from Amazon
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Doug Glanville explains the most important part, with a b.s. parenthetical response
Glanville, a smart player, a Strat player, a guy who would love Brian Bannister as much as we do, dared to say this, in parenthesis:
(So if the test was anonymous, you might ask, why is there some key out there to match up the names with the numbers? Answer. There had to be some way to trace back in the event someone lost a sample, or it got tainted, or there could have been a false positive giving the players some right to re-test. )
What the f-ck? Lost a sample? It got tainted? False positive for a retest? How many crappy excuses can you put in a sentence, so that the totality doesn’t sound so crappy? Is this what the union is selling its players? And the players are buying it?
Here’s my answer, and not parenthetically. The union, so desperate to make sure they fall below the 5% line, while ensuring that in no way do they want a safe workplace for the other (what they think) 95% members, wanted to be sure that if they went over the 5% line then they’d be able to retest to get under the 5% line. And, since asking for a retest of all 1200 players would be too much, they decided to attach names to the samples, no longer making them anonymous, and selectively retest if needed. They of course did NOT tell all of the players that this is what they were going to do. They kept them in the dark as to the link between the tests in one lab, and the coded entries in the other lab.
We love you Doug. Don’t talk cr-p please.
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 344 pages 1 2 3 > Last »Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date