Chapa gets 5 year ban - Page 3

Riot · #41 06-13-2011, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

I just looked up "obfuscation" in the dictionary, and strangely enough, found a picture of Riot right next to the definition.

Really? What part of, "I think people trying to come back to the track after being ruled off for five years, no matter the reason, should undergo drug testing" is too hard for you to understand?

pointman · #42 06-13-2011, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

I wish they had mandatory drug testing accompanying reinstatements like this. Otherwise good luck to him turning his life around and making it through probation.

I didn't think anything could top Iwantfreepp's reasoning for taking JV off Animal Kingdom, and yet, how could I forsee this gem lurking just a mere 24 hours later?

Riot · #43 06-13-2011, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pointman

I didn't think anything could top Iwantfreepp's reasoning for taking JV off Animal Kingdom, and yet, how could I forsee this gem lurking just a mere 24 hours later?

Yeah, thinking that anybody ruled off for 5 years should have to undergo drug testing as part of their probation requirements is a really strange and bizarre idea in today's world. So bizarre that you can't even comprehend such a thing

#44 06-13-2011, 04:00 PM

The activity today in this thread has convinced me that terrorists are justified in beheading certain people.

DaTruth · #45 06-13-2011, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

Yeah, thinking that anybody ruled off for 5 years should have to undergo drug testing as part of their probation requirements is a really strange and bizarre idea in today's world. So bizarre that you can't even comprehend such a thing

What about drug testing Calvin Borel? I thought he must have been on drugs when he went berserk after last year's BC Dirt Marathon.

declansharbor · #46 06-13-2011, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

The activity today in this thread has convinced me that terrorists are justified in beheading certain people.

pointman · #47 06-13-2011, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

Yeah, thinking that anybody ruled off for 5 years should have to undergo drug testing as part of their probation requirements is a really strange and bizarre idea in today's world. So bizarre that you can't even comprehend such a thing

Please enlighten us to the correlation between cheating with a buzzer and drug use all knowing one. I don't think that anyone is buying your assumption that he had to be using a buzzer because he was desperate for a paycheck. Where that turns into a further assumption that he is using illegal drugs is even more bizzare logic.

Riot · #48 06-13-2011, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pointman

Please enlighten us to the correlation between cheating with a buzzer and drug use all knowing one. I don't think that anyone is buying your assumption that he had to be using a buzzer because he was desperate for a paycheck. Where that turns into a further assumption that he is using illegal drugs is even more bizzare logic.

Why don't you re-read all the posts I've made - including the one where I said anyone coming back off 5 years of being ruled off should have it as part of their probation to being permitted back on the track - then let me know which words you can't understand.

pointman · #49 06-13-2011, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

Why don't you re-read all the posts I've made - including the one where I said anyone coming back off 5 years of being ruled off should have it as part of their probation to being permitted back on the track - then let me know which words you can't understand.

I have understood everything you have posted. Your continued insistance to the contrary accompanied with insults does not change the facts. The problem is that as is the case with virtually everything else you post on this board, your suggestion was plain stupid. For this reason, those of us with true common sense have questioned the wisdom of your premise.

The fact that the guy illegally used a buzzer in no way suggests that he is ingesting illegal narcotics. Those of us with a modicum of intelligence believe that there should be a factual basis to demand a drug test before a jock moves to be reinstated for a suspension unrelated to drugs. You appear to be the only one who fails to comprehend this. Keep up the great work!

Riot · #50 06-13-2011, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pointman

The problem is that as is the case with virtually everything else you post on this board, your suggestion was plain stupid.

You have a terrible life, having to read other people's opinions that you do not share. Poor, poor you.

Yeah, I'm pretty strongly anti-drug, in the horses and the backstretch. You disagree. I could give a damn.

Danzig · #51 06-13-2011, 09:01 PM

there is no legitimate reason for drug testing the jock. what probable cause exists?

Riot · #52 06-13-2011, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

there is no legitimate reason for drug testing the jock. what probable cause exists?

I said I'd make it part of everybody's probation, who was ruled off for five years and wanted back on. No probable cause needed. Just part of the routine to get permitted back at the track for all long-term suspensions. What is a downside?

Cannon Shell · #53 06-13-2011, 09:08 PM

Don't jockeys get tested already?

Danzig · #54 06-13-2011, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

I said I'd make it part of everybody's probation, who was ruled off for five years and wanted back on. No probable cause needed. Just part of the routine to get permitted back at the track for all long-term suspensions. What is a downside?

i guess i just don't see a connection. if you're ruled off because of drugs, by all means test for it as a requirement for ree-instatement.
otherwise, i see no correlation. the sport needs to do more testing alright...but not of jocks. someone would have to be squeaky clean throughout their suspension if they got caught pulling this type of stunt and hoped to be able to ride again.

pointman · #55 06-13-2011, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

I said I'd make it part of everybody's probation, who was ruled off for five years and wanted back on. No probable cause needed. Just part of the routine to get permitted back at the track for all long-term suspensions. What is a downside?

There is this pesky document called the Constitution of the United States of America. It requires that government cannot conduct searches and seize evidence on less than probable cause. For this reason, probable casue is needed.

Your ludicrous attempt to again shift the issue and infer that I somehow not anti-drug has absolutely no basis in fact.

Chuck, my understanding is that the tests of jocks is random. If that is the case, the tests are permitted since they are random and not targeting a specific individual, much like checkpoints on roads.

Riot · #56 06-13-2011, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pointman

There is this pesky document called the Constitution of the United States of America. It requires that government cannot conduct searches and seize evidence on less than probable cause. For this reason, probable casue is needed.

Small technicality to your argument, tracks are not "the government".

If everybody has the same penalty, as I was describing, it's fair under your (obtuse) point. As proven by the multitude of private companies who already require drug testing on a regular basis.

PatCummings · #57 06-13-2011, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

Small technicality to your argument, tracks are not "the government".

If everybody has the same penalty, as I was describing, it's fair under your (obtuse) point. As proven by the multitude of private companies who already require drug testing on a regular basis.

Please at least admit that you see the disconnect you are fostering, that a 5-year suspension for using a buzzer and a drug test to get back into racing are not directly-related.

#58 06-14-2011, 05:53 AM

It's not like Chapa was a starving journeyman. He was actually moderately successful. It just takes a little research to see that he made a decent living. His drug problem would have to be pretty severe in order to use a buzzer for income. We're talking about a $15,000/month habit. Dude wouldn't be able to stand doing that much yay.

What we're dealing with here is an uninformed blowhard know-it-all pontificating per usual. Just insult the monster.

jms62 · #59 06-14-2011, 06:07 AM

Just my 2 cent Summary and not piling on. Seems like Riot didn't read the article and just focused on the word Buzz. Instead of admiting the mistake and laughing it off she refused to admit she made a mistake and kept defending her original statement which is way out of context with the article. Dude, when you make a mistake own it otherwise it hurts your thread-cred on your other arguments.

Danzig · #60 06-14-2011, 06:09 AM

well, see that's the thing. i don't think private companies should be able to test without probable cause either. as a condition of hiring, or if one was to institute a workmens comp claim-that's justifiable. random drug tests, such as where i work, would serve no purpose. it's a right to privacy issue. or illegal search/seizure. the problem is that many have become lackadaisical about their rights and don't feel free to speak up.