Quote:
Originally posted by mick
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
|
Originally posted by mick
|
That program is broke; the news reporting should be on the tests and not on the athletes, until a test shows actual cheating.
|
What am I missing here, Mick?  Palmeiro flunked a streroids test. Ergo, that flunked test showed that he cheated. You can't change that. Has anybody in any sport that has flunked one of these tests ever said anything but what Palmeiro said? [/B]
|
They proposed the tests.
They set the parameters.
They change the parameters.
They run the tests.
I think intent must be present, positive, planned and proven. I just don't like it one bit.
mick
[/B][/QUOTE]They
changed the parameters?
What change did they make to the agreed-upon test parameters? Again, I gotta be missing something here.
Mick, that just doesn't make sense to me. When you set a law with attached limits, you set the parameters. If your state says that you're DUI at 0.080, and you blow 0.083, does that mean that you're should be not guilty as long as you say "I didn't mean it"? Does that hold true at 0.150 too? Iow, how can you ever possibly prove "intent" unless you actually catch somebody sticking a needle in their butt or swallowing something?
The test is the proof. It can't be any other way.
What do you propose as an alternative to the tests currently being used for steroids and other banned substances?