How The Pro's Defeat The Anti Doping System

[Anonymous]

fair enough, i never claimed joe has profited. i said there is a potential to and i tried to explain how that might become a reality.

"Maybe it’s different when it’s close to you but I don’t forgive him and probably never will. The way some people in the forum respond to him, praising him for coming clean is beyond me. Thanks for coming clean but just saying you’re sorry doesn’t cut it for me. Justice will be served when he benefits in absolutely no way from cycling. He should not have a career as a celebrity confessor/blogger/author/speaker because of a cycling career that was a hoax. Can we allow a dishonest racing career to be parlayed into a successful career as a blogger? You admitted your mistake, you’ve told us everything that’s at all helpful (not much), now…

…GO AWAY. Get a regular job. Try working for a living. Contribute something positive to society outside of cycling. If he’s already doing that then good for him. I hope he's able to resolve his health concerns. Everyone deserves a second chance and best of luck to you in those endeavors but you have no right to participate in this beautiful sport anymore let alone benefit from it. If you want to coach cycling too bad unless you offer those services for free, no sponsorships, no adverts. Is he interested in donating services? Somehow I doubt it.

“You leave town tonight, right now, and when you're gone you STAY gone, or you'll BE gone, you lost all your LA privileges”

Sorry, it looks awfully like you are implying that Joe has profited.

So now youre saying that you dont have an issue with Joes blog or what he does at the moment, but you could potentially have a problem with it if he where to make a profit..

 

[Race Radio]

I have never seen a guy light up a cigarette after racing a bike in the US, but I saw in in Europe.

Smoking opens up the lungs

 

[lean mean &green]

So why should you be able to hide behind the veil of anonymity and therefore avoid any harassment, when Joe has had the courage to make himself known and take that criticism and harassment full in the face. I'm sure for Joe having a quiet life away from cycling would at times be preferable to the public lambasting he suffers as a result of choosing to speak out.

snipped

He won races through deceit.
One could argue that he profits, if indeed he does profit, through honesty.

snipped

1. Harrasment
to clarify, i'm speaking about real world harassment. someone tracking me down in real life and threatening me or some sort of identity theft not the virtual kind in this forum. i've been called many names in this thread which required pride swallowing so we're actually both exposed in a virtual way. i advise against anyone posting with there own identity. i think we all understand the relationship between anonymity and credibility, i want to let it go b/c it's taking us off track.

2. Profit
he is only in a position to now profit from honesty because of earlier transgressions. ie he shouldn't even be in a position to profit from honesty. if he wanted to disclose info about doping/race experience he can do so. just not for profit however small that profit might be.

3. Bravery in fighting the omerta
so you're shunned if you speak out, i think we all get that. so now you are blacklisted and can't find work in what amounts to one of the smallest sub-cultures in all of sport but free to pursue a career in absolutely ANYTHING else you would like. in an economic downturn where people are losing their jobs thru absolutely no fault of there own you want me to feel bad for someone who can't work within this tiny little subculture for knowingly taking risks with the decision making of an adult? um.....boo-hoo? perspective people.

4. Being too literal
i cannot wave a magic wand and make these things reality. i barely have energy to post in these forums let alone lobby for these changes. it is, to some extent, a mental exercise meant to provoke thought. i'm uncomfortable with the idea of getting up for work early everyday while a former doper sleeps in, sips coffee, taps out a blog in an hours time, and goes back to bed before i've eaten lunch apparently joe's not that successful yet which makes me happy. again, we have to think carefully about the ways in which we support PED users. the goal is really to make everyone stop and think for a second. that's all.

5. It might not seem like it but my job is very recession proof and i'm very content in my work.

 

[Carboncrank]

Of course, but you already know the answer to that question.

Note the 2/4 value with his original release of numbers.

He changed it because a 16.5% increase over his off season baseline during a period of heavy training and racing (TDU followed by 30 hour week at training camp) is very questionable. It is understandable why Armstrong would dope as he was heading into his first team training camp where he had to show everyone he had not lost it.

Thanks for actually presenting some kind of evidence, and thanks for a post without insult.

You are right the 45.8 you have shown is different than the 43.1 on the tables I find.

You know I'm not buying it as a problem though right? I have several problems with the idea there's any wrong doing here. First, you fudge the numbers as if you were in marketing calculating a sale price tag that will sound the best. 45.8 is 116.5 % of 39.3 which is not the same as your claim that it's 16.5% larger. It is not. But I admit that's a quibble.

Then there's the fact that that the tiny jpeg you show omits the Oct 6, 2008 number quoted in a Bike Radar story on Feb 12th. at 43.7. How convenient.
There are other omissions in the jpeg you supply, like all the USADA EPO urine tests and other UCI tests. Between August 08 and Feb 12th Lance had 16 unannounced out-of-competition tests.

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/lance-armstrongs-test-results-posted-online-20366

You also don't acknowledge that these numbers are not Lances numbers. The one you quibble about is from a UCI test. I'd think if Lance would have claimed values based on a UCI test that were wrong, UCI would have had something to say about it. They are the ones that have his blood.

 

[Hugh Januss]

1. Harrasment
to clarify, i'm speaking about real world harassment. someone tracking me down in real life and threatening me or some sort of identity theft not the virtual kind in this forum. i've been called many names in this thread which required pride swallowing so we're actually both exposed in a virtual way. i advise against anyone posting with there own identity. i think we all understand the relationship between anonymity and credibility, i want to let it go b/c it's taking us off track.

2. Profit
he is only in a position to now profit from honesty because of earlier transgressions. ie he shouldn't even be in a position to profit from honesty. if he wanted to disclose info about doping/race experience he can do so. just not for profit however small that profit might be.

3. Bravery in fighting the omerta
so you're shunned if you speak out, i think we all get that. so now you are blacklisted and can't find work in what amounts to one of the smallest sub-cultures in all of sport but free to pursue a career in absolutely ANYTHING else you would like. in an economic downturn where people are losing their jobs thru absolutely no fault of there own you want me to feel bad for someone who can't work within this tiny little subculture for knowingly taking risks with the decision making of an adult? um.....boo-hoo? perspective people.

4. Being too literal
i cannot wave a magic wand and make these things reality. i barely have energy to post in these forums let alone lobby for these changes. it is, to some extent, a mental exercise meant to provoke thought. i'm uncomfortable with the idea of getting up for work early everyday while a former doper sleeps in, sips coffee, taps out a blog in an hours time, and goes back to bed before i've eaten lunch apparently joe's not that successful yet which makes me happy. again, we have to think carefully about the ways in which we support PED users. the goal is really to make everyone stop and think for a second. that's all.

5. It might not seem like it but my job is very recession proof and i'm very content in my work.

Most ignorant post of the year. But it's early yet, I'm sure you will be out done.

 

[Anonymous]

1. Harrasment
to clarify, i'm speaking about real world harassment....... i want to let it go b/c it's taking us off track.

Or you want to let it go because thats an argument you have just lost?

And actually I dont think it is taking us off track. I think Joe's decision to not be anonymous, is at the very core of this argument. Dont you agree? Its his self publicity and potential profit from it that is your issue. If he where to remain anonymous you would not be making this argument. Therefore the issue of anonymity, both his, and yours is at the very crux of the matter?

2. Profit
he is only in a position to now profit from honesty because of earlier transgressions. ie he shouldn't even be in a position to profit from honesty.

So you agree with me that your "profiting from deceit" line was inaccurate?

We have progressed from Joe profiting from deceit and having no place in cycling or anything to do with cycling, to potentially in the future having the ability to profit from honesty, in the space of just a few pages.

As an aside, If you've ever bought a book by Lance Armstrong, or many other cyclists, you have contributed to the "profit by deceit". You contribute by paying versus, or whatever tv company you use, you contribute by buying a tour de france guide, or a cycling magazine, you contribute even by visiting this website with its flash ads, and cents per click whilst peddling its stories of Armstrong, and Valverde and Ricco. The deceit is all around us.

i'm uncomfortable with the idea of getting up for work early everyday while a former doper sleeps in, sips coffee, taps out a blog in an hours time, and goes back to bed before i've eaten lunch

So now he's lazy?

Just a little tip. Your posts are gradually becoming riddled with contradictions and concessions. Someone with a little more intelligence than me, better language skills, and considerably more time, may exploit that.

 

[Carboncrank]

I have never seen a guy light up a cigarette after racing a bike in the US, but I saw in in Europe. Bike racing in the US has all kinds of healthy lifestyle things attached that do not exist in Europe. It's about racing not health.

There were a lot of years I had cigarettes in the seat pouch. Gave it up before I did any of my admittedly pretty lame attempts at racing though.

There were times in 10k runs though where I wondered how I was doing in the over 40 light-heavyweight smoker category.

 

[Anonymous]

There were a lot of years I had cigarettes in the seat pouch. Gave it up before I did any of my admittedly pretty lame attempts at racing though.

There were times in 10k runs though where I wondered how I was doing in the over 40 light-heavyweight smoker category.

Crikey, training days for local club racing down here, we would ride 30 miles out having a cigarette along the way, pub lunch with two or three pints, then 30-50 miles back depending on your preference.. Im going back 20 years mind..

 

[Race Radio]

Thanks for actually presenting some kind of evidence, and thanks for a post without insult.

You are right the 45.8 you have shown is different than the 43.1 on the tables I find.

You know I'm not buying it as a problem though right? I have several problems with the idea there's any wrong doing here. First, you fudge the numbers as if you were in marketing calculating a sale price tag that will sound the best. 45.8 is 116.5 % of 39.3 which is not the same as your claim that it's 16.5% larger. It is not. But I admit that's a quibble.

Then there's the fact that that the tiny jpeg you show omits the Oct 6, 2008 number quoted in a Bike Radar story on Feb 12th. at 43.7. How convenient.
There are other omissions in the jpeg you supply, like all the USADA EPO urine tests and other UCI tests. Between August 08 and Feb 12th Lance had 16 unannounced out-of-competition tests.

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/lance-armstrongs-test-results-posted-online-20366

You also don't acknowledge that these numbers are not Lances numbers. The one you quibble about is from a UCI test. I'd think if Lance would have claimed values based on a UCI test that were wrong, UCI would have had something to say about it. They are the ones that have his blood.

As expected, the typical non sensible troll response.

 

[lean mean &green]

Or you want to let it go because thats an argument you have just lost?
And actually I dont think it is taking us off track. I think Joe's decision to not be anonymous, is at the very core of this argument. Dont you agree? Its his self publicity and potential profit from it that is your issue. If he where to remain anonymous you would not be making this argument. Therefore the issue of anonymity, both his, and yours is at the very crux of the matter?

not because the arguement was lost, because it's been properly addressed if you read the entire thread carefully

So you agree with me that your "profiting from deceit" line was inaccurate?

We have progressed from Joe profiting from deceit and having no place in cycling or anything to do with cycling, to potentially in the future having the ability to profit from honesty, in the space of just a few pages.

huh? no. he may write honestly in his blog but he is only in a position to do that because he has gained notariety from cheating. he wouldn't have a blog of any interest or be able to direct traffic to it if he competed fairly. he would have won very few races and you wouldn't care about him.

So now he's lazy?

Just a little tip. Your posts are gradually becoming riddled with contradictions and concessions. Someone with a little more intelligence than me, better language skills, and considerably more time, may exploit that.

the wink emoticon which implies i'm joking a has been omitted. not calling anyone lazy.

thanks for the tip but my posts aren't the least bit contradictory. if you find some good examples let me know and i'll try and remediate those for you too.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Thanks for actually presenting some kind of evidence, and thanks for a post without insult.

You are right the 45.8 you have shown is different than the 43.1 on the tables I find.

You know I'm not buying it as a problem though right? I have several problems with the idea there's any wrong doing here. First, you fudge the numbers as if you were in marketing calculating a sale price tag that will sound the best. 45.8 is 116.5 % of 39.3 which is not the same as your claim that it's 16.5% larger. It is not. But I admit that's a quibble.

Then there's the fact that that the tiny jpeg you show omits the Oct 6, 2008 number quoted in a Bike Radar story on Feb 12th. at 43.7. How convenient.
There are other omissions in the jpeg you supply, like all the USADA EPO urine tests and other UCI tests. Between August 08 and Feb 12th Lance had 16 unannounced out-of-competition tests.

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/lance-armstrongs-test-results-posted-online-20366

You also don't acknowledge that these numbers are not Lances numbers. The one you quibble about is from a UCI test. I'd think if Lance would have claimed values based on a UCI test that were wrong, UCI would have had something to say about it. They are the ones that have his blood.

So - who's numbers are they? Basso, Ricco, yours?

And after RaceRadio made up the jpeg - he then hacked in to the BikeRadar and CyclingNews sites and changed their stories from Feb 09?? http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2009/feb09/feb12news3

Maybe RR & some other Nazi Frogmen stole the numbers from the Livestrong website - to make Lance look bad......you should tell him!

And the reason Armstrong only posted that first set of numbers was explained in the article you provided- "Requests have been made to USADA and WADA to release their results so they can be posted as well."

 

[lean mean &green]

As an aside, If you've ever bought a book by Lance Armstrong, or many other cyclists, you have contributed to the "profit by deceit". You contribute by paying versus, or whatever tv company you use, you contribute by buying a tour de france guide, or a cycling magazine, you contribute even by visiting this website with its flash ads, and cents per click whilst peddling its stories of Armstrong, and Valverde and Ricco. The deceit is all around us.

a good point.

rhetorically speaking, where do you draw the line when consuming products and information if it contributes to behavior you deem unethical? i think everyone has to work that out for themselves.

 

[Anonymous]

huh? no. he may write honestly in his blog but he is only in a position to do that because he has gained notariety from cheating. he wouldn't have a blog of any interest or be able to direct traffic to it if he competed fairly. he would have won very few races and you wouldn't care about him.

So it is only because of his "notorious" past that he is able to blog about doping? Why? Whos to say his blog would not be equally interesting whatever his background? The only thing his past adds is a certain credibility to his views and comments. Shouldnt that be welcomed? If you want to know about alcoholism, you ask a former alcoholic, stands to reason.

So we now have a situation where only those who have doped, can write a blog about doping that is considering interesting. So what is the solution, former dopers should not write blogs, therefore there would be nobody making a stand against doping (and therefore re-enforcing the omerta)

You cant have it both ways. If you want people to stand up against doping, you must accept that the ones who are more credible are the ones who have experienced it, well, i say experienced it, lets say the ones who have been caught, because of course, far far many riders experience doping than are caught. I assume you arent naive enough to believe that all of the riders Joe was racing against where clean?

So how do you feel, outside of cycling, about councillors for instance, say, a former alcoholic who beat his wife, and now years on, earns a living, or makes a profit, from talking about alcoholism?

How do you feel about the former gang member, who shot two people dead in a drive by shooting, served prison time, and now earns a living, or profits from going into schools and talking to young kids about the right and wrong ways to live, and how to avoid being dragged into the gang culture?

How do you feel about the rapist, or murderer who was sentanced to 25 years, and during his incarceration found god. And then upon his release used his new found faith to spread good, and advise young children, troubled teens, wayward youths on how to lead a better life, all for the appropriate remuneration.?

 

[Anonymous]

a good point.

rhetorically speaking, where do you draw the line when consuming products and information if it contributes to behavior you deem unethical? i think everyone has to work that out for themselves.

Personally i find clicking a google link on Joe's site a great deal less unethical than for instance standing by the side of the road supporting Ricco, or buying a Caisse shirt, or buying Lances story of the 1999 tour..

On the ladder of "profiting from deceit" there's an awful lot of people in cycling that have stood on Joe's hands to get to the rungs above him.

And on that note, GMT waits for no man..

 

[lean mean &green]

So it is only because of his "notorious" past that he is able to blog about doping? Why? Whos to say his blog would not be equally interesting whatever his background? The only thing his past adds is a certain credibility to his views and comments. Shouldnt that be welcomed? If you want to know about alcoholism, you ask a former alcoholic, stands to reason.

ultimately someone in joe's position has to be able to look themselves in the mirror. again, no magic wand for me to make laws/rules at will. for me to feel comfortable in the same postion i'd have to blog anonymously which can be done very successfully. the profits above cost covering sent off to a worthy charity (probably not livestrong) an added bonus: blogging anonymously actually allows you to speak much more freely without fear of destroying relationships. an anonymous source does chip away at the credibility of a blog but only a little. as you suggest, we can't have it both ways.

I assume you arent naive enough to believe that all of the riders Joe was racing against where clean?

we have to assume that those who get caught are more egregious but as you said, deciet is all around us. i actually assume everyone at the top of the sport is using PEDs just short of the testing limits. so no, i won't be buying their products unless it is abslolutely essential. ie i need a new wheel because mine is fried and i need to live my life but i'm not swayed by pro endorsements in any way.

So how do you feel, outside of cycling, about councillors for instance, say, a former alcoholic who beat his wife, and now years on, earns a living, or makes a profit, from talking about alcoholism?

i hasten to discuss such a potentially sensitive subject as alcoholism but i'll try briefly and respectfully. alcoholism is a disease. it picks you, you don't pick it. not so with doping. so apples and oranges there.

How do you feel about the former gang member, who shot two people dead in a drive by shooting, served prison time, and now earns a living, or profits from going into schools and talking to young kids about the right and wrong ways to live, and how to avoid being dragged into the gang culture?

How do you feel about the rapist, or murderer who was sentanced to 25 years, and during his incarceration found god. And then upon his release used his new found faith to spread good, and advise young children, troubled teens, wayward youths on how to lead a better life, all for the appropriate remuneration.?

i am reluctant to compare murder and rape to PED use. i understand why you posed the questions and that you meant no harm but it feels really insenstive. they are criminal offenses handled by the judicial system with deservedly long and life-altering prison sentences. it is hardly the same punishment as saying i don't like that someone works in what amounts to a cottage industry because they cheated it. i will have to respectfully decline from speaking about these comparisons going forward.

 

[Carboncrank]

So - who's numbers are they? Basso, Ricco, yours?

And after RaceRadio made up the jpeg - he then hacked in to the BikeRadar and CyclingNews sites and changed their stories from Feb 09?? http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2009/feb09/feb12news3

[/URL]

You might notice that the Cyclingnews article you site uses exactly the same numbers as the BikeRadar article I linked.
My point was that both show the first value as 43.7, not 39.3.
When you start at 43.7 end up at 45.8 there's no 16.5% increase as claimed by Raceradio.

Again, UCI did the testing. They know whether it's 45.8 or 99.5. All the values have to stay within the Passport algorithms. If not? He's history.

This is why he quit posting the numbers. And endless stream of psudo experts would keep claiming the numbers mean something the anti-doping monitors know they don't.

There is literally noting he can do to please you. No good deed goes unpunished.

 

[Race Radio]

You might notice that the Cyclingnews article you site uses exactly the same numbers as the BikeRadar article I linked.
My point was that both show the first value as 43.7, not 39.3.
When you start at 43.7 end up at 45.8 there's no 16.5% increase as claimed by Raceradio.

Again, UCI did the testing. They know whether it's 45.8 or 99.5. All the values have to stay within the Passport algorithms. If not? He's history.

This is why he quit posting the numbers. And endless stream of psudo experts would keep claiming the numbers mean something the anti-doping monitors know they don't.

There is literally noting he can do to please you. No good deed goes unpunished.

Look, we get that part of your trolling game is to pretend to be *** so people will respond to you but eventually it just becomes obvious if you push it too far.

The numbers were released by Armstrong, not the UCI. The UCI has refused to confirm or deny their veracity.

The numbers that Armstrong released initially showed that during a period of heavy racing and training his Hct jumped from 39.3 to 45.8, a jump of 16.5%. When this number was questioned he lowered the 45.8 number in the second release of his numbers.

Armstrong stopped posting his numbers because multiple world renowned experts in the field of blood doping said that they showed signs of blood doping.

You can continue to play games but all this does is confirm that you are a troll whose only goal is to disrupt the conversation, not add to it.

 

[flicker]

Defeat drug testing. Dung beetle extract, Sun Bear gall bladder extract, poison frog arrow extract cooked fr 12 hours applied fresh. 7:1 ratio applied orally.

 

[Digger]

not because the arguement was lost, because it's been properly addressed if you read the entire thread carefully


huh? no. he may write honestly in his blog but he is only in a position to do that because he has gained notariety from cheating. he wouldn't have a blog of any interest or be able to direct traffic to it if he competed fairly. he would have won very few races and you wouldn't care about him.


the wink emoticon which implies i'm joking a has been omitted. not calling anyone lazy.

thanks for the tip but my posts aren't the least bit contradictory. if you find some good examples let me know and i'll try and remediate those for you too.

Paul Kimmage and Christophe Bassons would disagree with all your paragraph.

So if he kept the Omerta, and denied, got another job in cycling when the ban was up, this would be okay.

Incidentally, you must have been pretty annoyed by the fund for Floyd's defence? Now that is profiting from cheating.

 

[Anonymous]

i hasten to discuss such a potentially sensitive subject as alcoholism but i'll try briefly and respectfully. alcoholism is a disease. it picks you, you don't pick it. not so with doping. so apples and oranges there.

Now you are in my wheelhouse. Yes, I was born with the disease of alcoholism. However, that didn't put the coke, acid, pot, myriad of prescription medications that didn't have my name on the bottle, opium, hash, mescaline, or mushrooms in my body. I did that. I didn't have to commit illegal acts, I could have just drank. Alcoholism didn't force me to commit the crimes I committed associated with the cost maintaining a wicked drug habit. Alcoholism didn't force me to drive under the influence of a myriad of substances. Alcoholism didn't force me to drive kids to school on a school bus so fucked up from the night before that at times I had to drive with one eye closed. I lived it as a lifestyle choice. One that for much of my using, I believed was superior to the clean world. I was a sick person who made choices for selfish reasons, and just because I have a disease does not mean I was a sweet guy underneath just waiting to be discovered. When I got clean, I did it because I didn't want the consequences of my behavior anymore. Some of those consequences were legal.

The funny part is that the clearest sign of a dopers guilt are his/her actions, and PED use is no different. It is the CLEAREST sign to me that Armstrong is a unrepentant doper. I have absolutely no use for an active doper of any stripe while they are using. When they come clean, that is a different story. I also don't care two cents why they stopped. I know MANY people who stopped because they got busted. They changed their lives after that, and the first thing they did was come clean about their past. Joe did that, and it is precisely the reason I respect him. He is unflinching and completely open about his past which tells me all I need to know about the authenticity of his contrition. He is no David Miller, and he isn't willing to compromise it to get back in the game. That cannot be said for most of the dopers in the peloton, yet you choose the guy who was honest to beat on?

I have worked in treatment centers and made money from my experience. I had to make a living. Joe knows cycling. It was his profession. He also has to make a living now that he has cleaned up and taken his punishment. I also know that your assessment of the money he is making is well past reality. He may very well move on to other fields in life. From my contact with him, he is articulate and smart. There are many things he can do. However, he also appears to love cycling and is free to make money any way he chooses. It was pointed out earlier that MANY people who were once busted for doping are now actually riding in the pro peloton. Few if ANY were as forthcoming and honest about their past as was Joe, yet you still follow cycling and don't write inane, ignorant rants about any of them. You choose the guy who was completely honest? I sincerely believe you need to assess why you are writing the things you are writing because it appears you are not being genuine about your motivation. I don't know what the motivation is, but ethics isn't it, though that appears to be your claim.

 

[progressor]

Disease of Alcoholism?Born with it?? :LOL: That garbage has go to be one of the most ridiculous cop outs I've ever heard. South park did a great p!sstake on that rubbish.

 

[Anonymous]

Disease of Alcoholism?Born with it?? :LOL: That garbage has go to be one of the most ridiculous cop outs I've ever heard. South park did a great p!sstake on that rubbish.

I wasn't going to reply after TFF as i dont think it was necessary.. I think his post pretty much confirmed what i think some of us already knew. Lean Green Means thoughts on Joe Papp are clearly personal and not moral. Any area on which he was pointed out to be wrong or in danger of hypocrisy, he tactfully avoided.

 

[Anonymous]

Disease of Alcoholism?Born with it?? :LOL: That garbage has go to be one of the most ridiculous cop outs I've ever heard. South park did a great p!sstake on that rubbish.

Funny, medical professionals who study the disease (and that is what it is classified) differ with you and the fart joke kings. Its also funny to see how a study of my family history would suggest the genetic link doctors observe with chronic alcoholism. Hmm....who should I believe, guys who make cartoons and some a$$hat with an opinion, or medical professionals? Gee, that is just sooooo tough.....

In reality, I understand the skepticism. However, having known literally thousands of people trying to quit drinking and using, there are different types of people who do so, and there is a group that are just different in their body's reaction to alcohol. In all honesty, whether or not you believe it is not important. Usually, people who think deep down that they might have a problem react in the way you do.

Edit: I just went and searched your other posts. You are one of those Uniballer fans with a hard-on for guys who cheat and get away with it. You earn an "ignore." Have a nice day!

 

[Digger]

Disease of Alcoholism?Born with it?? :LOL: That garbage has go to be one of the most ridiculous cop outs I've ever heard. South park did a great p!sstake on that rubbish.

My God you are an ignorant human being. It's a long and winding road.........

 

[Hugh Januss]

Funny, medical professionals who study the disease (and that is what it is classified) differ with you and the fart joke kings. Its also funny to see how a study of my family history would suggest the genetic link doctors observe with chronic alcoholism. Hmm....who should I believe, guys who make cartoons and some a$$hat with an opinion, or medical professionals? Gee, that is just sooooo tough.....

In reality, I understand the skepticism. However, having known literally thousands of people trying to quit drinking and using, there are different types of people who do so, and there is a group that are just different in their body's reaction to alcohol. In all honesty, whether or not you believe it is not important. Usually, people who think deep down that they might have a problem react in the way you do.

Edit: I just went and searched your other posts. You are one of those Uniballer fans with a hard-on for guys who cheat and get away with it. You earn an "ignore." Have a nice day!

By the same token Dims use of the term ex-alcoholic was not quite accurate either. You can be an ex-drunk but the only way you can be an ex-alcoholic is to be dead.