It's here! It's game day!

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 20214 yr by JCon

Here we ****** GO!!!!!Gonna be ultra loud and a beauty of a day.GO BOMBERS GO!!!!!!!!!

Edited September 11, 20214 yr by Nolby

Weather at kickoff will be 19, with winds 24kms/h gusting to 36kms/h. 

A lovely afternoon for football!

It's anotha muthaf***in game day, *******! Let's f***in go!! 

Edited September 11, 20214 yr by Noeller

That's an fugly Sask depth chart...we should be ashamed if we lose to that

LMAO off at Leonard's excuse for not submitting a urine sample. And Dickenson defending him! 

As a rider fan, this may be a hard one to watch. 

6 minutes ago, Super Duper Negatron said:

LMAO off at Leonard's excuse for not submitting a urine sample. And Dickenson defending him! 

Yeah what a bullshit explanation 

woke up, crushed the gym, crushed 3 caesars negating the workout and staring at the clock to meet my buddies at the tailgate at 1 p.m.

lets. ****ing. go

I’m so ready to see Willie, Jackson and the rest of the boys tear through the Riders line like Kleenex!

29 minutes ago, Super Duper Negatron said:

LMAO off at Leonard's excuse for not submitting a urine sample. And Dickenson defending him! 

2 games suspended for “I couldn’t make pee pee” is cheaper than 4 games for juicing. 

1 minute ago, Rod Black said:

2 games suspended for “I couldn’t make pee pee” is cheaper than 4 games for juicing. 

I believe first time violators only get 2 game suspensions. Glad he got the max suspension for a first time violation, but next time he says he can't pee I hope the penalty increases or this will be a bad precedent to set

I could actually believe a player if he said he couldn’t give a pee pee sample because he would be embarrassed that he ate asparagus before the game.                                   

Edited September 11, 20214 yr by Rod Black

41 minutes ago, Rod Black said:

2 games suspended for “I couldn’t make pee pee” is cheaper than 4 games for juicing. 

Imagine being so bad you have to juice up to record 2 defensive tackles and get spanked by your rivals in your own barn last week lol.

1 hour ago, Super Duper Negatron said:

LMAO off at Leonard's excuse for not submitting a urine sample. And Dickenson defending him! 

Yikes, as Doug Brown says, makes you wonder what they would have found. 

I want to go now! Can't wait. Is it game time yet??

CF will be peeing enough today for AC's next two tests. 

I've tested hundreds of individuals through my workplace over the years. 

Invariably they are dirty when they use the can't pee defence. What they don't mention in the article is whether the CFL mandates that the player be witnessed while urinating (to eliminate using a concealed sample in a eyedrop bottle or "Whizzinator" for example).... which can lead to the "shy bladder" argument. Of course this only flys for so long before nature insists. You also don't need that much pee to test. 

It's still a bizarre situation, as any adulterant in the sample won't disappear in the short number of hours  that would pass before any healthy individual would need to urinate. 

Its almost as if they think the tester will forget about the test. Ha  

 

re...Cadwallader

 

" Though little is known about the historical Cadwaladr, he became a mythical redeemer figure in Welsh culture. He is a prominent character in the romanticstories of Geoffrey of Monmouth, where he is portrayed as the last in an ancient line to hold the title King of Britain. "

 

descended from a king.    put him in!

1 hour ago, Rod Black said:

2 games suspended for “I couldn’t make pee pee” is cheaper than 4 games for juicing. 

from my childhood, I remember " mum, I havta" , opposite problem. hopping  around holding private parts.

Edited September 11, 20214 yr by Mark F

9 minutes ago, Pete Catan's Ghost said:

I've tested hundreds of individuals through my workplace over the years. 

Invariably they are dirty when they use the can't pee defence. What they don't mention in the article is whether the CFL mandates that the player be witnessed while urinating (to eliminate using a concealed sample in a eyedrop bottle or "Whizzinator" for example).... which can lead to the "shy bladder" argument. Of course this only flys for so long before nature insists. You also don't need that much pee to test. 

It's still a bizarre situation, as any adulterant in the sample won't disappear in the short number of hours  that would pass before any healthy individual would need to urinate. 

Its almost as if they think the tester will forget about the test. Ha  

 

I did not know this. Thank you. 

36 minutes ago, Pete Catan's Ghost said:

I've tested hundreds of individuals through my workplace over the years. 

Invariably they are dirty when they use the can't pee defence. What they don't mention in the article is whether the CFL mandates that the player be witnessed while urinating (to eliminate using a concealed sample in a eyedrop bottle or "Whizzinator" for example).... which can lead to the "shy bladder" argument. Of course this only flys for so long before nature insists. You also don't need that much pee to test. 

It's still a bizarre situation, as any adulterant in the sample won't disappear in the short number of hours  that would pass before any healthy individual would need to urinate. 

Its almost as if they think the tester will forget about the test. Ha  

 

About a month ago I went for a blood test, and completely forgot about the urine sample too. I had emptied the old bladder at home a few times cause I didn't want to use the bathroom in the clinic and knew I'd be waiting for a while....they then told me they wanted two urine samples. It took me a minute but I got it done. He's 100% hiding something. 

He’s dirty. Another example of not being able to keep up with the Champions. Fake can’t pee pee. Fake injuries before the snap. Just like the banjo pickin inbreds. Scum and dumb. Pukey, bleh. Filthy. 

It is strange for him to withhold, since he knows the penalty is the same. And it’s not like a DUI where you refuse to blow and get the same charge as if you blew over .08. In that case, a higher reading (more than double) automatically becomes aggravating at sentencing, so I am aware of cops who say if they were to get caught under suspicion of driving drunk, always blow if you think you are under or on the line, but absolutely refuse if you know you are going over, to avoid the extra punishment of a super high reading.  Since there is no extra suspension derived from higher amounts in the system, why avoid the test? Unless he wanted to go the Andrew Harris route of “only trace amounts, so I can claim inadvertent tainted supplement with plausible deniability”, and figured recent usage would make that claim more dubious than it already is. 

Edited September 11, 20214 yr by TrueBlue4ever

 

 

 

It could also depend on how many different panels you are using (types of drug groups you are testing for), because very broad testing can be quite expensive. Cocaine, Cannabis, Benzos, Amphetamines, and Opiates are types of panels.

For example, I would not be testing all football players across the board for opiate use as many would come back positive due to the Rx pain killers that many are on. (There are many types of opiates and certain panels could show up positive for opiates whether the individual shot Heroin, ate too much poppeyseed loaf, or used Rx oxycontin) I also may not test for Cannabis if it wasn't explicitly prohibited as a PED because I may not want to open that can of worms (since many players smoke weed and it is now legal.)

Different companies/groups have different rules. The CFL, addictions treatment centres, and even the Federal Dept. of Transport have different dos and don'ts. for their employees.

I have no idea what type or number of panels you would need for PEDs. I'm guessing it is quite extensive.

 

Edited September 11, 20214 yr by Pete Catan's Ghost

1 hour ago, Pete Catan's Ghost said:

I've tested hundreds of individuals through my workplace over the years. 

Invariably they are dirty when they use the can't pee defence. What they don't mention in the article is whether the CFL mandates that the player be witnessed while urinating (to eliminate using a concealed sample in a eyedrop bottle or "Whizzinator" for example).... which can lead to the "shy bladder" argument. Of course this only flys for so long before nature insists. You also don't need that much pee to test. 

It's still a bizarre situation, as any adulterant in the sample won't disappear in the short number of hours  that would pass before any healthy individual would need to urinate. 

Its almost as if they think the tester will forget about the test. Ha  

 

I completely agree.  Through my work I’ve also done a pile of urinalysis tests and when they “can’t pee” or just straight up refuse it’s because they have something real bad in their system that they don’t want to be shown in the results.  I shook my head when I read the reports on Leonard and listened to Dickenson and the fans defend him.  

23 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

It is strange for him to withhold, since he knows the penalty is the same. And it’s not like a DUI where you refuse to blow and get the same charge as if you blew over .08. In that case, a higher reading (more than double) automatically becomes aggravating at sentencing, so I am aware of cops who say if they were to get caught under suspicion of driving drunk, always blow if you think you are under or on the line, but absolutely refuse if you know you are going over, to avoid the extra punishment of a super high reading.  Since there is no extra suspension derived from higher amounts in the system, why avoid the test? Unless he wanted to go the Andrew Harris route of “only trace amounts, so I can claim inadvertent tainted supplement with plausible deniability”, and figured recent usage would make that claim more dubious than it already is. 

He withheld the sample because he knows what’s in his system.  It’s obviously something that would have ruined him far worse than just claiming he couldn’t pee.  The end result is the same as far as punishment but his secret stays safe.