12-18-2007, 05:37 PM
12-18-2007, 08:17 PM
how much did you laugh during the interview?
12-18-2007, 08:49 PM
does he have a cousin named Dick Hurt?
12-18-2007, 08:52 PM
I used to work with someone named Dick Shave. Now I work with someone whose last name is "Balbag". And my brother is good friends with a kid named "Hung Long"
12-18-2007, 08:55 PM
Goatweed Wrote:how much did you laugh during the interview?
No. It was the same Dick Pound who heads the World Anti-Doping Agency
12-18-2007, 08:56 PM
Galt Wrote:I used to work with someone named Dick Shave. Now I work with someone whose last name is "Balbag". And my brother is good friends with a kid named "Hung Long"
How old was the guy named Dick Shave? Older? I tend to notice that a lot of Dicks are older, and stick to their nickname despite the cogitation.
12-18-2007, 09:49 PM
yeah, he's probably in his 50s.
Nobody goes by "Dick" anymore.
Nobody goes by "Dick" anymore.
12-18-2007, 09:57 PM
Galt Wrote:yeah, he's probably in his 50s.
Nobody goes by "Dick" anymore.
I did an ad for a client on my day job that was for a Dick S. His email address was <!-- e --><a href="mailto
[email protected]">[email protected]</a><!-- e -->And I know he was just an old schooler. But there has to be some awareness on how it looks when you have a company email that reads Dicks@
12-18-2007, 09:59 PM
"Dick" will make a comeback someday. So will the merry old word & meaning of "gay".
It's called "cultural cyclical-ness".
Or maybe not.
It's called "cultural cyclical-ness".
Or maybe not.
12-19-2007, 12:59 AM
More fluff to lamely support previous fluff
(Actually, saying "chick chick here" I think but sounds different...plus vid quality is horrible)
(Actually, saying "chick chick here" I think but sounds different...plus vid quality is horrible)
12-19-2007, 08:44 PM
ME: WADA's (World Anti-Doping Agency) code is a two year ban at the first positive test. You've had a difficult time to get other sports organizations to move towards this type of hard-line. Does the Mitchell Report putting the issue at the forefront again might let these other organizations revisit this? Has anyone come to you before or after for advice, consultation or such?
Dick Pound: I have always thought that we could get the professional leagues to accept pretty well everything in the World Anti-Doping Code (Code) except the meaningful sanction period. I don't think the present mentality of either owners or players would accept the idea of a meaningful sanction for a little thing like drug use. Think of waht happens now: a good steroid program will produce benefits for four or five years, but the "firm" and "resolute" response of the leagues is a sanction of 4 games (NFL), 20 games (NHL) or 50 Games (MLB). For someone who wants to cheat to gain an advantage, it is a good investment to risk such a minimal sanction.
The professional leagues are not interested in what WADA has to say. Interestingly enough, however, the Mitchell recommendations for a testing system are almost identical to the Code, although WADA is not mentioned.
ME: Since most major sports organizations are basically large corporate businesses… do you think by that nature, they will be reticent to do anything that will affect their bottomline? Might this be the biggest gap in the distance between the WADA and the major sports organizations?
Dick Pound: I think it is bad business for any business to be seen to encourage or condone cheating. There have been many recent examples of businesses destroyed by cheating. If I were running the business, I would make sure that we embraced the highest standards of conduct and that we did not just talk the talk. The bottom line would be improved, not hampered, if (everyone) involved, players, owners and the public, were confident that there was no cheating.
ME: Are there other options than an immediate 2-year ban? Would being slightly more flexible in lieu of the financial realities that the major sports organizations get them to come further than they have been? Or do they need to "blink" and meet you and the WADA policy?
Dick Pound: That is a decision for them to make. But, if you want your program to provide both prevention and deterrence, the sanctions have to be serious enough to dissuade someone from using the drugs. The sanctions referred to above are not meaningful. I could see a gradual ramp-up as part of a policy of greater engagement in the process.
ME: By their corporate nature: Does this even further give sway to the argument that there needs to be independent drug-testing policing major sports? And, even with the example of a hard-hit MLB, will they still attempt to police it themselves?
Dick Pound: There will be no credibility at all if they insist on running the policy in-house. Mitchell made it clear that there would have to be an independent administration and transparent reporting on the results.
Dick Pound: I have always thought that we could get the professional leagues to accept pretty well everything in the World Anti-Doping Code (Code) except the meaningful sanction period. I don't think the present mentality of either owners or players would accept the idea of a meaningful sanction for a little thing like drug use. Think of waht happens now: a good steroid program will produce benefits for four or five years, but the "firm" and "resolute" response of the leagues is a sanction of 4 games (NFL), 20 games (NHL) or 50 Games (MLB). For someone who wants to cheat to gain an advantage, it is a good investment to risk such a minimal sanction.
The professional leagues are not interested in what WADA has to say. Interestingly enough, however, the Mitchell recommendations for a testing system are almost identical to the Code, although WADA is not mentioned.
ME: Since most major sports organizations are basically large corporate businesses… do you think by that nature, they will be reticent to do anything that will affect their bottomline? Might this be the biggest gap in the distance between the WADA and the major sports organizations?
Dick Pound: I think it is bad business for any business to be seen to encourage or condone cheating. There have been many recent examples of businesses destroyed by cheating. If I were running the business, I would make sure that we embraced the highest standards of conduct and that we did not just talk the talk. The bottom line would be improved, not hampered, if (everyone) involved, players, owners and the public, were confident that there was no cheating.
ME: Are there other options than an immediate 2-year ban? Would being slightly more flexible in lieu of the financial realities that the major sports organizations get them to come further than they have been? Or do they need to "blink" and meet you and the WADA policy?
Dick Pound: That is a decision for them to make. But, if you want your program to provide both prevention and deterrence, the sanctions have to be serious enough to dissuade someone from using the drugs. The sanctions referred to above are not meaningful. I could see a gradual ramp-up as part of a policy of greater engagement in the process.
ME: By their corporate nature: Does this even further give sway to the argument that there needs to be independent drug-testing policing major sports? And, even with the example of a hard-hit MLB, will they still attempt to police it themselves?
Dick Pound: There will be no credibility at all if they insist on running the policy in-house. Mitchell made it clear that there would have to be an independent administration and transparent reporting on the results.
12-19-2007, 08:55 PM
What's he got against dopes? They are afterall vital to messageboards and my hobby as a dope tormentor.
12-20-2007, 01:12 AM
diceisgod Wrote:What's he got against dopes? They are afterall vital to messageboards and my hobby as a dope tormentor.
Thanks, Gooch.
12-20-2007, 01:45 AM
Gooch Wrote:Thanks, Gooch.
Did you say that same thing somewhere in this thread already? Damn, I'm a ninny. I should really start reading your posts before putting my foot in it like that!