardening once home which
> probably was also not a good idea. Come to think of it gardening is
> dangerous for cyclists, I seem to recall McEwen (or maybe it was O"Grady)
> injuring their back while gardening just before the tour a few years ago.
McGee, I think.
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 16:58:11
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
Dans le message de news:p3lti.35$Pv4.21@newsfe19.lga,
Carl Sundquist <carlsun@cox.net > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> "Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:46b5884e$0$8622$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
>>
>> It was probably not a good idea to fly home so soon after the
>> operation given the known circulation problems on long flights,
>> particularly in economy class. Apparently he also did some gardening
>> once home which probably was also not a good idea. Come to think of
>> it gardening is dangerous for cyclists, I seem to recall McEwen (or
>> maybe it was O"Grady) injuring their back while gardening just
>> before the tour a few years ago.
>
> McGee, I think.
All those Anglo-Saxons look the same.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 18:55:49
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
Carl Sundquist wrote:
>> McGee, I think.
Sandy wrote:
> All those Anglo-Saxons look the same.
All those Irish Aussies look the same.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 20:52:58
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
Dans le message de news:46b60197$0$4356$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Carl Sundquist wrote:
>>> McGee, I think.
>
> Sandy wrote:
>> All those Anglo-Saxons look the same.
>
> All those Irish Aussies look the same.
Ahhh!! Purebreds.
|
| |
Date: 04 Aug 2007 11:28:31
From: Crescentius Vespasianus
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
> That is just so fucked up and disgusting. The anti-doping zealots and
> their belief everyone is a scumbag, and total lack of respect for
> anyone or anything makes me want to puke. I wonder if he's going to
> go to the funeral and tell the kids mother, "He was probably a doper,
> and killed himself with the stuff. Good thing too!"?
> Just when you think humans can't sink much lower...
> Bill C
---------------
Do you think that if alcohol was a cause
in a car fatality, that they should also
hide that from the public? In the
1950's, people were astonished to see so
many people dying in car crashes, only
later when the newspapers started
reporting that alcohol was involved did
the public start being educated about
the cause of all these deaths. It's sad
for the families involved that their
Dad, or son died in a car crash because
he was drunk, but the public has a right
to know what is behind all the mayhem.
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 20:48:07
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: When's it enough??
|
In article <1186190017.699896.148190@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com >,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/aug07/aug04news
>
> Barloworld rejects calls for UCI investigation of Cox's death
> By Susan Westemeyer
>
> Quoted:
>
>
> Cox died Wednesday morning of complications following surgery on a leg
> artery.
>
> The South African cyclist started his pro career with the team Amore &
> Vita, whose manager Ivano Fanini this week said that he hoped the
> death was not related to doping. "How many riders have resorted to
> EPO, which renders the blood dense and can cause serious vascular
> problems." He called on the UCI to "open an investigation into the
> true cause of this death."
Oh, Fanini has always been a grandstanding, self-righteous asshole. Saying this is
part and parcel of his attention-seeking way.
> That is just so fucked up and disgusting. The anti-doping zealots and
> their belief everyone is a scumbag, and total lack of respect for
> anyone or anything makes me want to puke. I wonder if he's going to
> go to the funeral and tell the kids mother, "He was probably a doper,
> and killed himself with the stuff. Good thing too!"?
The Italian Fred Phelps?
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
|
