fishbane

Marstellar entered the Nittany Lion Open in middle school. He defeated a PSU backup I think. DNP but he was in middle school.

Glad he's doing well after surgery. ID at a pharmacy will depend on the state and also potentially the pharmacy and drug being prescribed. The last prescription I had filled did not require ID. A lot of the things might require ID some places but not universally, similar to voting.

Funny, but a passport is not the issue for those crossing illegally at the souther border, its getting a visa.

This isn't a TSA requirement for a domestic flight. If auntie lives in another country they need an ID, namely a passport.

Poll workers are paid where I live though not much. Probably would be difficult to recruit people to do it if they were held strictly liable for accepting/processing an ineligible ballot in the say way PA holds liquor license holders responsible for serving underage patrons. I suspect the government wouldn't do that to itself. They often write laws private business and citizens are required to follow, but they are exempted.

I dunno man people ask for things all the time that aren't required. We're comparing how hundreds of different business might set their policy vs what is required by law. I'd expect voters to get more consistent treatment at a government administered voting location than across hundreds/thousands of private businesses. If the law doesn't say something is required to do something then I'd expect the government to not require it. Private business can be ridiculous. Home Depot asks me to see my government issued ID more in a year than the government that issued it does.

Where are these states that require it? Someone said Florida. I don't know Florida law. I personally don't know for a fact that it's the law anywhere, but concede it's possible it's the law somewhere in the US. Liquor laws are highly variable and often very weird. Some places in this country it's straight up illegal for anyone to even possess alcohol. Still I'd be incredibly surprised if requiring an ID was the law in most of the country. If I'm right and it's not, then its inclusion in the left hand list of the graphic is pretty misleading. Pennsylvania. Below is a direct quote from the state liquor control board website. "Nothing in the Liquor Code or the PLCB’s Regulations requires patrons to possess valid identification while on licensed premises. However, section 493 of the Liquor Code states that licensees are strictly liable for service to minors, including minors who may be on licensed premises with a parent, legal guardian, or under proper supervision. 47 P.S. § 4- 493(1). Verifying the age of a patron by checking identifications cards each and every time a patron is in the licensed establishment helps to ensure that a licensee will not be in violation of the law." I think it is a common misconception that requiring ID is a law. In most cases it is policy adopted by the particular business from a risk standpoint. Requiring ID will reduce the chance of them violating the law and getting fined or their license revoked. In some places having proof a valid ID was provided (scan data) will limit the punishment for serving a minor. As a matter of practicality, I have personally purchased liquor in more than ten states without providing identification.

It's possible. I just wonder what that law looks like that they are charged with breaking. Any law crafted so subjectively - "appears under 40" would have problems. It's legal to sell alcohol to a 35 year old that appears to be 40, but it's illegal to sell alcohol to a 35 year old that appears to be 35. It sounds like a bad law, but those do exist. The law in Florida is beside the point anyway. Even if a a few states actually have a law requiring establishments that sell alcohol to check or scan a valid government issued picture ID for every patron that doesn't really make the graphic any less misleading. There are a few states that require a photo ID to vote. You could put voting in the left hand column with purchasing alcohol or you could put purchasing alcohol in the right hand column with voting.

If someone casts a vote that is ineligible to vote the could also face punishment. Literally the entire list in your graphic is like this. Getting a prescription. My dentist gave me a prescription a couple weeks ago. I don't think I have ever shown him a photo ID. Possibly years ago when I first went to see him. When I went to have it filled I did so at a pharmacy I had never filled a prescription before and they didn't ask for ID. I had to give them my date of birth and they were somewhat concerned that my doctor had not put that on the prescription. They may have called him to verify between when I dropped it off and picked it up a couple days later. I did not show ID when picking it up either. Maybe in some states or for some medication it is required. I am sure many prescriptions are written every day for minors that don't have ID or elderly or sick individuals that simply cannot travel to the pharmacy themselves to fill it. They all get their medication without showing ID. Boarding a plane. Travelers under 18 years old do not have to show ID to the TSA. That's a lot of people. I personally have travelled by plane as an adult thrice post 9/11 without showing a photo ID. The first time I was 18 or 19 and didn't have a drivers license yet. I didn't have a state ID. This would have been within a year or two of 9/11. Not sure what I showed if anything to get my boarding pass. The other two times were in the past 10-12 years. Both times I had forgotten my ID or had temporarily lost it. I was given a pat down and extended screening, but allowed to travel. I may have showed something with my name on it like a credit card, but didn't have anything with a photo. I am sure if you lose your drivers license you will be allowed to board a plane in 2024. Applying for a Job. I don't think this is a thing either. I had several jobs before I had a drivers license. I think my sister even had a job before she was old enough to get a drivers license. The only "government issued" ID we would have had then was a student ID from the public high school we attended. I don't know if I provided that which would be an acceptable document for form I9, but a photo ID is not necessary. Proof of ID for ID is worded like this on I9 "ID card issued by federal, state or local government agencies or entities, provided it contains a photograph _or_ information such as name, date of birth, gender, height, eye color, and address". So it doesn't need to have a photograph on it at all and some of the listed options don't typically have a photograph, like a voter registration card. Show a voter card and your social security card and your Gucci for I9. Cashing a check. I am pretty sure there is no law on this. You might struggle to find someone willing to do it, but I believe it is theoretically possible. ... it's the whole entire list.

I am talking about today, but that link said nothing about requiring ID and I said nothing about underage drinking. I'm not talking about 20 years ago. I don't know any state that requires an alcohol sellers to check an ID before selling alcohol. Penalties I am aware of are for actually selling alcohol to minors. I think some States remove liability for the establishment if the patron provided a valid ID. This is also why some store will scan all IDs this way they have a record. I personally hate buying alcohol at these places because I don't want my information stored in their system and potentially in another data breach. I try to give ID as infrequently as possible. Secret shoppers are over 21, but may appear to be under 21. There is usually not a legal penalty for selling to one without checking the ID because you haven't broken the law. The shopper will tell the manager though and the employee that made the sale may be disciplined.

I never said anything about selling alcohol to minors. I never bought alcohol from a store as a minor. It often happens as a middle age man. Walk into to a bar order alcohol. Pay for alcohol. Consume alcohol. Leave. All very similar to how Willie described his voting experience in PA for the last presidential election, but even more anonymous. He had to identify himself by giving his name which was matched to a list. I have been served alcohol legally without giving my name or ID. I don't know what you're going on about with the common law marriage thing. You just say you're married no identification that's how it works - not everywhere but in some states. You can then file your taxes as married. No identification is provided when filing taxes. The only place that link you provided said anything about providing identification was when filing a name change, which was not on the original graphic and is also something that is not required when you get married. I suspect many places that ask for ID when filing for a marriage it isn't even really a requirement. The law probably is similar has an age limit so the ID is just proof that both parties are old enough to enter into marriage. A couple senior citizens go in there with the forms filled out and they breeze through. Someone brings a birth certificate instead of a drivers license and they are good to go. Some places might require photo ID too.

Not sure what you mean. Do you mean pick something from the list of things the graphic purports ID is required for that it really isn't? An easy one would be getting married. Several states allow for common law marriage. You don't have to show anything to anyone for your marriage to be recognized by the state in a state that allows common law marriage. The two people that wish to be married simply start saying they are married and they are. Some states with common law marriage specify that the individuals need to cohabitate for a minimum period or be of a certain age, but there is still nothing which must be filed for the marriage to be legal and certainly no ID presented. Another one is buying alcohol. I have purchased alcohol many many times without presenting a valid ID. If someone suggested we should require ID for voting in the same way it's required to buy alcohol, that doesn't sound like it would be very secure at all. Underage people buy alcohol all the time in this country, I think almost everything in the list can be done without a valid ID. Which do you think really cannot in any of the United States?

The toughest tournament possible is a theoretical thing that has never been wrestled. I don't think anyone ever said that winning the Olympics without Russia is easy or even that the 74KG bracket will be easier than any 74kg bracket from any other year. You could probably find a 74kg World/Olympic bracket from some year and I would say yes it is tougher in 2024 than that year. It doesn't really matter though because it is easier than it should be and not for sporting reasons, doping, bad performances, objective rules, or a personal decision of any particular athlete to not compete. It is because the IOC doesn't like what some athletes might think about a particular war. So even if you find the easiest 74kg World/Olympic bracket in history I will probably still consider the champion the best wrestler in the world at that weight that particular year. If the Olympic champion this year never beats Sidakov and Sidakov wasn't allowed to compete that probably won't be the case in 2024.

Sidakov had already been selected as the rep before that match. Something like this could happen in the US too. Someone who won the trials in April or May could be beaten by an American at an event in July. It kind of happened in 2019 when Retherford won the trials over Diakomihalis and they both entered Yasar Dogu in July meeting in the first round. Diakomihalis won that match and ultimately the tournament whilst Retherford lost in the repechage finishing 7th. It's not exactly the same because those two met in the finals of the trials and the Yasar Dogu result was a reversal of that. Retherford didn't ultimately win worlds that year anyway. If Retherford had won I think most would have just said that we sent the right guy, but they were really close. Instead some people questioned our selection process and thought we should have sent Diakomihalis, which was in part because of their controversial trials series. Irregardless the World Champ doesn't have to be undefeated the entire year. He just needs to qualify/get selected by his country and then win the tournament. Sidakov did both. Bizhoev did neither. I know some countries might have a different selection processes and it is theoretically possible (not in the case of Retherford/Diakomihalis or even Sidakov/Bizhoev) for one wrestler be the best in the world and consistently winning everything simply to have the country's federation send someone else, but I can't think of a situation where that's happened. Countries have an interest in sending their best guy. When one wrestler is picked over another it's usually for a sporting reason though possibly a more subjective one. I think the US had something like this in the world team procedures one year. It was something like the national team coach could essentially invalidate the trials champ if the person wasn't a past world medalist and send the trials winner and another guy to some international tournament and whoever placed higher would wrestle at worlds. I don't think it was ever used if it was the rep didn't change.

The only one that kind of applies here is the third item in your list. Sidakov wasn't beaten out by someone from his country (1), he also didn't lose in the bracket (2), and he isn't injured (3) all of which are sporting related reasons and would seam to indicate he isn't the best in the world this year. He also didn't refuse to enter or wrestle (5) for any reason personal, political, or otherwise. The IOC told him he couldn't enter because they didn't like how he might think about something which is different. It is not a sporting reason at all and it isn't a decision Sidakov made If you tell the best guy in the world he can't enter because you don't like how he thinks it kind of changes the meaning of winning the event from any other year. Most years the World/Olympic champion is thought of as the best in the world that year. That won't exactly be the case this year and at this weight especially.

Looks like his last competition may have been 2019 in Cuba. Would be past 5 years now. Still probably a little behind some of the other names mentioned in both international and NCAA success. Definitely Askren and Herbert.

Literally half that stuff can be done without a photo ID. Probably over half. The partisan split on the topic of voter ID almost entirely boils down to the demographics of those who would need to get a photo ID in order to comply with the law and don't otherwise have one. This is essentially those without a driver's license which are disproportionately young people and/or residents in urban areas. These individuals have historically voted for Democrats at a higher rate than Republican candidates. If the reverse were true, Republicans might still be worried about election security but they wouldn't be pushing for laws requiring that photo ID be presented.

Indeed and he had defeated Cassar's finals opponent, White, earlier that season 8-2. Third is close to winning. Not as close as 2nd, but closer than the 4th or even 5th. I think there were three matches between these guys in the regular season. Steveson beat White in an early season dual. White then bested Cassar in the Southern Scuffle final. At Big Tens Cassar defeated Steveson. The seeds at NCAAs were 1) White, 2)Cassar, 3) Steveson.

On FRL today JD said Russia pushed the date for the World Friendship games until July 2025. Not sure if that's true or not. I found a Reuters article (link) that says Inside the Games is reporting this, but the website still says 2024 on it.

https://nepswa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/NP-BRACKETS-1962.pdf 168lbs

I've seen this get brought up in comparisons of Dake with Taylor and Burroughs. This kind of stuff gets brought up in GOAT arguments which only really happen between wrestling nerds. I think a lot of it will depend on what happens next year. If those guys all win worlds next year it's a bigger thing. What makes 1984 have an asterisk was that so many boycotting wrestlers won worlds in 1983 and 1985. I've never heard anyone talk about an asterisk on the 1980 olympic champs medals. This is even though there Beloglasov bros won weights that were won by boycotting Japanese wrestlers in 1979. 2024 will likely be closer to a 1980 asterisk than 1984. If any of these guys have a problem with a 1980's asterisk they could just go to the World Friendship Games and set the record straight.

I mean Mehki Lewis would have been a 5 timer too and he only won the 1. From the list of 18 true freshman champs only 3 became 4xers. Five were 3xers, three were 2xers, and seven only ever won a single title. We got to see Brooks vs Downey at the 2021 Olympic trials. Downey won that match convincingly. He also accused Flo of trying to hide the match footage in an instagram post before the trials this year. That's probably right, but it's not for lack of ability. Downey won national titles in high school. He won NHSCA Senior Nationals in 2011. He also won Junior Nationals in Fargo in 2011. He won the trials to get on the Junior World team in 2012 (Silver). He also won Senior Nationals in 2019 and the WTT the same year. So he won multiple national titles at the level below college and also won at the level above college. It's not much of a stretch to envision him winning in college too apart from the college and team rules that go with it. Perhaps if he had a season where there was an abbreviated schedule and many distractions were shut down by the government like in 2021 he could have stayed focused long enough to do it. Here is a list of NCAA champs Downey has defeated; Aaron Brooks (4x Champ), Quentin Wright (2x Champ), Gabe Dean (2x Champ), Myles Martin (1x Champ), and Drew Foster (1x Champ). All of those matches were after those guys had won at least one title except the Drew Foster match. He's also beaten 5 other NCAA finalists; Robert Hamlin (2x runner up at 184), Tyler Caldwell (2x runner up at 165), Nick Heflin (runner up at 197), Jared Haught (runner up at 197), and Brett Pfarr (runner up at 197).

I doubt this list is complete, but in the old weights (1970-1998) true freshman champs are Pat Milkovich (126), Darryl Burley (134), Lincoln McIlravy (142), Pat Smith (158), Matt Reiss (167), and Mark Branch (167). There have been a couple close calls at 285. Mocco and Steveson were very close to winning as true freshman. I think Spencer Lee is the only wrestler to win a title as a true freshman at the lightest weight since 1970. Others have been close. Megaludis and Nickerson lost in the final as true freshmen.

I'm not sure it's any harder to win as a true freshman than any other weight. There really aren't that many true freshman champs at any weight. Below are the number of true freshman champs at each weight since the weight class change in 1999. 125 - 1 (Lee) 133 - None 141 - 3 (Ware, Dake, Diakomihalis) 149 - 1 (Schlatter) 157 - None 165 - None 174 - 2 (Martin, Hall) 184 - None 197 - 2 (Cox, Ferrari) 285 - None

The only one I know of is J'den Cox. Kyle Snyder was pretty close too.