Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Michael Weiss [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrewmc wrote:
...

I would be interested to know the results of Weiss drug tests

Would it matter? I think the assumption is most pro's know how to not show up glowing on race day. A negative drug test doesn't mean much these days.
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [SBRcanuck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Fair point
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [jordanac] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This gets funnier and funnier

The signals are looking a little less virtuous........

Something about no sin and casting stones or living in glass houses...........
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [jordanac] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jordanac wrote:
Kirsty - I noticed that you wore Betty gear in your race this past weekend and the kit for the brand is made by Hincapie Sportswear... owned by confessed doper George Hincapie. Just fyi

and i happen to know a little about you. isn't it true that you entered a race that used, as its volunteer coordinator, a person known to be the closest personal friend to a known philologist; and who himself engages in glossolalia? just sayin' ;-)

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That one sent me to the dictionary. Twice.
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The difference in all of these examples is a direct vs indirect relationship (besides the Sutton connection). Are we going to start questioning her food choices because company XYZ has questionable ethical standards?

She merely pointed out the inconsistencies in defending some dopers while throwing others under the bus. Phil Gaimon(ing) it if you will...

Let’s keep this thing on track. Dopers suck!


https://twitter.com/mungub
http://benmunguia.blogspot.com
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [wetswimmer99] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I did this one last year and I'm fairly confident it was around 12.6 miles
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [mbwallis] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mbwallis wrote:
That one sent me to the dictionary. Twice.

then my job is done here.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [TriathlonJoe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TriathlonJoe wrote:
I need to get me some of these Tuesday meds people keep talking about. lol

Bahaha, Thanks for the morning laugh. Would have been better if I had read this on Tuesday instead of today.


Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Speed Hound vs Normatec | Top 10 Wetsuit Buying Tips | Best CHEAP cycling sunglasses | Normatec Pulse Gen 2 | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | 10 Reasons To Consider HED JET+
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [mungub50] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 "I don't understand why any athlete would want to support a doper's clothing line, it is insanity to me. I got shit on for speaking up for what I think is right"

This is what she said whilst wearing hincapie clothing and being coached by a child rapist........

Rapists suck
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [jordanac] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jordanac wrote:
Kirsty - I noticed that you wore Betty gear in your race this past weekend and the kit for the brand is made by Hincapie Sportswear... owned by confessed doper George Hincapie.

Just fyi


I am not sure Kirsty would even know that fact as I certainly didn't and it would give no indication on their website of that fact. Just as most people don't know that you have been to the Island House triathlon how many times??? There is a difference in knowingly supporting a doper directly and unknowingly supporting a doper indirectly. If you have been in the sport as deep as I am you know doubt know some stories that are not public but are true and can be truly sad.

If there is anything that came from the 2016 election (regardless of political affiliation) is there is a huge difference between what people say they are going to do (exit polls) and what they actually do (votes tallied), maybe because of fear of being bullied. I respect any professional that has the courage to call out doping in public. It isn't a popular choice and often receives blowback. If they don't know before, they will shortly after, and that is it takes tremendous emotional energy to get thru the blowback and that affects workout, recovery, etc.

As for me, I have been outspoken about this publicly over and over again and that is the interference of the lead vehicle in races. It can have a greater effect than doping IMHO and I always bringing it up at pro meetings and sometimes in public. I have been fighting it for years and I have taken abuse. I have never seen Luke bring it up or fight for it, maybe he has but not in my direct presence. I would also state publicly if I ever had a TUE for anything. I wonder if Luke, Beth, and Kirsty would do the same? But most pros aren't this bold as they don't want to rock the boat so I understand if they don't but I am not going to gang up on on someone that does as I already know how much courage it takes to say "screw the *cool* kids, screw the fame, screw the wins and success, screw the money"

Curious why would you make this about Kirsty? Are you affiliated with Wyn in any way or is this just a Beth friends thing? Fwiw, Beth has always been kind and I too want to believe that it was contamination and hope it is. I have said this publicly, I want to know what brand it was. Forget about the lawyers, forget about the settlement, NDAs whatever, and do the right thing for your peers, for humanity. Help them out by shedding light on the product that got you banned. Too many sealed lawsuits have allowed too many shady actors to perpetuate for too long.


Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Speed Hound vs Normatec | Top 10 Wetsuit Buying Tips | Best CHEAP cycling sunglasses | Normatec Pulse Gen 2 | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | 10 Reasons To Consider HED JET+
Last edited by: Thomas Gerlach: May 31, 18 8:54
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrewmc wrote:
"I don't understand why any athlete would want to support a doper's clothing line, it is insanity to me. I got shit on for speaking up for what I think is right"

This is what she said whilst wearing hincapie clothing and being coached by a child rapist........

Rapists suck

can i just say that in all your posts about virtue signaling, which started well enough, you're starting to sound conspicuously like what you're arguing against. i'm not particularly a fan of hincapie; nor of sutton; nor of the prince of bahrain; nor of michi weiss; nor of a lot of people who have behaved badly, very badly, or questionably in their pasts. but my post in fun an hour ago didn't seem to have it's intended effect.

the one idea to which i most strongly cling, that i must believe in, that would sink me if i didn't believe in it, is redemption. to be clear, redemption should only be offered to those who seek it, and if you don't think you're guilty you don't seek it. so, yes, one problem we have with all the bad actors discussed here is that their various bad acts have only imperfectly been cleansed by the acknowledgement of the actions and the request for redemption.

nevertheless, some folks have seen their ways clear to offer redemption. (yes, i think those folks might want to speak to why they've seen fit to offer it; but i don't begrudge anyone extending redemption.) please give these folks the freedom to offer redemption.

now, yes, i get it, you're objecting to the hypocrisy of pointing out the sin in others while harboring a sin yourself. but when one person objects to the virtue signaling of another, and then a third party virtue signals against the virtual signaler, where is that going to stop? what we end up with is the inability to allow anyone to extend redemption, which resolves into a giant circle virtue jerk.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Thomas Gerlach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You - the royal you - do not get to demonstrate virtuous behaviour selectively

If you are going to call a person out for their behaviour in one domain, your own behaviour in another is fair game

You don't get to say "I can't forgive a doper" but "child rapists are ok" without opening your self up to the fair criticism that you are; a hypocrite, display an astounding cognitive dissonance and moral relativism........
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Thomas Gerlach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You can find the Betty connection over on the Hincapie site. But it does come off a bit ingenuous to talk about "supporting a doper's clothing company" when your sponsor is aligned with one. Yeah, we're getting into shades of responsibility, etc. and it winds up with no winners at the end of the day.

With regard to your last paragraph, although truth is an absolute defense in a defamation claim, you can bet your behind that you'd have a lawsuit on your hands the second the brand name is uttered. And that's simply a price many are unwilling to pay. I obviously can't speak on anyone's behalf on that - but that's the calculus involved. It's easy to say that you'd perform differently if in that situation - but I can't imagine most of us would be willing to contend with the legal bills associated with defending a civil claim. It's five figures, easily, even if you wind up with a dismissal/MSJ.

----------------------------------
Blog | Twitter
"It ain't easy being green..."
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [rrheisler] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
to you and mr. gerlach both: are you asking about a contaminated supplement? as you both certainly know USADA maintains this list.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My interpretation of Mr. Gerlach's post was requesting for the specific supplement to be named in the ostarine positives, to be named by those who tested positive and claimed supplement contamination. I was merely explaining why that was likely to not be the case by the individual.

And yes, that database is certainly useful in potentially filling in some of the details missing in the above examples.

----------------------------------
Blog | Twitter
"It ain't easy being green..."
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My point which has been lost in the midst of getting caught up in tackling apologists, is that I would let Weiss and Sutton, broadly speaking, get on with their lives, but if you decide you want to call one out, you better be whiter than white in the company you keep, or you can legitimately be called a hypocrite

Sutton did something two decades ago for which he will be both publicly and privately criticised and he has to live with it, as do his family, and his clients

Weiss did something alleged by a third party and he has to live with it

Neither needs to apologise to me, or anyone else, but it seems many are quick to get on the crucifixion band wagon and they may not have right on their side

I am not holding myself up as some arbiter of truth.

For example, my problem with lance was never thank he cheated, he worked within the system he was in. My problem - as if he cares- was the subsequent behaviour towards others.

That said. I take your point. I've made my point. I'm done.
Last edited by: Andrewmc: May 31, 18 8:24
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [rrheisler] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rrheisler wrote:
My interpretation of Mr. Gerlach's post was requesting for the specific supplement to be named in the ostarine positives, to be named by those who tested positive and claimed supplement contamination. I was merely explaining why that was likely to not be the case by the individual.

And yes, that database is certainly useful in potentially filling in some of the details missing in the above examples.

you're right. just, my guess is that this dbase likely answers mr. gerlach's question.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Agreed. I think there's an unrealistic expectation that athletes, in an instance of claiming tainted supplementation, will immediately be able to disclose the name of the product. Which, well, is just not going to happen; not with the ease of filing a suit and the likelihood that you're going to make it at least to a few motions, which is (as mentioned) a sizable dollar amount.

A somewhat analogous case going on right now - the defamation trial between Dr. Chris Amann and Phil Brooks (aka CM Punk). https://www.si.com/...nn-colt-cabana-trial

That...is not a cheap lawsuit going on.

----------------------------------
Blog | Twitter
"It ain't easy being green..."
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
rrheisler wrote:
My interpretation of Mr. Gerlach's post was requesting for the specific supplement to be named in the ostarine positives, to be named by those who tested positive and claimed supplement contamination. I was merely explaining why that was likely to not be the case by the individual.
And yes, that database is certainly useful in potentially filling in some of the details missing in the above examples.


you're right. just, my guess is that this dbase likely answers mr. gerlach's question.

I know about that list but my question is if the supplement Beth took is on that list? I would like to think so but do we know for sure? There has to be a better way to do this. Maybe even given shorter sentences for people who actually publicly name the product. With that being said, I can't access Supplement 411 right now. It seems to be locked behind a credential wall. Is this new?


Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Speed Hound vs Normatec | Top 10 Wetsuit Buying Tips | Best CHEAP cycling sunglasses | Normatec Pulse Gen 2 | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | 10 Reasons To Consider HED JET+
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Thomas Gerlach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That still doesn't remove the disincentive for an athlete to have to defend themselves against a defamation lawsuit. That's why this stuff doesn't come out in the open in 99% of cases.

----------------------------------
Blog | Twitter
"It ain't easy being green..."
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrewmc wrote:
You - the royal you - do not get to demonstrate virtuous behaviour selectively

If you are going to call a person out for their behaviour in one domain, your own behaviour in another is fair game

You don't get to say "I can't forgive a doper" but "child rapists are ok" without opening your self up to the fair criticism that you are; a hypocrite, display an astounding cognitive dissonance and moral relativism........

That is a fair point.


Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Speed Hound vs Normatec | Top 10 Wetsuit Buying Tips | Best CHEAP cycling sunglasses | Normatec Pulse Gen 2 | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | 10 Reasons To Consider HED JET+
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [windschatten] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
windschatten wrote:

I rather have him hammering the keyboard than beating his dog....
.
Well played! lol
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I guess I prefer seeing a convicted doper producing and selling clothes over a convicted doper still competing in sports.

Like I said before. I think dopers deserv a second chance - as a human being, not an athlete.

So it's great when an ex doper can find a job that makes him happy.
Quote Reply

Prev Next