Chapa gets 5 year ban

[pointman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Riot]

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]

Don't jockeys get tested already?

[Danzig]

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]

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.