Sunday, October 10, 2010

rec.bicycles.racing - 17 new messages in 5 topics - digest

Buzz It
rec.bicycles.racing
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing?hl=en

rec.bicycles.racing@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Plasticizers irrelevant to old USPS samples - 5 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/de30e6aeb0fb7a59?hl=en
* Poor Contador - 6 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/f2f9152e91f238c9?hl=en
* Longchamps - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/29348770ca734d35?hl=en
* What Price Winning? - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/cdb5756c65c6eedc?hl=en
* Diversion - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/4aa06ab810b6ca61?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Plasticizers irrelevant to old USPS samples
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/de30e6aeb0fb7a59?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 9 2010 2:38 pm
From: Fred Fredburger


On 10/8/2010 12:45 PM, Frederick the Great wrote:
> In article
> <c1cb4c1a-0046-4e24-87a4-a52d4d3c39fa@i13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> dbrower<dbrower@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 8, 9:55 am, "Kurgan Gringioni"<soulinthemach...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dumbass -
>>>
>>> The chances are about zero that they have one type of plastic for blood and
>>> another type for saline. From a engineering materials standpoint the IV
>>> system with blood and IV system with saline is the same thing.
>>>
>>
>> Some discussions say the plastic stuff binds differently to blood and
>> saline, so the levels are distinguishable. That means the saline IV
>> argument might not, as they say, hold water.
>>
>> If I had samples stored from 2000-2005, I would not be hanging my
>> hopes on the belief that these tests are invalid, and easily
>> dismissed. They are going to be parts of a pile of evidence, not the
>> only pieces.
>
> What are the samples stored in? Plastic?
> Glass vial with a ground glass stopper?
>

Yeah, but...

The only reason we're talking about this is because BL/Maggy finds the
1999 samples that were tested in 2005 as absolute, 100% compelling
proof. As though:

- The number of controlled field studies of the EPO test on 6 year old
urine is not exactly 0.
- The AFLD hadn't referred to these tests as "experiments" and "tests".
- The chain of custody were indisputable.
- The defense attorneys will break down in tears when faced with these
tests instead of confusing the hell out of the jury with "expert"
testimony that say the tests are crap.

When compared to the Lafferty/Magilla blind acceptance of the 2005 tests
ability to convince a jury, this plasticizer stuff isn't bad.

Of course, all these tests are pointless nonsense when compared to Betsy
Andreau's accusations of genocide, or Kristin Armstrong's pictures of
Lance snaking on small Bosnian children. This is the shit that will get
LA tried at The Hague.


== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 9 2010 6:34 pm
From: Fred Fredburger


BLafferty wrote:
> On 10/9/2010 2:33 AM, RicodJour wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 3:26 pm, BLafferty<Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> There is a reason. Do some Googling and you'll find it easy enough.
>>> The positive from 1999 will be potentially admissible in the US at a
>>> criminal trial if a proper base for its introduction is shown in court.
>>
>> Potentially + if + proper = candy ass weaseling.
>>
>> R
> ROTFL! The reason is known to everyone who follows the sport. If
> someone doesn't know (really) it behooves him to spend the time (very
> little needed) getting their own answer. Unless you'd like to tell the
> poster. :-)

You're in favor of people "getting their own answer"?

Jesus Christ, you are wonderful!


== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 9 2010 6:50 pm
From: RicodJour


On Oct 9, 11:41 am, BLafferty <Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 10/9/2010 2:33 AM, RicodJour wrote:> On Oct 8, 3:26 pm, BLafferty<Br...@nowhere.com>  wrote:
>
> >> There is a reason.  Do some Googling and you'll find it easy enough.
> >> The positive from 1999 will be potentially admissible in the US at a
> >> criminal trial if a proper base for its introduction  is shown in court.
>
> > Potentially + if + proper = candy ass weaseling.
>
>
> ROTFL! The reason is known to everyone who follows the sport.  If
> someone doesn't know (really) it behooves him to spend the time (very
> little needed) getting their own answer. Unless you'd like to tell the
> poster. :-)

No, Barry L'Enema. I was addressing your weaselly way of phrasing
things. Sufficient numbers of modifiers make a statement not a
statement...pointless. Much like your existence. You also didn't
mention LANCE. You're slipping.

R


== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 9 2010 6:55 pm
From: Fred Fredburger


RicodJour wrote:
> On Oct 9, 11:41 am, BLafferty <Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 10/9/2010 2:33 AM, RicodJour wrote:> On Oct 8, 3:26 pm, BLafferty<Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> There is a reason. Do some Googling and you'll find it easy enough.
>>>> The positive from 1999 will be potentially admissible in the US at a
>>>> criminal trial if a proper base for its introduction is shown in court.
>>> Potentially + if + proper = candy ass weaseling.
>>
>> ROTFL! The reason is known to everyone who follows the sport. If
>> someone doesn't know (really) it behooves him to spend the time (very
>> little needed) getting their own answer. Unless you'd like to tell the
>> poster. :-)
>
> No, Barry L'Enema. I was addressing your weaselly way of phrasing
> things. Sufficient numbers of modifiers make a statement not a
> statement...pointless. Much like your existence. You also didn't
> mention LANCE. You're slipping.

He doesn't know what candyass means.


== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 9 2010 11:58 pm
From: Frederick the Great


In article <4cb0e0d7@news.x-privat.org>,
Fred Fredburger <JimJoeBobFred@Everywhere> wrote:

> On 10/8/2010 12:45 PM, Frederick the Great wrote:
> > In article
> > <c1cb4c1a-0046-4e24-87a4-a52d4d3c39fa@i13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> > dbrower<dbrower@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Oct 8, 9:55 am, "Kurgan Gringioni"<soulinthemach...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Dumbass -
> >>>
> >>> The chances are about zero that they have one type of plastic for blood and
> >>> another type for saline. From a engineering materials standpoint the IV
> >>> system with blood and IV system with saline is the same thing.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Some discussions say the plastic stuff binds differently to blood and
> >> saline, so the levels are distinguishable. That means the saline IV
> >> argument might not, as they say, hold water.
> >>
> >> If I had samples stored from 2000-2005, I would not be hanging my
> >> hopes on the belief that these tests are invalid, and easily
> >> dismissed. They are going to be parts of a pile of evidence, not the
> >> only pieces.
> >
> > What are the samples stored in? Plastic?
> > Glass vial with a ground glass stopper?
> >
>
> Yeah, but...
>
> The only reason we're talking about this is because BL/Maggy finds the
> 1999 samples that were tested in 2005 as absolute, 100% compelling
> proof. As though:
>
> - The number of controlled field studies of the EPO test on 6 year old
> urine is not exactly 0.
> - The AFLD hadn't referred to these tests as "experiments" and "tests".
> - The chain of custody were indisputable.
> - The defense attorneys will break down in tears when faced with these
> tests instead of confusing the hell out of the jury with "expert"
> testimony that say the tests are crap.
>
> When compared to the Lafferty/Magilla blind acceptance of the 2005 tests
> ability to convince a jury, this plasticizer stuff isn't bad.
>
> Of course, all these tests are pointless nonsense when compared to Betsy
> Andreau's accusations of genocide, or Kristin Armstrong's pictures of
> Lance snaking on small Bosnian children. This is the shit that will get
> LA tried at The Hague.

Oh, yeah; I agree, which is the point of mentioning the
sample containers. If this were argued in a USA court
instead of rbr or the UCI/WADA klown skool the the
doping prosecutors would know what it is to be at the sharp end.

--
Old Fritz

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Poor Contador
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/f2f9152e91f238c9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 9 2010 2:56 pm
From: BLafferty


On 10/9/2010 4:51 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
> On Oct 9, 12:48 pm, Jeff Jones<drjone...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 6:33 pm, BLafferty<Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The bottom line is that Armstrong has never sued anyone in the US for
>>> defamation and most likely never will. He's threatened it, to Steffan
>>> Prentis, but has yet to follow through.
>>
>> Relevant to this is that it's much tougher to win a defamation case in
>> the US compared to England and Wales (not sure about other countries).
>> The laws aren't hugely different but way they're judged is.
>>
>> And threatening to sue is far far more common than actually suing. The
>> threat is usually for PR. If someone's serious about suing, then they
>> will do it before proclaiming it to the world.
>
> Lafferty should also know that the standard for establishing slander/
> libel of a public figure is much more burdensome that that for any
> other mere mortal.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Public_figure_doctrine_.28absence_of_malice.29
>
> The point being that a "public figure" can sue and establish that
> allegedly slanderous material is 100% false, yet still lose the
> slander suit.
> It's almost as if there is a "presumption of truth" which the
> slandered public figure must overcome.
> DR

For a public figure to prevail in a defamation suit in the US, he must
prove that the defamatory statement was made with "actual malice."
Actual malice is the making of a defamatory statement knowing that the
statement is false when made or with reckless disregard for the truth or
falsity of the statement when made. This is a much higher burden of
proof that that found in UK law.


== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 9 2010 3:00 pm
From: BLafferty


On 10/9/2010 5:06 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> On Oct 9, 8:43 am, BLafferty<Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> He's being defamed! Alberto, old boy, truth is an absolute defense to
>> defamation. Give your friend Lance a call. He'll explain to you why
>> he's never sued anyone in the US for defamation.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contador-calls-for-end-of-defamatory-...
>
> Christ, Lafferty, you even candyassed this one by
> pointing out that Armstrong has never sued anyone
> _in the US_. Why the disclaimer? Because you know
> it's not even an applicable example. Contador is
> presumably not planning to sue anyone in the US.
> He doesn't give a rat's ass about what the US media
> says. Of course, he's unlikely to actually sue anyone
> in Europe either - it's just the usual PR spin. But it's all
> about LANCE for you, as usual.
>
> Fredmaster Ben

FuckTard, Lance will explain how different the law of defamation is in
the US when compared to the UK and the continental legal systems. He'll
advise Alberta to sue in the UK if possible. Anyone here know the
parameters of defamation law in Belgium?


== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 9 2010 5:23 pm
From: Fred


On Oct 9, 4:00 pm, BLafferty <Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Anyone here know the parameters of defamation law in Belgium?

You mean, anyone besides you?

Fred


== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 9 2010 5:55 pm
From: BLafferty


On 10/9/2010 8:23 PM, Fred wrote:
> On Oct 9, 4:00 pm, BLafferty<Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Anyone here know the parameters of defamation law in Belgium?
>
> You mean, anyone besides you?
>
> Fred
I don't. Do you, FuckTard?


== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 9 2010 6:55 pm
From: RicodJour


On Oct 9, 6:00 pm, BLafferty <Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 10/9/2010 5:06 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 9, 8:43 am, BLafferty<Br...@nowhere.com>  wrote:
> >> He's being defamed!  Alberto, old boy, truth is an absolute defense to
> >> defamation.  Give your friend Lance a call. He'll explain to you why
> >> he's never sued anyone in the US for defamation.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contador-calls-for-end-of-defamatory-...
>
> > Christ, Lafferty, you even candyassed this one by
> > pointing out that Armstrong has never sued anyone
> > _in the US_.  Why the disclaimer?  Because you know
> > it's not even an applicable example.  Contador is
> > presumably not planning to sue anyone in the US.
> > He doesn't give a rat's ass about what the US media
> > says.  Of course, he's unlikely to actually sue anyone
> > in Europe either - it's just the usual PR spin.  But it's all
> > about LANCE for you, as usual.
>
>
> FuckTard, Lance will explain how different the law of defamation is in
> the US when compared to the UK and the continental legal systems. He'll
> advise Alberta to sue in the UK if possible.  Anyone here know the
> parameters of defamation law in Belgium?

You don't care about cycling, you just care about keeping the shit
being stirred. This should have been obvious to me, but I have
problems translating your dweeb to English.

Here's a thought - why not start your own newsgroup that will allow
you to pontificate on all the meaningless drivel ancillary to any
sport. Chess, cycling, same diff, right? As long as you get to be
ringmaster in your circle jerk circus, you're winning. Go you!

R


== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 10 2010 12:11 am
From: Ronko


In article <251426a2-c98a-47c1-874a-
6b3a60196887@f14g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, DirtRoadie@aol.com
says...
>
>
>On Oct 9, 12:48 pm, Jeff Jones <drjone...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 6:33 pm, BLafferty <Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The bottom line is that Armstrong has never sued anyone in the US
for
>> > defamation and most likely never will. He's threatened it, to Steffan
>> > Prentis, but has yet to follow through.
>>
>> Relevant to this is that it's much tougher to win a defamation case in
>> the US compared to England and Wales (not sure about other
countries).
>> The laws aren't hugely different but way they're judged is.
>>
>> And threatening to sue is far far more common than actually suing. The
>> threat is usually for PR. If someone's serious about suing, then they
>> will do it before proclaiming it to the world.
>
>Lafferty should also know that the standard for establishing slander/
>libel of a public figure is much more burdensome that that for any
>other mere mortal.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Public_figure_doctrine_.28absen
ce_of_malice.29
>
>The point being that a "public figure" can sue and establish that
>allegedly slanderous material is 100% false, yet still lose the
>slander suit.
>It's almost as if there is a "presumption of truth" which the
>slandered public figure must overcome.
>DR
Good point. Once a person is considered a public person in the eyes of the
court the burden of proving defamation, slander and libel become dificult.


==============================================================================
TOPIC: Longchamps
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/29348770ca734d35?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 9 2010 4:41 pm
From: "Fred on a stick"


A. Dumas wrote:
> Philip Moore wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 8:15 am, "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr> wrote:
>>> A. Dumas wrote:
>>>> Friend of yours, F-o/a-Stickman?
>>> It helps to include the URL:http://plixi.com/p/49363989
>>
>> ?
>
> I thought Chung trained at Longchamps.

Sometimes. More often on the other side of Paris at the Bois de Vincennes. I
*think* I've seen that guy but I don't remember the JellyBelly gloves. There
are enough guys who look like that that I can't be sure. I don't think I've
ever seen Cozza there. I used to see Moncoutie at Vincennes before he moved
to the south.


== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 9 2010 4:43 pm
From: "Fred on a stick"


Fred on a stick wrote:
> There are enough guys who look like that that I
> can't be sure.

A lot of old white guys look alike to me.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What Price Winning?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/cdb5756c65c6eedc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 9 2010 4:45 pm
From: "H. Fred Kveck"


In article <6999ab91-b7fb-4300-bb29-25a96427cc00@i5g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Fred <fred.garvin@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Oct 9, 7:55 am, Fred Flintstein <bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net>
> wrote:
> > On 10/8/2010 8:50 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> >
> > > A simple assumption is that it did happen but
> > > the story is bogus and the use of clenbuterol and withdrawal
> > > of blood were at some other time, not when Contador was
> > > off winning stages and getting tested.  Clenbuterol is
> > > so old school and easy to detect that it would be safer
> > > not to use before a race you intended to be competitive in.
> >
> > Yes, that's my point. No reasonable person would take a
> > chance on a highly detectable drug like clenbuterol at
> > a race with as little significance as the Criterium du
> > Dauphiné, essentially a training race.
> >
> > Fred Flintstein
>
> Your point would make sense IF a reasonable person intended to take
> the drug at a level known to be highly detectable. Please keep in
> mind that AC was apparently using it at a very, very low level that
> was thought to be perfectly safe from detection until that one fateful
> day when they sent his sample to the ONE FRIKKIN LAB IN THE WHOLE
> WORLD that could detect at a level low enough to nab him. I'd be
> willing to bet that neither AC or anyone else in his little drug ring
> was aware that the lab in Cologne could detect it that low.
>
> End result: busted.

That may be true. Or: they know that using clen at such low levels yields no gain
so why even bother? The risk of trying to cut it close to the "detectable/not
detectable" level is one of those things that seems counterproductive to me,
especially since (as FF said above) clen is (and has been) a highly detectable drug.


== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 9 2010 4:53 pm
From: DirtRoadie


On Oct 9, 4:29 am, "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr> wrote:
> DirtRoadie wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 4:57 pm, Plano Dude wrote:
> >> On Oct 8, 5:43 pm, Brad Anders wrote:
> >>> Looks like the article has been yanked.
> >>http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5948/Astana-insider-claims-that-Con...
>
> > It's still there
> >http://bit.ly/9rnjoA
>
> > BTW what  prompted you to refer to an unnamed "rider?"
> > I may have missed it but I have seen only a reference to an Astana
> > "source."
>
> Don't you people go to the fucking source of an article? So you all
> depend blindly on the great journalistic integrity and fantastic
> translation skillz of the cycling press, nice.
>
> Original articlehttp://www.humo.be/tws/actua/21126/alberto-contador-de-waarheid-over-...
> talks about "a source very close to the Astana team of the Spanish Tour
> winner." The first quote is introduced as coming from "Wielrenner"
> (rider), subsequent quotes are from "Insider." Presumable they are one
> and the same.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 9 2010 4:57 pm
From: DirtRoadie


On Oct 9, 4:29 am, "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr> wrote:
> DirtRoadie wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 4:57 pm, Plano Dude wrote:
> >> On Oct 8, 5:43 pm, Brad Anders wrote:
> >>> Looks like the article has been yanked.
> >>http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5948/Astana-insider-claims-that-Con...
>
> > It's still there
> >http://bit.ly/9rnjoA
>
> > BTW what  prompted you to refer to an unnamed "rider?"
> > I may have missed it but I have seen only a reference to an Astana
> > "source."
>
> Don't you people go to the fucking source of an article? So you all
> depend blindly on the great journalistic integrity and fantastic
> translation skillz of the cycling press, nice.
>
> Original articlehttp://www.humo.be/tws/actua/21126/alberto-contador-de-waarheid-over-...
> talks about "a source very close to the Astana team of the Spanish Tour
> winner." The first quote is introduced as coming from "Wielrenner"
> (rider), subsequent quotes are from "Insider." Presumable they are one
> and the same.

Ah! If only every web source would state THEIR source rather than
suggesting that they have original information. And to be fair they
often do when the source is, for example, AP.
Anyhow, thanks for the root link.
DR

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Diversion
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/4aa06ab810b6ca61?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 9 2010 8:49 pm
From: coterock


Enough withe the PED, doping, Contador crap. At this point, we all
know the score. So, what we really need to see are muffs and camel
toe shots...

http://gallery.mtbr.com/showphoto.php/photo/346130


==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.bicycles.racing"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.bicycles.racing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

No comments:

gsk

https://secure.shareit.com/shareit/checkout.html?PRODUCT[300429992]=1&languageid=1&stylefrom=300429992&backlink=http%3A%2F%2Fforexguide.blogspot.com&cookies=1¤cies=USD&pts=VISA,MASTERCARD,AMEX,DC