Breaking James Stewart News

moto38 wrote:

I just want to step in and say that whether or not he told them or didnt, he wasnt doing the illegal stuff like blood doping...

I just want to step in and say that whether or not he told them or didnt, he wasnt doing the illegal stuff like blood doping or using hormones. He was using something that was legal to use if he had just told them about it, which is kind of silly to ban him from racing for.

Was the adderall helping his riding? probably a little, but he is also riding a 60 horsepower 200 pound rocketship with virtually no protection between him and life-ending injury, so if he needed to take a few to stay focused for a 30 minute race, then I cant really harp on him for that. I bet 50% of amateurs riding today are on the stuff, and I doubt James was getting them illegally, since any doctor will prescribe them for virtually anything.

Besides, to crucify one of the most important figures in our sport over such a tiny infraction is absolutely insane to me. James has changed the sport into what it is today. To those who say the rules shouldnt be changed just because he is a superstar- reality check: this happens in all aspects of life. The AMA would lose serious cash if they ban Stewart, and for an organization that is already as fringe as it is, it wouldnt be a good move.

Just to remind yall- he didnt blood dope, he didnt use steroids, and he didnt get caught with cocaine or pot. Its just adderall.

One Last Comeback wrote:

Holy shit....something just occurred to me. When amateur parents hear that Stewie's performance was improved by Adderall, I think a lot of upcoming racers are going...

Holy shit....something just occurred to me.

When amateur parents hear that Stewie's performance was improved by Adderall, I think a lot of upcoming racers are going to come down with ADD. It will be one of those things like arm pump surgery that was weird at first and now accepted.

Some of the parents would pour Amzoil down their kid's throats if they thought it would help them win races.

Crush wrote:

There is nothing wrong with what you're saying Gixxer, but how fucking ignorant is that? And where does it stop? What drug? What do you allow...

There is nothing wrong with what you're saying Gixxer, but how fucking ignorant is that?

And where does it stop? What drug? What do you allow in sport or society...What crime? it's all morals and ethics and some semantics too... but there is a simple way to not have a hassle. Just be a professional and follow the rules! It's not hard... It really isn't. He gets paid millions, there is a team of fuck knows how many people and whilst being a professional athlete, that gets drug tested, and had for years, taking a drug didn't raise any alarm bells... Really?

Crush wrote:

There is nothing wrong with what you're saying Gixxer, but how fucking ignorant is that? And where does it stop? What drug? What do you allow...

There is nothing wrong with what you're saying Gixxer, but how fucking ignorant is that?

And where does it stop? What drug? What do you allow in sport or society...What crime? it's all morals and ethics and some semantics too... but there is a simple way to not have a hassle. Just be a professional and follow the rules! It's not hard... It really isn't. He gets paid millions, there is a team of fuck knows how many people and whilst being a professional athlete, that gets drug tested, and had for years, taking a drug didn't raise any alarm bells... Really?

Whoops_Blitzer wrote:

Pretty sure if anyone's on steroids it's Crush.

ando wrote:

No, it says he has now got a TUE for the [b]drug[/b] that he tested positive for, not that he he's been exempted for the failed...

No, it says he has now got a TUE for the drug that he tested positive for, not that he he's been exempted for the failed test. You need to read it more carefully.

Whoops_Blitzer wrote:

OK, I see what you're saying. Tricky. After I posted that someone said "Good catch," and I was like, ??? All I did was read the...

OK, I see what you're saying. Tricky. After I posted that someone said "Good catch," and I was like, ??? All I did was read the headline.

But I think (hope) your superb reading comprehension is wasted here (which is to say JW might not have been focusing on his writing comprehension too much while composing it). He did say this, after all, later in the article: "The approved TUEs should conceivably allow James to...continue to race in 2015..."

So I choose to remain hopeful. (And also there's the fact that people are losing their minds, positively and negatively, about the decision to let JS race next year and no one from RX has thought they should clarify.)

ando wrote:

Yeah I did read that line, and I think it's a bit confusing. My interpretation of that sentence is "James can race in 2015 with his...

Yeah I did read that line, and I think it's a bit confusing. My interpretation of that sentence is "James can race in 2015 with his TUE, pending any suspension from the positive test.

I think what JW was trying to say was that if the TUE wasn't approved then James would be gone altogether.

StartedTooLate wrote:

The RacerX writer (Weege?) actually wrote that into line pretty poorly. [i] Racer X has learned through a reliable source that James Stewart's Theraputic Use Exemption...

The RacerX writer (Weege?) actually wrote that into line pretty poorly.

Racer X has learned through a reliable source that James Stewart's Theraputic Use Exemption (TUE) for the substance he tested positive for at the Seattle Supercross in April has been accepted by the World Anti-Doping Agency, which performs the anti-doping controls for Monster Energy AMA Supercross an FIM World Championship

" the substance he tested positive for at the Seattle Supercross in April" is a very long and confusing way of saying "Adderall".

So...re-write the sentence substituting that, and separate out the last clause.

"Racer X has learned through a reliable source that James Stewart's Theraputic Use Exemption (TUE) for Adderall has been accepted by the World Anti-Doping Agency. WADA performs the anti-doping controls for Monster Energy AMA Supercross an FIM World Championship."

Convoluted but grammatically correct writing by Weege has confused a lot of MotoHeads. Weege did NOT say that JS7 was off the hook for the Seattle SX infraction, though many have jumped to that conclusion. It was just a way the writer tried to make the statements flow.

James could still be subject to a big penalty....

ando wrote:

And this is exactly one of the potential consequences of "letting this one slide because it's James Stewart". While I don't think a career-ending suspension is...

And this is exactly one of the potential consequences of "letting this one slide because it's James Stewart".

While I don't think a career-ending suspension is warranted (and there certainly seems to be discretion within the WADA code to apply an appropriate suspension given the circumstances), there needs to be some form of meaningful suspension to demonstrate two things:

1. That ignorance/stupidity/laziness (or whatever other cause there is) for not knowing the rules and not submitting the appropriate documentation will not be tolerated.

2. That even if you are James Stewart (you can substitute your own favourite star here), if you break the rules, you will get some form of punishment.

Not metering any punishment will create a precedent that will be very hard to back away from in the future.

StartedTooLate wrote:

The RacerX writer (Weege?) actually wrote that into line pretty poorly. [i] Racer X has learned through a reliable source that James Stewart's Theraputic Use Exemption...

The RacerX writer (Weege?) actually wrote that into line pretty poorly.

Racer X has learned through a reliable source that James Stewart's Theraputic Use Exemption (TUE) for the substance he tested positive for at the Seattle Supercross in April has been accepted by the World Anti-Doping Agency, which performs the anti-doping controls for Monster Energy AMA Supercross an FIM World Championship

" the substance he tested positive for at the Seattle Supercross in April" is a very long and confusing way of saying "Adderall".

So...re-write the sentence substituting that, and separate out the last clause.

"Racer X has learned through a reliable source that James Stewart's Theraputic Use Exemption (TUE) for Adderall has been accepted by the World Anti-Doping Agency. WADA performs the anti-doping controls for Monster Energy AMA Supercross an FIM World Championship."

Convoluted but grammatically correct writing by Weege has confused a lot of MotoHeads. Weege did NOT say that JS7 was off the hook for the Seattle SX infraction, though many have jumped to that conclusion. It was just a way the writer tried to make the statements flow.

James could still be subject to a big penalty....

Crush wrote:

I don't think anything official has said it's adderall... That's a widely held assumption right?

Whoops_Blitzer wrote:

OK, I see what you're saying. Tricky. After I posted that someone said "Good catch," and I was like, ??? All I did was read the...

OK, I see what you're saying. Tricky. After I posted that someone said "Good catch," and I was like, ??? All I did was read the headline.

But I think (hope) your superb reading comprehension is wasted here (which is to say JW might not have been focusing on his writing comprehension too much while composing it). He did say this, after all, later in the article: "The approved TUEs should conceivably allow James to...continue to race in 2015..."

So I choose to remain hopeful. (And also there's the fact that people are losing their minds, positively and negatively, about the decision to let JS race next year and no one from RX has thought they should clarify.)

ando wrote:

Yeah I did read that line, and I think it's a bit confusing. My interpretation of that sentence is "James can race in 2015 with his...

Yeah I did read that line, and I think it's a bit confusing. My interpretation of that sentence is "James can race in 2015 with his TUE, pending any suspension from the positive test.

I think what JW was trying to say was that if the TUE wasn't approved then James would be gone altogether.

Whoops_Blitzer wrote:

The simplest explanation is often the rightest, ando, and mine's pretty simple. Besides, the title of the RX piece, "Stewart Drug Test Exemption Approved," doesn't make...

The simplest explanation is often the rightest, ando, and mine's pretty simple. Besides, the title of the RX piece, "Stewart Drug Test Exemption Approved," doesn't make sense applied to 2015. It's not like he's exempt from future testing.

Also, my last point was a good one, I think, but you didn't remark on it.

Crush wrote:

Racist.

10000hrs wrote:

I think that any national champion should be able to apply for a GCE (gladiator class exemption ) where he can take any PED he wants...

I think that any national champion should be able to apply for a GCE (gladiator class exemption ) where he can take any PED he wants and still race.

Crush wrote:

Racist.

Whoops_Blitzer wrote:

Gorilla!

StartedTooLate wrote:

The RacerX writer (Weege?) actually wrote that into line pretty poorly. [i] Racer X has learned through a reliable source that James Stewart's Theraputic Use Exemption...

The RacerX writer (Weege?) actually wrote that into line pretty poorly.

Racer X has learned through a reliable source that James Stewart's Theraputic Use Exemption (TUE) for the substance he tested positive for at the Seattle Supercross in April has been accepted by the World Anti-Doping Agency, which performs the anti-doping controls for Monster Energy AMA Supercross an FIM World Championship

" the substance he tested positive for at the Seattle Supercross in April" is a very long and confusing way of saying "Adderall".

So...re-write the sentence substituting that, and separate out the last clause.

"Racer X has learned through a reliable source that James Stewart's Theraputic Use Exemption (TUE) for Adderall has been accepted by the World Anti-Doping Agency. WADA performs the anti-doping controls for Monster Energy AMA Supercross an FIM World Championship."

Convoluted but grammatically correct writing by Weege has confused a lot of MotoHeads. Weege did NOT say that JS7 was off the hook for the Seattle SX infraction, though many have jumped to that conclusion. It was just a way the writer tried to make the statements flow.

James could still be subject to a big penalty....

10000hrs wrote:

I think that any national champion should be able to apply for a GCE (gladiator class exemption ) where he can take any PED he wants...

I think that any national champion should be able to apply for a GCE (gladiator class exemption ) where he can take any PED he wants and still race.

TDeath21 wrote:

In every other sport, the reason why you tested positive is irrelevant. There sometimes are fines given along with suspensions, but the common denominator is that...

In every other sport, the reason why you tested positive is irrelevant. There sometimes are fines given along with suspensions, but the common denominator is that there are always suspensions for at least part of the season. That's just how it works. I don't care who it is. He needs to be suspeneded for at least a few races.

LINK

gsxrcr28 wrote:

Jeez man, give it a rest. You have been negative in every Stewart thread you have ever posted in, you have no credibility. It's possible he...

Jeez man, give it a rest. You have been negative in every Stewart thread you have ever posted in, you have no credibility.
It's possible he will still get a penalty, it's not up to anyone on Vital to decide.
They have their penalties in place, loss if points, warning, suspension, fine, we will know soon enough.

TDeath21 wrote:

In every other sport, the reason why you tested positive is irrelevant. There sometimes are fines given along with suspensions, but the common denominator is that...

In every other sport, the reason why you tested positive is irrelevant. There sometimes are fines given along with suspensions, but the common denominator is that there are always suspensions for at least part of the season. That's just how it works. I don't care who it is. He needs to be suspeneded for at least a few races.

LINK

gsxrcr28 wrote:

Jeez man, give it a rest. You have been negative in every Stewart thread you have ever posted in, you have no credibility. It's possible he...

Jeez man, give it a rest. You have been negative in every Stewart thread you have ever posted in, you have no credibility.
It's possible he will still get a penalty, it's not up to anyone on Vital to decide.
They have their penalties in place, loss if points, warning, suspension, fine, we will know soon enough.

gsxrcr28 wrote:

Jeez man, give it a rest. You have been negative in every Stewart thread you have ever posted in, you have no credibility. It's possible he...

Jeez man, give it a rest. You have been negative in every Stewart thread you have ever posted in, you have no credibility.
It's possible he will still get a penalty, it's not up to anyone on Vital to decide.
They have their penalties in place, loss if points, warning, suspension, fine, we will know soon enough.

machine wrote:

I'm gonna guess a warning (hand slap) and some sort of fine, what's your guess?

TDeath21 wrote:

In every other sport, the reason why you tested positive is irrelevant. There sometimes are fines given along with suspensions, but the common denominator is that...

In every other sport, the reason why you tested positive is irrelevant. There sometimes are fines given along with suspensions, but the common denominator is that there are always suspensions for at least part of the season. That's just how it works. I don't care who it is. He needs to be suspeneded for at least a few races.

LINK

gsxrcr28 wrote:

Jeez man, give it a rest. You have been negative in every Stewart thread you have ever posted in, you have no credibility. It's possible he...

Jeez man, give it a rest. You have been negative in every Stewart thread you have ever posted in, you have no credibility.
It's possible he will still get a penalty, it's not up to anyone on Vital to decide.
They have their penalties in place, loss if points, warning, suspension, fine, we will know soon enough.

TDeath21 wrote:

Actually, I haven't been negative in every Stewart thread I've ever posted in. I haven't even used his name in this thread for the most part...

Actually, I haven't been negative in every Stewart thread I've ever posted in. I haven't even used his name in this thread for the most part. I'd be very adamant about this situation regardless of the rider. You just always go to every thread, no matter who the rider is, and look for anything at all negative said about that particular rider and then you respond with whatever post you decide to. So of course it would make sense that you remember everything negative anyone ever says about any rider.

Crush wrote:

Ebola?

Wait, what's that?

slipdog wrote:

Ebola? Pretty sure it's some 3rd world country that Sarah Palin can see from her front porch. [img]https://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2014/10/16/67897/s1200_ebola.jpg[/img]

Ebola?

Pretty sure it's some 3rd world country that Sarah Palin can see from her front porch.

Lifesarutt64 wrote:

Or at least let them take steroids to recover from injury quicker. If a rider has low testosterone should he be able to take a supplement...

Or at least let them take steroids to recover from injury quicker. If a rider has low testosterone should he be able to take a supplement to raise it to a set level.

gsxrcr28 wrote:

Jeez man, give it a rest. You have been negative in every Stewart thread you have ever posted in, you have no credibility. It's possible he...

Jeez man, give it a rest. You have been negative in every Stewart thread you have ever posted in, you have no credibility.
It's possible he will still get a penalty, it's not up to anyone on Vital to decide.
They have their penalties in place, loss if points, warning, suspension, fine, we will know soon enough.

TDeath21 wrote:

Actually, I haven't been negative in every Stewart thread I've ever posted in. I haven't even used his name in this thread for the most part...

Actually, I haven't been negative in every Stewart thread I've ever posted in. I haven't even used his name in this thread for the most part. I'd be very adamant about this situation regardless of the rider. You just always go to every thread, no matter who the rider is, and look for anything at all negative said about that particular rider and then you respond with whatever post you decide to. So of course it would make sense that you remember everything negative anyone ever says about any rider.

gsxrcr28 wrote:

I really only notice the posters that make me a bigger fan of the rider they post negative stuff about. Thanks for not resorting to juvenile...

I really only notice the posters that make me a bigger fan of the rider they post negative stuff about.
Thanks for not resorting to juvenile internet name calling though.

TDeath21 wrote:

Actually, I haven't been negative in every Stewart thread I've ever posted in. I haven't even used his name in this thread for the most part...

Actually, I haven't been negative in every Stewart thread I've ever posted in. I haven't even used his name in this thread for the most part. I'd be very adamant about this situation regardless of the rider. You just always go to every thread, no matter who the rider is, and look for anything at all negative said about that particular rider and then you respond with whatever post you decide to. So of course it would make sense that you remember everything negative anyone ever says about any rider.

gsxrcr28 wrote:

I really only notice the posters that make me a bigger fan of the rider they post negative stuff about. Thanks for not resorting to juvenile...

I really only notice the posters that make me a bigger fan of the rider they post negative stuff about.
Thanks for not resorting to juvenile internet name calling though.

TDeath21 wrote:

You're welcome. You are obviously an intelligent person. It's pretty obvious to pick those people out when they post. People on this forum will always have...

You're welcome. You are obviously an intelligent person. It's pretty obvious to pick those people out when they post. People on this forum will always have differences of opinions though. Some things I feel more strongly about than others, and I'm sure it's the same for you. Maybe I'll look back at this thread in a few days and wonder why I got so worked up about it. Who knows? Like you said, we will know the penalty soon enough. Our opinions on what that should be are obviously different, and the opinions throughout Vital also vary from each end of the spectrum. I've been on both sides of defending Stewart and not defending him. It's been the same with Villopoto. The predictability of those who defend and slam each rider is laughable. Everyone can rattle off the names who will defend Stewart no matter what and those who will defend Villopoto no matter what. The same can be said with who will slam Stewart at any chance and slam Villopoto at any chance, and those lists are almost perfectly reversed. Those are the two biggest examples, but it is pretty much the same with a lot of riders. We will see what the people who get paid to do this decide to do in regards to Stewart's penalty.