Monday, May 31, 2010

Medarticles Full articles needed

Buzz It
Dear Medarticles

Help me with full articles for the following


Psychosom Med. 2010 Feb;72(2):192-7. Epub 2009 Dec 22.

Conditioned pharmacotherapeutic effects: a preliminary study.

Ader RMercurio MGWalton JJames DDavis MOjha VKimball ABFiorentino D.

Department of Psychiatry, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York 14642, USA. Robert_Ader@urmc.rochester.edu


2.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20083692


Arch Dermatol. 2010 Jan;146(1):46-54.

Recent trends in systemic psoriasis treatment costs.

Beyer VWolverton SE.

Department of Dermatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, and St Vincent Hospital, 550 N University Blvd, Ste 3240, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA. vmontgra@iupui.edu

3. 

--
You can edit your Group Email settings by visiting the following link.
 
http://groups.google.com/group/medarticles/subscribe
 
You can choose abridged email or digest email so that you will receive only one email per day.

[socialactionfoundationforequity:2744 College students losing their sensitive side

Buzz It
College students losing their sensitive side
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/30/AR2010053003084.html

Monday, May 31, 2010
Are college students as nice as they used to be? Apparently not, and
modern technology may be partly to blame.

A new University of Michigan study has found that since 2000, college
students have become less empathetic.

Compared with college kids of the late 1970s, the study says, today's
are less likely to agree with statements including "I sometimes try to
understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their
perspective" and "I often have tender, concerned feelings for people
less fortunate than me."

The meta-analysis was led by Sara Konrath, a researcher at the
University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, and was
presented in Boston at the annual meeting of the Association for
Psychological Science. She analyzed data on empathy among almost
14,000 college students over the past 30 years.

"We found the biggest drop in empathy after the year 2000," said
Konrath, who is also affiliated with the University of Rochester's
Department of Psychiatry. "College kids today are about 40 percent
lower in empathy than their counterparts of 20 or 30 years ago, as
measured by standard tests of this personality trait."

Why is their empathy declining?

Konrath and graduate student Edward O'Brien, who worked on the study,
suggest several reasons, which they hope to explore in future
research.

"The increase in exposure to media during this time period could be
one factor," Konrath said. "Compared to 30 years ago, the average
American now is exposed to three times as much non-work-related
information.

"In terms of media content, this generation of college students grew
up with video games, and a growing body of research, including work
done by my colleagues at Michigan, is establishing that exposure to
violent media numbs people to the pain of others."

Social media may also play a role, O'Brien said.

"The ease of having 'friends' online might make people more likely to
just tune out when they don't feel like responding to others'
problems, a behavior that could carry over offline," he said.

Add in the hyper-competitive atmosphere and inflated expectations of
success, fueled by celebrity "reality shows," and there's a social
environment that works against slowing down and listening to someone
who needs a bit of sympathy, he said.

"College students today may be so busy worrying about themselves and
their own issues that they don't have time to spend empathizing with
others, or at least perceive such time to be limited," O'Brien said.

--
Truth resides in every human heart, and one has to search for it there, and to be guided by truth as one sees it. But no one has a right to coerce others to act according to his own view of truth. - Mohandas Gandhi

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "SAFE - Social Action Foundation for Equity" group.
To post to this group, send email to
socialactionfoundationforequity@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
socialactionfoundationforequity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.co.in/group/socialactionfoundationforequity?hl=en?hl=en-GB

Medarticles Plz help me with original articles

Buzz It
Dear Medarticles

PlZ help me with original articles for the following

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18573158

J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2008 Sep;22(9):1033-43. Epub 2008 Jun 19.

Metastatic Crohn's disease: a review.

Palamaras I, El-Jabbour J, Pietropaolo N, Thomson P, Mann S, Robles W, Stevens HP.

Barnet & Chase Farm NHS Trust, Dermatology, London, UK. drioulios@hotmail.com

 

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19594764

Clin Exp Dermatol. 2010 Apr;35(3):251-6. Epub 2009 Jul 6.

A comparison of metronidazole 1% cream and pimecrolimus 1% cream in the treatment of patients with papulopustular rosacea: a randomized open-label clinical trial.

Koca R, Altinyazar HC, Ankarali H, Muhtar S, Tekin NS, Cinar S.

Department of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine, Zonguldak Karaelmas University, Zonguldak, Turkey. rafkoca@yahoo.com

3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20107297

Postgrad Med. 2010 Jan;122(1):139-43.

A review of the diagnosis and treatment of rosacea.

Scheinfeld N, Berk T.

New York University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. scheinfeld@earthlink.net

 

4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18537995

Contact Dermatitis. 2008 Jul;59(1):23-30. Epub 2008 Jun 1.

The effect of irritant dermatitis on cutaneous bioavailability of a metronidazole formulation, investigated by microdialysis and dermatopharmacokinetic method.

Ortiz PG, Hansen SH, Shah VP, Menné T, Benfeldt E.

Department of Dermatology, Gentofte Hospital, 2900 Hellerup, Denmark. patriciagarcia@dadlnet.dk

 

5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17725855

J Pharm Pharmacol. 2007 Aug;59(8):1125-30.

Scavenging properties of metronidazole on free oxygen radicals in a skin lipid model system.

Narayanan S, Hünerbein A, Getie M, Jäckel A, Neubert RH.

Medical Department, Galderma Laboratorium GmbH, Georg-Glock-Str. 8, 40474 Düsseldorf, Germany.


 

 

 

--
You can edit your Group Email settings by visiting the following link.
 
http://groups.google.com/group/medarticles/subscribe
 
You can choose abridged email or digest email so that you will receive only one email per day.

[socialactionfoundationforequity:2742 Adopt Indian kids, but only as parents

Buzz It
Adopt Indian kids, but only as parents
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20100601/main2.htm

Govt revising guidelines to check trafficking of children
Aditi Tandon
Tribune News Service

New Delhi, May 31
Soon foreign couples wishing to adopt Indian children will have to do
so as lawful parents of the child to be adopted and not merely as its
guardians, which has been the case until now.

In a significant move to secure interests of Indian children given in
adoption abroad, the government is revising inter-country adoption
guidelines to make these more stringent.

New guidelines will mandate full and final adoption of children in
India before they are sent abroad with prospective parents. The change
was awaited since 2006 when inter-country adoption guidelines were
first notified. Adoptions are otherwise being monitored since 1990 by
the Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) that was established as an
autonomous body to clear inter-nation adoption requests.

The practice so far has been to allow foreigners to adopt Indian
children as guardians under the Guardians and Wards Act (GAWA), 1890,
take them abroad and legally adopt them as per the laws of their land.
Not until the said legal formality is completed in the recipient
country does the adopted child become a citizen there or enjoy rights
a biological child of the prospective parents in question would have
enjoyed.

Past experience shows legal processes are not always honoured. Follow-
up of adopted children who go abroad also remains a huge challenge
given the volume of such adoptions - estimated over 100 a year. In the
11 adoption agencies of Delhi alone, 243 foreign couples were on the
waiting list as of June, 2009.

HAQ, a Delhi-based child rights body, has even documented cases of
children trafficked abroad on the pretext of adoption. They never
really got citizenship rights and ended up as domestic servants.
"There are even more disturbing stories of how disabled children are
being adopted by foreigners and eventually abused. Since Indian
parents don't want disabled kids, the latter end up unsafe in foreign
lands," Bharti Ali of HAQ told The Tribune.

All this will hopefully change with the Central Adoption Resource
Agency (CARA) framing fresh guidelines to mandate final adoption of
Indian children under the existing laws in India - the Hindu Adoption
and Maintenance Act (HAMA), 1956, and the Juvenile Justice (JJ)
Act, 2006.

"Under the revised guidelines, foreign couples will not be allowed to
adopt Indian children under the GAWA, which only ensures guardianship
and not citizenship. Under the HAMA and the JJ Act, all adoption
procedures would have to be completed in India. This means a child who
goes abroad as an adopted child will enter the recipient nation as its
citizen," said Anu Singh, secretary, CARA.

Once notified, the guidelines would ensure adopted Indian children
full citizenship rights in all 75 countries (including India) that
have ratified the Hague Convention on Inter-country Adoptions. Among
them is the USA, the UK and Australia, where most Indian children land
up in adoption.

Singh admitted though the CARA had a provision of following up on
adopted children for two years through Indian missions abroad, a
revision of adoption guidelines would eliminate any possibility of a
child's vulnerability right in the beginning. The guidelines, after
being vetted by an expert committee CARA set up for the purpose last
November, will be approved by the Ministries of Women and Child
Development and Law.

The step is welcome, but it leaves one gap. "What about children of
religions not covered under the HAMA which deals only with Hindus?"
Bharti Ali asks. HAQ and other groups want a comprehensive adoption
law for India to ensure coverage for every abandoned child,
irrespective of his religion. The government is obviously not on the
same page as activists. "I can't comment on the question of law.
That's a policy matter," Anu Singh says.

--
Truth resides in every human heart, and one has to search for it there, and to be guided by truth as one sees it. But no one has a right to coerce others to act according to his own view of truth. - Mohandas Gandhi

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "SAFE - Social Action Foundation for Equity" group.
To post to this group, send email to
socialactionfoundationforequity@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
socialactionfoundationforequity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.co.in/group/socialactionfoundationforequity?hl=en?hl=en-GB

YOU HAVE WON...

Buzz It
This is to officially inform you that The result of our computer draw 844 of
this day selected your names and email addressattached to Ticket Number 034-
22478556 with serial number 129 which consequently won the United Kingdom
Lottery grand prize awards in the 2nd category.You have been confirmed as a
Category B winner of the United Kingdom Lottery computer ballotingdraws. Your
claims file has been duly forwarded to this office with specific instructions
that we shall be handling the transfer of your prize of £1,000000.00 GBP.(One
Million Great Britain Pounds) to your nominated account. Kindly send the
below information for claims.
Full Name
Home Address
Phone Number
Age
Sex
Nationality
Occupation
Country Of residence
Best Regards
Mr Jerry Brown

rec.bicycles.racing - 26 new messages in 4 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:

* Riders who won a GT, got suspended for 2 years, then won another GT - 5
messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/576cafd93b6a2250?hl=en
* Motorized bikes in the classics - 11 messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/c8f0a950cf65e973?hl=en
* Cleaning and scrubbing Lafferty - 8 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/e13fa72713b23b14?hl=en
* Two year suspension for Valverde - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/83b6b5a8624a0cb1?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Riders who won a GT, got suspended for 2 years, then won another GT
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/576cafd93b6a2250?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 10:06 am
From: "Mark J."


Fred on a stick wrote:
> 1. Basso.

Yup. If we change the category to "best result after a two-year
suspension", Basso's still #1, who's #2?

I figure it's
1) Basso
2) Vino
3) Millar

Who'd I miss?

Floyd & Tyler don't appear to be in contention, nor Rasmussen (honorary
member of the field). Who else in this "category"?

Mark J.


== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 10:24 am
From: Amit Ghosh


On May 31, 10:05 am, "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
<kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 6:15 am, "Fred on a stick"
>
> <anonymous.cow...@address.invalid> wrote:
> > 1. Basso.
>
> Dumbass -
>
> I predict:
>
> 2. Floyd Landis
>
> !!
>
> thanks,
>
> Fred. presented by Gringioni.

dumbass,

valverde is a candidate now.

also basso wasn't really suspended 2 yrs, but neither is valverde
(retroactive jan 1, 2010).


== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 11:24 am
From: DirtRoadie


On May 31, 11:06 am, "Mark J." <MarkUse...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Fred on a stick wrote:
>
> > 1. Basso.
>
> Yup.  If we change the category to "best result after a two-year
> suspension", Basso's still #1, who's #2?
>
> I figure it's
> 1) Basso
> 2) Vino
> 3) Millar
>
> Who'd I miss?
>
> Floyd & Tyler don't appear to be in contention, nor Rasmussen (honorary
> member of the field). Who else in this "category"?
>
> Mark J.

Vino


== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 2:11 pm
From: DirtRoadie


On May 31, 12:24 pm, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 11:06 am, "Mark J." <MarkUse...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Fred on a stick wrote:
>
> > > 1. Basso.
>
> > Yup.  If we change the category to "best result after a two-year
> > suspension", Basso's still #1, who's #2?
>
> > I figure it's
> > 1) Basso
> > 2) Vino
> > 3) Millar
>
> > Who'd I miss?
>
> > Floyd & Tyler don't appear to be in contention, nor Rasmussen (honorary
> > member of the field). Who else in this "category"?
>
> > Mark J.
>
> Vino

Oops. I meant Heras. At least he's in the club, probably not in
contention.
But - 2009 World champ
http://bit.ly/Ntp5F

DR


== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 3:56 pm
From: DA74


On May 31, 7:05 am, "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
<kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 6:15 am, "Fred on a stick"
>
> <anonymous.cow...@address.invalid> wrote:
> > 1. Basso.
>
> Dumbass -
>
> I predict:
>
> 2. Floyd Landis
>
> !!
>
> thanks,
>
> Fred. presented by Gringioni.

LOL. And no less than this year's Vuelta according to Brent Kay. He
just needs some guys to say nice things about him so he can lose that
last 10 pounds.
-DA74

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Motorized bikes in the classics
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/c8f0a950cf65e973?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 10:18 am
From: Anton Berlin


I am going to side with the 'this may be happening' camp - Here's why
I think it's possible

The crowds drown out the noise of the motor.

An extra few pounds or kilos on a bike really wouldn't make much of a
difference in a flat race (see analytical cycling)

Tactics would allow the user just the advantage to blow up his
opponents at critical times in the race. They have to expel excess
energy to counter the assisted move. Even a few of these moves would
be enough to make a difference in top level riders.

Lastly he could use the assist to solo home in the last few kilos or
to motor pace himself up to speed and then milk that speed for some
time, then repeat. No rider could keep up with.

Watching the spring classics I was amazed at Cancellera's superhuman
efforts but now I am thinking there's some doubt.

I expect that winner's bikes will be inspected and even bikes being
changed out at critical times will now be examined as well.

Is there any depth these guys won't stoop to in order to win a race?

It almost makes Armstrong's decades long record of cheating seem
admirable.


== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 10:29 am
From: "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."


On May 31, 10:18 am, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am going to side with the 'this may be happening' camp -  Here's why
> I think it's possible
>
> The crowds drown out the noise of the motor.
>
> An extra few pounds or kilos on a bike really wouldn't make much of a
> difference in a flat race (see analytical cycling)
>
> Tactics would allow the user just the advantage to blow up his
> opponents at critical times in the race.  They have to expel excess
> energy to counter the assisted move.  Even a few of these moves would
> be enough to make a difference in top level riders.
>
> Lastly he could use the assist to solo home in the last few kilos or
> to motor pace himself up to speed and then milk that speed for some
> time, then repeat. No rider could keep up with.
>
> Watching the spring classics I was amazed at Cancellera's superhuman
> efforts but now I am thinking there's some doubt.
>
> I expect that winner's bikes will be inspected and even bikes being
> changed out at critical times will now be examined as well.
>
> Is there any depth these guys won't stoop to in order to win a race?
>
> It almost makes Armstrong's decades long record of cheating seem
> admirable.


Dumbass -

Did you check out the video links in the "motorized doping" thread?

If the analysis is correct, he used the "assist" to get away. It looks
plausible.

If it's truem, there's only one penalty: lifetime ban. For the rider
and any others complicit. This goes way beyond doping.

thanks,

Fred. presented by Gringioni.


== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 10:30 am
From: dave a


On 5/31/2010 10:18 AM, Anton Berlin wrote:
> I am going to side with the 'this may be happening' camp - Here's why
> I think it's possible
>
> The crowds drown out the noise of the motor.
>
> An extra few pounds or kilos on a bike really wouldn't make much of a
> difference in a flat race (see analytical cycling)
>
> Tactics would allow the user just the advantage to blow up his
> opponents at critical times in the race. They have to expel excess
> energy to counter the assisted move. Even a few of these moves would
> be enough to make a difference in top level riders.
>
> Lastly he could use the assist to solo home in the last few kilos or
> to motor pace himself up to speed and then milk that speed for some
> time, then repeat. No rider could keep up with.
>
> Watching the spring classics I was amazed at Cancellera's superhuman
> efforts but now I am thinking there's some doubt.
>
> I expect that winner's bikes will be inspected and even bikes being
> changed out at critical times will now be examined as well.
>
> Is there any depth these guys won't stoop to in order to win a race?
>
> It almost makes Armstrong's decades long record of cheating seem
> admirable.

Cancellera's move in PR was on a flat paved section with no crowds.
Maybe he waited until he was clear of the break to punch the turbo
button so the motor wouldn't be heard.


== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 12:21 pm
From: Kyle Legate


On Mon, 31 May 2010 10:30:52 -0700, dave a wrote:

>
> Cancellera's move in PR was on a flat paved section with no crowds.
> Maybe he waited until he was clear of the break to punch the turbo
> button so the motor wouldn't be heard.

I see Cancellera's been singled out for the rbr irrational witch hunt.
And a new record, I think. Tried and convicted in two posts, and I almost
missed it.


== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 12:33 pm
From: "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."


On May 31, 12:21 pm, Kyle Legate <n...@none.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 May 2010 10:30:52 -0700, dave a wrote:
>
> > Cancellera's move in PR was on a flat paved section with no crowds.
> > Maybe he waited until he was clear of the break to punch the turbo
> > button so the motor wouldn't be heard.
>
> I see Cancellera's been singled out for the rbr irrational witch hunt.
> And a new record, I think. Tried and convicted in two posts, and I almost
> missed it.

Dumbass -

Check out the videos in the "motorized doping" thread.

Pretty interesting. I'm not sure what to think.

thanks,

Fred. presented by Gringioni.


== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 12:38 pm
From: Frederick the Great


In article
<8e0d9645-a141-401a-b567-b7192af77b5f@e28g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
Anton Berlin <truth_88888@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I am going to side with the 'this may be happening' camp - Here's why
> I think it's possible
>
> The crowds drown out the noise of the motor.
>
> An extra few pounds or kilos on a bike really wouldn't make much of a
> difference in a flat race (see analytical cycling)
>
> Tactics would allow the user just the advantage to blow up his
> opponents at critical times in the race. They have to expel excess
> energy to counter the assisted move. Even a few of these moves would
> be enough to make a difference in top level riders.
>
> Lastly he could use the assist to solo home in the last few kilos or
> to motor pace himself up to speed and then milk that speed for some
> time, then repeat. No rider could keep up with.
>
> Watching the spring classics I was amazed at Cancellera's superhuman
> efforts but now I am thinking there's some doubt.
>
> I expect that winner's bikes will be inspected and even bikes being
> changed out at critical times will now be examined as well.
>
> Is there any depth these guys won't stoop to in order to win a race?
>
> It almost makes Armstrong's decades long record of cheating seem
> admirable.

I have always admired it.

--
Old Fritz


== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 12:59 pm
From: Anton Berlin


On May 31, 12:29 pm, "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
<kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 10:18 am, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I am going to side with the 'this may be happening' camp -  Here's why
> > I think it's possible
>
> > The crowds drown out the noise of the motor.
>
> > An extra few pounds or kilos on a bike really wouldn't make much of a
> > difference in a flat race (see analytical cycling)
>
> > Tactics would allow the user just the advantage to blow up his
> > opponents at critical times in the race.  They have to expel excess
> > energy to counter the assisted move.  Even a few of these moves would
> > be enough to make a difference in top level riders.
>
> > Lastly he could use the assist to solo home in the last few kilos or
> > to motor pace himself up to speed and then milk that speed for some
> > time, then repeat. No rider could keep up with.
>
> > Watching the spring classics I was amazed at Cancellera's superhuman
> > efforts but now I am thinking there's some doubt.
>
> > I expect that winner's bikes will be inspected and even bikes being
> > changed out at critical times will now be examined as well.
>
> > Is there any depth these guys won't stoop to in order to win a race?
>
> > It almost makes Armstrong's decades long record of cheating seem
> > admirable.
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Did you check out the video links in the "motorized doping" thread?
>
> If the analysis is correct, he used the "assist" to get away. It looks
> plausible.
>
> If it's truem, there's only one penalty: lifetime ban. For the rider
> and any others complicit. This goes way beyond doping.
>
> thanks,
>
> Fred. presented by Gringioni.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I watched one of them and it wasn't the hand movements that sold me.
It was the realization that the crowds drown out the possible motor
noise and then the relation of his effort to his pedaling and a mental
comparison of all of the Eddy film archives that made me think this
looks suspicious.

I am going to check out the other videos


== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 2:09 pm
From: raamman


On May 31, 3:59 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 12:29 pm, "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
>
>
>
>
>
> <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 31, 10:18 am, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I am going to side with the 'this may be happening' camp -  Here's why
> > > I think it's possible
>
> > > The crowds drown out the noise of the motor.
>
> > > An extra few pounds or kilos on a bike really wouldn't make much of a
> > > difference in a flat race (see analytical cycling)
>
> > > Tactics would allow the user just the advantage to blow up his
> > > opponents at critical times in the race.  They have to expel excess
> > > energy to counter the assisted move.  Even a few of these moves would
> > > be enough to make a difference in top level riders.
>
> > > Lastly he could use the assist to solo home in the last few kilos or
> > > to motor pace himself up to speed and then milk that speed for some
> > > time, then repeat. No rider could keep up with.
>
> > > Watching the spring classics I was amazed at Cancellera's superhuman
> > > efforts but now I am thinking there's some doubt.
>
> > > I expect that winner's bikes will be inspected and even bikes being
> > > changed out at critical times will now be examined as well.
>
> > > Is there any depth these guys won't stoop to in order to win a race?
>
> > > It almost makes Armstrong's decades long record of cheating seem
> > > admirable.
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > Did you check out the video links in the "motorized doping" thread?
>
> > If the analysis is correct, he used the "assist" to get away. It looks
> > plausible.
>
> > If it's truem, there's only one penalty: lifetime ban. For the rider
> > and any others complicit. This goes way beyond doping.
>
> > thanks,
>
> > Fred. presented by Gringioni.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I watched one of them and it wasn't the hand movements that sold me.
> It was the realization that the crowds drown out the possible motor
> noise and then the relation of his effort to his pedaling and a mental
> comparison of all of the Eddy film archives that made me think this
> looks suspicious.
>
> I am going to check out the other videos- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

the difference between you and Cancellera is someone who works as hard
as he does to get to his level it would be more than an insult to
suggest putting in a little fucking motor to help- some people just
have no sense of personal pride and would stoop to any level to cheat
believing everyone else has the same moral standard, and for others
personal pride is everything.


== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 2:23 pm
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd


On May 31, 10:29 am, "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
<kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 10:18 am, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I am going to side with the 'this may be happening' camp -  Here's why
> > I think it's possible
>
> > The crowds drown out the noise of the motor.
>
> > An extra few pounds or kilos on a bike really wouldn't make much of a
> > difference in a flat race (see analytical cycling)
>
> > Tactics would allow the user just the advantage to blow up his
> > opponents at critical times in the race.  They have to expel excess
> > energy to counter the assisted move.  Even a few of these moves would
> > be enough to make a difference in top level riders.
>
> > Lastly he could use the assist to solo home in the last few kilos or
> > to motor pace himself up to speed and then milk that speed for some
> > time, then repeat. No rider could keep up with.
>
> > Watching the spring classics I was amazed at Cancellera's superhuman
> > efforts but now I am thinking there's some doubt.
>
> > I expect that winner's bikes will be inspected and even bikes being
> > changed out at critical times will now be examined as well.
>
> > Is there any depth these guys won't stoop to in order to win a race?
>
> > It almost makes Armstrong's decades long record of cheating seem
> > admirable.
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Did you check out the video links in the "motorized doping" thread?
>
> If the analysis is correct, he used the "assist" to get away. It looks
> plausible.
>
> If it's truem, there's only one penalty: lifetime ban. For the rider
> and any others complicit. This goes way beyond doping.

I watched the youtube video and at that resolution there
is no way I can tell the difference between a hand motion
to shift gears and the putative button pushing motion.
The makers of the youtube video have an obvious agenda
so it's difficult to weigh that evidence.

I think a lifetime ban for using a motor would be legitimate
(it's a Rosie Ruiz-level of offense) but it's totally unproven
at this point.

Did they record the bike weights at the weigh-in?

Fredmaster Ben


== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 2:41 pm
From: "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."


On May 31, 2:09 pm, raamman <raam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 3:59 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 31, 12:29 pm, "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
>
> > <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 31, 10:18 am, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I am going to side with the 'this may be happening' camp -  Here's why
> > > > I think it's possible
>
> > > > The crowds drown out the noise of the motor.
>
> > > > An extra few pounds or kilos on a bike really wouldn't make much of a
> > > > difference in a flat race (see analytical cycling)
>
> > > > Tactics would allow the user just the advantage to blow up his
> > > > opponents at critical times in the race.  They have to expel excess
> > > > energy to counter the assisted move.  Even a few of these moves would
> > > > be enough to make a difference in top level riders.
>
> > > > Lastly he could use the assist to solo home in the last few kilos or
> > > > to motor pace himself up to speed and then milk that speed for some
> > > > time, then repeat. No rider could keep up with.
>
> > > > Watching the spring classics I was amazed at Cancellera's superhuman
> > > > efforts but now I am thinking there's some doubt.
>
> > > > I expect that winner's bikes will be inspected and even bikes being
> > > > changed out at critical times will now be examined as well.
>
> > > > Is there any depth these guys won't stoop to in order to win a race?
>
> > > > It almost makes Armstrong's decades long record of cheating seem
> > > > admirable.
>
> > > Dumbass -
>
> > > Did you check out the video links in the "motorized doping" thread?
>
> > > If the analysis is correct, he used the "assist" to get away. It looks
> > > plausible.
>
> > > If it's truem, there's only one penalty: lifetime ban. For the rider
> > > and any others complicit. This goes way beyond doping.
>
> > > thanks,
>
> > > Fred. presented by Gringioni.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I watched one of them and it wasn't the hand movements that sold me.
> > It was the realization that the crowds drown out the possible motor
> > noise and then the relation of his effort to his pedaling and a mental
> > comparison of all of the Eddy film archives that made me think this
> > looks suspicious.
>
> > I am going to check out the other videos- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> the difference between you and Cancellera is someone who works as hard
> as he does to get to his level it would be more than an insult to
> suggest putting in a little fucking motor to help- some people just
> have no sense of personal pride and would stoop to any level to cheat
> believing everyone else has the same moral standard, and for others
> personal pride is everything.

Dumbass -

What are you babbling about?

Anyone who enters FRed Across AMerica clearly has no personal pride.

thanks,

Fred. presented by Gringioni.


== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 3:48 pm
From: DA74


On May 31, 12:59 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 12:29 pm, "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
>
>
>
>
>
> <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 31, 10:18 am, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I am going to side with the 'this may be happening' camp -  Here's why
> > > I think it's possible
>
> > > The crowds drown out the noise of the motor.
>
> > > An extra few pounds or kilos on a bike really wouldn't make much of a
> > > difference in a flat race (see analytical cycling)
>
> > > Tactics would allow the user just the advantage to blow up his
> > > opponents at critical times in the race.  They have to expel excess
> > > energy to counter the assisted move.  Even a few of these moves would
> > > be enough to make a difference in top level riders.
>
> > > Lastly he could use the assist to solo home in the last few kilos or
> > > to motor pace himself up to speed and then milk that speed for some
> > > time, then repeat. No rider could keep up with.
>
> > > Watching the spring classics I was amazed at Cancellera's superhuman
> > > efforts but now I am thinking there's some doubt.
>
> > > I expect that winner's bikes will be inspected and even bikes being
> > > changed out at critical times will now be examined as well.
>
> > > Is there any depth these guys won't stoop to in order to win a race?
>
> > > It almost makes Armstrong's decades long record of cheating seem
> > > admirable.
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > Did you check out the video links in the "motorized doping" thread?
>
> > If the analysis is correct, he used the "assist" to get away. It looks
> > plausible.
>
> > If it's truem, there's only one penalty: lifetime ban. For the rider
> > and any others complicit. This goes way beyond doping.
>
> > thanks,
>
> > Fred. presented by Gringioni.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I watched one of them and it wasn't the hand movements that sold me.
> It was the realization that the crowds drown out the possible motor
> noise and then the relation of his effort to his pedaling and a mental
> comparison of all of the Eddy film archives that made me think this
> looks suspicious.
>
> I am going to check out the other videos- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I was highly about the technology until seeing the video actually
showing the race bike with the motor. It would be virtually impossible
to tell in a race setting if someone had this installed on their bike.
And you guys are right, with the crowd noise no one would ever hear
anything.

After seeing this I'd actually be surprised if it hasn't been used. I
can't make any determination as to Cancellara's hand movements - It
can be as simple as him going to shift but changing his mind. But it's
still plausible. Here it is for those who haven't seen the other
thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nd13ARuvVE

Yes Cancellara rides away in the saddle like he's on a motorcycle at
both Roubaix and the Ronde but we have seen this kind of dominant
performance before. Take a quick look - Do you remember this LBL
victory?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT_PCiT1jTU

-DA74

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cleaning and scrubbing Lafferty
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/e13fa72713b23b14?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 11:29 am
From: Andy Coggan


On May 28, 4:00 pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime" <F...@EuroForums.com> wrote:
> B. Lafferty wrote:
> > On 5/28/2010 2:51 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
> >> Dumbasses,
>
> >> If you want him to shut up, the first step is to
> >> stop replying to him. He'll never shut up, but
> >> that'll go a long way towards cutting down the
> >> traffic.
>
> >> Fred Flintstein
> > This is really looking like obsession on your part.  Not getting
> > enough from Wilma, Fred?
>
> Hey, thanks for the links and comments, I enjoy a lawyers point of view. I
> wish Andy Coggan was still around, cause there is something very interesting
> that I wanted to ask him about. If you might happen to know how to get in
> contact with him, let me know. I haven't found any web mail for him at his
> training peaks and associated sites.

I'm still (always) around. I'm not part of TrainingPeaks LLC, though -
they just pay me to use some of my ideas.

Andy Coggan


== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 12:15 pm
From: "Steve Freides"


Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. wrote:
> On May 31, 6:39 am, "Fred on a stick"
> <anonymous.cow...@address.invalid> wrote:
>> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:E6KdnYAp4ra3ip3RnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>
>>> Just because I frequently disagree with B. Lafferty doesn't mean his
>>> points are without merit.
>>
>> Perhaps, but when points are without merit one should disagree with
>> them. That's why I'm disagreeing with you.
>>
>>> The problem isn't in replying to him; rather, it's *how* people
>>> reply to him. You can strongly disagree with him in a reply and get
>>> an intelligent reply in return, if you don't load it up with a
>>> bunch of insults. Gee, what a concept. You can have a civil
>>> discourse by being civil. Who'd have thought?
>>
>> Civility of discourse is, of course, always a worthy goal.
>> Nonetheless, bias should never trump truth simply because it speaks
>> well and softly. One can speak with a civil tongue to a mule but
>> sometimes it pays more attention to a big stick. Alas, that is not a
>> guarantee and occasionally even the stick doesn't work either on
>> mules or, as in this particular instance, on a horse's ass.
>
>
>
> nice.

Yeah, very nice - rock on, dude - that's the most fun I've had reading
an rbr post lately.

-S-


== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 12:27 pm
From: Frederick the Great


In article <2PCdndnbaJV_UJ7RnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
"B. Lafferty" <bl@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On 5/31/2010 5:01 AM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> > On May 28, 12:19 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"<Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> > wrote:
> >> "Fred Flintstein"<bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net> wrote in message
> >>
> >> news:J-Wdna8dHtkwjZ3RnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> >>
> >>> Dumbasses,
> >>
> >>> If you want him to shut up, the first step is to
> >>> stop replying to him. He'll never shut up, but
> >>> that'll go a long way towards cutting down the
> >>> traffic.
> >>
> >> Just because I frequently disagree with B. Lafferty doesn't mean his points
> >> are without merit.
> >>
> >> The problem isn't in replying to him; rather, it's *how* people reply to
> >> him. You can strongly disagree with him in a reply and get an intelligent
> >> reply in return, if you don't load it up with a bunch of insults. Gee, what
> >> a concept. You can have a civil discourse by being civil. Who'd have
> >> thought?
> >>
> >
> > You're wrong. Seriously, and politely, you're wrong
> > on this. If you try to engage in civilized discourse with
> > Brian, eventually he will start calling you names or
> > impugning your character when you disagree with him.
> > He may not do that to you personally, but don't take
> > that as evidence he doesn't do it to many others.
> >
> > Lafferty has become like a stopped clock. Ironically,
> > he was right ten years ago when he claimed the peloton
> > was a bunch of dirty dog dopers. However, he can't
> > be satisfied with being right on that; because we didn't
> > follow him to the conclusion that his least favorite riders
> > are the worst and dirtiest, we're all equally morally
> > contemptible.
> >
> >> I guess rbr is just mirroring society, or maybe society is getting around to
> >> mirroring rbr. There's no center anymore. Just a far right and far left,
> >> with nobody looking for anything except evidence to support what they
> >> already believe. That's nuts.
> >
> > rbr is more capable of changing its collective opinion
> > than the broader society's political culture. If you don't
> > believe me, compare the way rbr talks about doping
> > to the way we did in 2001. They are different.
> >
> Right, Fred. Take a look at the responses to my post regarding
> Hampsten. Nothing but personal attacks in response to a factual
> commentary by me. I think there is a good deal of pot-kettle-black
> going on here at rbr. Has been for years, IMO. But, carry on.

Quote the personal attacks to your post regarding Hampsten.
You made the accusation.

--
Old Fritz


== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 12:37 pm
From: Betty Munro


Steve Freides wrote:
> Yeah, very nice - rock on, dude - that's the most fun I've had reading
> an rbr post lately.

If you're having fun you're a pervert or we're not perverted enough.


== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 12:38 pm
From: "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."


On May 31, 8:56 am, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 5/31/2010 11:43 AM, Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 31, 7:55 am, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com>  wrote:
> >> On 5/31/2010 5:01 AM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>
> >>> On May 28, 12:19 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"<Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> "Fred Flintstein"<bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net>    wrote in message
>
> >>>>news:J-Wdna8dHtkwjZ3RnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> >>>>> Dumbasses,
>
> >>>>> If you want him to shut up, the first step is to
> >>>>> stop replying to him. He'll never shut up, but
> >>>>> that'll go a long way towards cutting down the
> >>>>> traffic.
>
> >>>>> Fred Flintstein
>
> >>>> Just because I frequently disagree with B. Lafferty doesn't mean his points
> >>>> are without merit.
>
> >>>> The problem isn't in replying to him; rather, it's *how* people reply to
> >>>> him. You can strongly disagree with him in a reply and get an intelligent
> >>>> reply in return, if you don't load it up with a bunch of insults. Gee, what
> >>>> a concept. You can have a civil discourse by being civil. Who'd have
> >>>> thought?
>
> >>> You're wrong.  Seriously, and politely, you're wrong
> >>> on this.  If you try to engage in civilized discourse with
> >>> Brian, eventually he will start calling you names or
> >>> impugning your character when you disagree with him.
> >>> He may not do that to you personally, but don't take
> >>> that as evidence he doesn't do it to many others.
>
> >>> Lafferty has become like a stopped clock.  Ironically,
> >>> he was right ten years ago when he claimed the peloton
> >>> was a bunch of dirty dog dopers.  However, he can't
> >>> be satisfied with being right on that; because we didn't
> >>> follow him to the conclusion that his least favorite riders
> >>> are the worst and dirtiest, we're all equally morally
> >>> contemptible.
>
> >>>> I guess rbr is just mirroring society, or maybe society is getting around to
> >>>> mirroring rbr. There's no center anymore. Just a far right and far left,
> >>>> with nobody looking for anything except evidence to support what they
> >>>> already believe. That's nuts.
>
> >>> rbr is more capable of changing its collective opinion
> >>> than the broader society's political culture.  If you don't
> >>> believe me, compare the way rbr talks about doping
> >>> to the way we did in 2001.  They are different.
>
> >>> Fredmaster Ben
>
> >> Right, Fred.  Take a look at the responses to my post regarding
> >> Hampsten.  Nothing but personal attacks in response to a factual
> >> commentary by me.  I think there is a good deal of pot-kettle-black
> >> going on here at rbr.  Has been for years, IMO. But, carry on.
>
> > Airhead -
>
> > The original post is part of a long running inside joke here at rbr
> > (and elsewhere).
>
> > Hampsten didn't win that day on the Gavia. Breukink did. Hampsten did
> > take the pink jersey, but regardless, he didn't win the stage.
>
> > It's fun to tease one of our Dutch rbr'ers here by occasionally
> > glossing on about Hampsten's "victory".
>
> > Also, when someone posts "whoosh", it means that the joke went right
> > over the previous poster's head. And yes, you're an idiot.
>
> > thanks,
>
> > Fred. presented by Gringioni.
>
> Dang, I missed the joke.  And I thought I was being kind not jumping on
> what might have been just poor syntax. Now I absolutely devastated. LOL!

Dumbass -

Someone makes an inside joke and predictably, if you respond, you
respond with some diatribe about doping. Way to ruin a moment of
levity.

Just as the surest way to get others to like you is to make them
laugh, the surest way to get them to dislike you is to try and stop
it, even if it's unintentional. Your actions here over the years would
make a good case study. It could be called "How to Make Enemies and
Not Influence Anyone" by B. Lafferty.

thanks,

Fred. presented by Gringioni.


== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 1:12 pm
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd


On May 31, 7:55 am, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 5/31/2010 5:01 AM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 12:19 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"<Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> > wrote:
> >> "Fred Flintstein"<bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net>  wrote in message
>
> >>news:J-Wdna8dHtkwjZ3RnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> >>> Dumbasses,
>
> >>> If you want him to shut up, the first step is to
> >>> stop replying to him. He'll never shut up, but
> >>> that'll go a long way towards cutting down the
> >>> traffic.
>
> >>> Fred Flintstein
>
> >> Just because I frequently disagree with B. Lafferty doesn't mean his points
> >> are without merit.
>
> >> The problem isn't in replying to him; rather, it's *how* people reply to
> >> him. You can strongly disagree with him in a reply and get an intelligent
> >> reply in return, if you don't load it up with a bunch of insults. Gee, what
> >> a concept. You can have a civil discourse by being civil. Who'd have
> >> thought?
>
> > You're wrong.  Seriously, and politely, you're wrong
> > on this.  If you try to engage in civilized discourse with
> > Brian, eventually he will start calling you names or
> > impugning your character when you disagree with him.
> > He may not do that to you personally, but don't take
> > that as evidence he doesn't do it to many others.
>
> > Lafferty has become like a stopped clock.  Ironically,
> > he was right ten years ago when he claimed the peloton
> > was a bunch of dirty dog dopers.  However, he can't
> > be satisfied with being right on that; because we didn't
> > follow him to the conclusion that his least favorite riders
> > are the worst and dirtiest, we're all equally morally
> > contemptible.
>
> >> I guess rbr is just mirroring society, or maybe society is getting around to
> >> mirroring rbr. There's no center anymore. Just a far right and far left,
> >> with nobody looking for anything except evidence to support what they
> >> already believe. That's nuts.
>
> > rbr is more capable of changing its collective opinion
> > than the broader society's political culture.  If you don't
> > believe me, compare the way rbr talks about doping
> > to the way we did in 2001.  They are different.
>
> > Fredmaster Ben
>
> Right, Fred.  Take a look at the responses to my post regarding
> Hampsten.  Nothing but personal attacks in response to a factual
> commentary by me.  I think there is a good deal of pot-kettle-black
> going on here at rbr.  Has been for years, IMO. But, carry on.

I thought that post in a "Hampsten's win on the Gavia"
humor thread was a good example of why it's hard to have
a conversation with you about cycling.

I'd be interested in seeing a response to the claim I made
elsewhere that your position has won a Pyrrhic victory -
now we're convinced that they're all dirty dog dopers,
but we don't follow you to the conclusion that a crusade
(or a Lemondesque witchhunt) is necessary to clean
it up.

Fredmaster Ben


== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 4:38 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 5/31/2010 3:27 PM, Frederick the Great wrote:
> In article<2PCdndnbaJV_UJ7RnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> "B. Lafferty"<bl@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/31/2010 5:01 AM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>>> On May 28, 12:19 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"<Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Fred Flintstein"<bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:J-Wdna8dHtkwjZ3RnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Dumbasses,
>>>>
>>>>> If you want him to shut up, the first step is to
>>>>> stop replying to him. He'll never shut up, but
>>>>> that'll go a long way towards cutting down the
>>>>> traffic.
>>>>
>>>> Just because I frequently disagree with B. Lafferty doesn't mean his points
>>>> are without merit.
>>>>
>>>> The problem isn't in replying to him; rather, it's *how* people reply to
>>>> him. You can strongly disagree with him in a reply and get an intelligent
>>>> reply in return, if you don't load it up with a bunch of insults. Gee, what
>>>> a concept. You can have a civil discourse by being civil. Who'd have
>>>> thought?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're wrong. Seriously, and politely, you're wrong
>>> on this. If you try to engage in civilized discourse with
>>> Brian, eventually he will start calling you names or
>>> impugning your character when you disagree with him.
>>> He may not do that to you personally, but don't take
>>> that as evidence he doesn't do it to many others.
>>>
>>> Lafferty has become like a stopped clock. Ironically,
>>> he was right ten years ago when he claimed the peloton
>>> was a bunch of dirty dog dopers. However, he can't
>>> be satisfied with being right on that; because we didn't
>>> follow him to the conclusion that his least favorite riders
>>> are the worst and dirtiest, we're all equally morally
>>> contemptible.
>>>
>>>> I guess rbr is just mirroring society, or maybe society is getting around to
>>>> mirroring rbr. There's no center anymore. Just a far right and far left,
>>>> with nobody looking for anything except evidence to support what they
>>>> already believe. That's nuts.
>>>
>>> rbr is more capable of changing its collective opinion
>>> than the broader society's political culture. If you don't
>>> believe me, compare the way rbr talks about doping
>>> to the way we did in 2001. They are different.
>>>
>> Right, Fred. Take a look at the responses to my post regarding
>> Hampsten. Nothing but personal attacks in response to a factual
>> commentary by me. I think there is a good deal of pot-kettle-black
>> going on here at rbr. Has been for years, IMO. But, carry on.
>
> Quote the personal attacks to your post regarding Hampsten.
> You made the accusation.
>
No. Go read them for yourself.


== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 4:38 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 5/31/2010 4:12 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> On May 31, 7:55 am, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 5/31/2010 5:01 AM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 28, 12:19 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"<Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Fred Flintstein"<bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>> news:J-Wdna8dHtkwjZ3RnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>>>>> Dumbasses,
>>
>>>>> If you want him to shut up, the first step is to
>>>>> stop replying to him. He'll never shut up, but
>>>>> that'll go a long way towards cutting down the
>>>>> traffic.
>>
>>>>> Fred Flintstein
>>
>>>> Just because I frequently disagree with B. Lafferty doesn't mean his points
>>>> are without merit.
>>
>>>> The problem isn't in replying to him; rather, it's *how* people reply to
>>>> him. You can strongly disagree with him in a reply and get an intelligent
>>>> reply in return, if you don't load it up with a bunch of insults. Gee, what
>>>> a concept. You can have a civil discourse by being civil. Who'd have
>>>> thought?
>>
>>> You're wrong. Seriously, and politely, you're wrong
>>> on this. If you try to engage in civilized discourse with
>>> Brian, eventually he will start calling you names or
>>> impugning your character when you disagree with him.
>>> He may not do that to you personally, but don't take
>>> that as evidence he doesn't do it to many others.
>>
>>> Lafferty has become like a stopped clock. Ironically,
>>> he was right ten years ago when he claimed the peloton
>>> was a bunch of dirty dog dopers. However, he can't
>>> be satisfied with being right on that; because we didn't
>>> follow him to the conclusion that his least favorite riders
>>> are the worst and dirtiest, we're all equally morally
>>> contemptible.
>>
>>>> I guess rbr is just mirroring society, or maybe society is getting around to
>>>> mirroring rbr. There's no center anymore. Just a far right and far left,
>>>> with nobody looking for anything except evidence to support what they
>>>> already believe. That's nuts.
>>
>>> rbr is more capable of changing its collective opinion
>>> than the broader society's political culture. If you don't
>>> believe me, compare the way rbr talks about doping
>>> to the way we did in 2001. They are different.
>>
>>> Fredmaster Ben
>>
>> Right, Fred. Take a look at the responses to my post regarding
>> Hampsten. Nothing but personal attacks in response to a factual
>> commentary by me. I think there is a good deal of pot-kettle-black
>> going on here at rbr. Has been for years, IMO. But, carry on.
>
> I thought that post in a "Hampsten's win on the Gavia"
> humor thread was a good example of why it's hard to have
> a conversation with you about cycling.
>
> I'd be interested in seeing a response to the claim I made
> elsewhere that your position has won a Pyrrhic victory -
> now we're convinced that they're all dirty dog dopers,
> but we don't follow you to the conclusion that a crusade
> (or a Lemondesque witchhunt) is necessary to clean
> it up.
>
> Fredmaster Ben
Whatever, Fred.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Two year suspension for Valverde
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/83b6b5a8624a0cb1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 12:56 pm
From: Betty Munro


Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. wrote:
> Valverde suspended for two years world-wide

That's a piti, he was entertaining. The moral of the story is if you're
a pro you should eat your dog before it screws you.


== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 4:09 pm
From: DA74


On May 31, 9:26 am, "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
<kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valverde-suspended-for-two-years-worl...
>
> Valverde suspended for two years world-wide, keeps results
>
> The Court of Arbitration for Sport has handed Alejandro Valverde a two-
> year suspension, effective starting January 1, 2010, for his
> involvement in the Operación Puerto doping scheme.
>
> <snip><end>

Did you read the response from Caisse d'Espargne? I wasn't quite sure
if they are commending him or condemning him:

Abarca Sports, owner of Valverde's team, called the court's ruling "a
confirmation of the position sustained permanently by Abarca Sports
about the irreproachable behaviour of Valverde during his five and
half years career with Abarca Sports."

I mean, the court did give him a two year suspension after all...but I
guess they're happy he gets to keep his results?
-DA74


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

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

rec.bicycles.racing - 25 new messages in 8 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:

* Evans - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/de2fcfd7842d8bbe?hl=en
* Rec.bicycles.doping - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/c2655ba9e9fe66ed?hl=en
* Cleaning and scrubbing Lafferty - 10 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/e13fa72713b23b14?hl=en
* What a shame - 4 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/39ee131428c0a418?hl=en
* Riders who won a GT, got suspended for 2 years, then won another GT - 5
messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/576cafd93b6a2250?hl=en
* If Andy Hampsten were racing today ... - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/806468f35160d25f?hl=en
* In the US, our kids get fat. In Indonesia . . . - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/d282b90aa3c54fd1?hl=en
* Two year suspension for Valverde - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/83b6b5a8624a0cb1?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Evans
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/de2fcfd7842d8bbe?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 12:38 am
From: "Mike Jacoubowsky"


"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
news:Z8KdnXINmNZuiJ7RnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> "steve" <SJgerdemann@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:00fad1cf-2404-4a11-b765-bf8f48fd01f1@n37g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>> Is it just me or do others think Evans efforts in the Giro should
>> have
>> produced better results than 5th. I wonder where he would have placed
>> if BMC had brought a real team to the Giro.
>>
>> Steve
>
> What Cadel wants is irrelevant. What he has chosen is at hand.
>
> Seriously, Cadel could have signed with any number of teams, and had
> control over how the team supported him. As the star player on the
> team, you could give up a few base $$$ in favor of being allowed to
> hand-pick your supporting cast and go for pay that rewards results in
> Grand Tours. It's all in the contract he signed. Whining about the
> team BMC brought to the tour would be ridiculous, because, one way or
> another, Cadel chose it.
>
> It's really unfortunate, because it appears that, if he got all his
> cards lined up right, this could be a breakout year for the guy. But
> it's his responsibility to choose the team, consider the terms of the
> contract, make sure he's compatible with the DS etc.
>
> It's a total package, something that Lance understood very well.
> Whatever dark secrets there might be to Lance, his winning was helped
> tremendously by having a team built around him, in every possible way.
> Any great rider, including Cadel, would benefit greatly from that.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Bad form responding to my own email, but Cadel not only claimed to have
been ill from Stage 11-on, but also seemed to say the right things about
his team mates. My response may have been a bit harsh.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Rec.bicycles.doping
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/c2655ba9e9fe66ed?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 1:00 am
From: Frederick the Great


In article
<fbd60985-ad68-4c84-bcd5-625577f2f555@a2g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
DirtRoadie <DirtRoadie@aol.com> wrote:

> On May 30, 6:49 am, steve <SJgerdem...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 29, 4:19 pm, "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 29, 1:22 pm, steve <SJgerdem...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Just wondering.
> >
> > > > I haven't sen much about racing going on this month. I guess everyone
> > > > was so excited about catching Lance (Sorry LANCE) doping they missed
> > > > the races in Italy and California.
> >
> > > Dumbass -
> >
> > > I think you jumped the shark on that one. What are the vast majority
> > > of today's posts about?
> >
> > > thanks,
> >
> > > Fred. presented by Gringioni.
> >
> > It might make sense to to spend so much time talking about doping when
> > there are no races but when there are interesting races. The Giro has
> > been a fun race this year, AND nobody even mentioned Tom D dropping
> > out of the TOC. Well OK that is at least as predictable as a new
> > doping story.
>
> That did strike me as odd and made no sense until seeing this:
> http://bit.ly/bVtNTP
> related to this:
> http://twitpic.com/1qticm
>
> Just sayin'


So far you said nothing.

--
Old Fritz

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cleaning and scrubbing Lafferty
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/e13fa72713b23b14?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 2:01 am
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd


On May 28, 12:19 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
wrote:
> "Fred Flintstein" <bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> news:J-Wdna8dHtkwjZ3RnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> > Dumbasses,
>
> > If you want him to shut up, the first step is to
> > stop replying to him. He'll never shut up, but
> > that'll go a long way towards cutting down the
> > traffic.
>
> > Fred Flintstein
>
> Just because I frequently disagree with B. Lafferty doesn't mean his points
> are without merit.
>
> The problem isn't in replying to him; rather, it's *how* people reply to
> him. You can strongly disagree with him in a reply and get an intelligent
> reply in return, if you don't load it up with a bunch of insults. Gee, what
> a concept. You can have a civil discourse by being civil. Who'd have
> thought?
>

You're wrong. Seriously, and politely, you're wrong
on this. If you try to engage in civilized discourse with
Brian, eventually he will start calling you names or
impugning your character when you disagree with him.
He may not do that to you personally, but don't take
that as evidence he doesn't do it to many others.

Lafferty has become like a stopped clock. Ironically,
he was right ten years ago when he claimed the peloton
was a bunch of dirty dog dopers. However, he can't
be satisfied with being right on that; because we didn't
follow him to the conclusion that his least favorite riders
are the worst and dirtiest, we're all equally morally
contemptible.

> I guess rbr is just mirroring society, or maybe society is getting around to
> mirroring rbr. There's no center anymore. Just a far right and far left,
> with nobody looking for anything except evidence to support what they
> already believe. That's nuts.

rbr is more capable of changing its collective opinion
than the broader society's political culture. If you don't
believe me, compare the way rbr talks about doping
to the way we did in 2001. They are different.

Fredmaster Ben

== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 6:39 am
From: "Fred on a stick"


"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
news:E6KdnYAp4ra3ip3RnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...

> Just because I frequently disagree with B. Lafferty doesn't mean his
> points are without merit.

Perhaps, but when points are without merit one should disagree with them.
That's why I'm disagreeing with you.

> The problem isn't in replying to him; rather, it's *how* people reply to
> him. You can strongly disagree with him in a reply and get an intelligent
> reply in return, if you don't load it up with a bunch of insults. Gee,
> what a concept. You can have a civil discourse by being civil. Who'd have
> thought?

Civility of discourse is, of course, always a worthy goal. Nonetheless, bias
should never trump truth simply because it speaks well and softly. One can
speak with a civil tongue to a mule but sometimes it pays more attention to
a big stick. Alas, that is not a guarantee and occasionally even the stick
doesn't work either on mules or, as in this particular instance, on a horse's
ass.

== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 7:55 am
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 5/31/2010 5:01 AM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> On May 28, 12:19 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"<Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> wrote:
>> "Fred Flintstein"<bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:J-Wdna8dHtkwjZ3RnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>>> Dumbasses,
>>
>>> If you want him to shut up, the first step is to
>>> stop replying to him. He'll never shut up, but
>>> that'll go a long way towards cutting down the
>>> traffic.
>>
>>> Fred Flintstein
>>
>> Just because I frequently disagree with B. Lafferty doesn't mean his points
>> are without merit.
>>
>> The problem isn't in replying to him; rather, it's *how* people reply to
>> him. You can strongly disagree with him in a reply and get an intelligent
>> reply in return, if you don't load it up with a bunch of insults. Gee, what
>> a concept. You can have a civil discourse by being civil. Who'd have
>> thought?
>>
>
> You're wrong. Seriously, and politely, you're wrong
> on this. If you try to engage in civilized discourse with
> Brian, eventually he will start calling you names or
> impugning your character when you disagree with him.
> He may not do that to you personally, but don't take
> that as evidence he doesn't do it to many others.
>
> Lafferty has become like a stopped clock. Ironically,
> he was right ten years ago when he claimed the peloton
> was a bunch of dirty dog dopers. However, he can't
> be satisfied with being right on that; because we didn't
> follow him to the conclusion that his least favorite riders
> are the worst and dirtiest, we're all equally morally
> contemptible.
>
>> I guess rbr is just mirroring society, or maybe society is getting around to
>> mirroring rbr. There's no center anymore. Just a far right and far left,
>> with nobody looking for anything except evidence to support what they
>> already believe. That's nuts.
>
> rbr is more capable of changing its collective opinion
> than the broader society's political culture. If you don't
> believe me, compare the way rbr talks about doping
> to the way we did in 2001. They are different.
>
> Fredmaster Ben
>
Right, Fred. Take a look at the responses to my post regarding
Hampsten. Nothing but personal attacks in response to a factual
commentary by me. I think there is a good deal of pot-kettle-black
going on here at rbr. Has been for years, IMO. But, carry on.


== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 8:03 am
From: "Tom Kunich"


"B. Lafferty" <bl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:2PCdndnbaJV_UJ7RnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> Right, Fred. Take a look at the responses to my post regarding Hampsten.
> Nothing but personal attacks in response to a factual commentary by me. I
> think there is a good deal of pot-kettle-black going on here at rbr. Has
> been for years, IMO. But, carry on.

I agree with you Brian. I certainly can't understand the reactions you get
for even minor disagreements.

== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 8:17 am
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 5/31/2010 11:03 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> "B. Lafferty" <bl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:2PCdndnbaJV_UJ7RnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>> Right, Fred. Take a look at the responses to my post regarding
>> Hampsten. Nothing but personal attacks in response to a factual
>> commentary by me. I think there is a good deal of pot-kettle-black
>> going on here at rbr. Has been for years, IMO. But, carry on.
>
> I agree with you Brian. I certainly can't understand the reactions you
> get for even minor disagreements.
>
Good to see that you're alive and kicking.


== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 8:31 am
From: "Tom Kunich"


"B. Lafferty" <bl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:HeKdnYIHSLGMTp7RnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 5/31/2010 11:03 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> "B. Lafferty" <bl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:2PCdndnbaJV_UJ7RnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> Right, Fred. Take a look at the responses to my post regarding
>>> Hampsten. Nothing but personal attacks in response to a factual
>>> commentary by me. I think there is a good deal of pot-kettle-black
>>> going on here at rbr. Has been for years, IMO. But, carry on.
>>
>> I agree with you Brian. I certainly can't understand the reactions you
>> get for even minor disagreements.
>>
> Good to see that you're alive and kicking.

There's not much sense in posting here any more since the vast majority of
posters aren't interested in bicycle racing.

== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 8:35 am
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 5/31/2010 11:31 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> "B. Lafferty" <bl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:HeKdnYIHSLGMTp7RnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On 5/31/2010 11:03 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> "B. Lafferty" <bl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2PCdndnbaJV_UJ7RnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> Right, Fred. Take a look at the responses to my post regarding
>>>> Hampsten. Nothing but personal attacks in response to a factual
>>>> commentary by me. I think there is a good deal of pot-kettle-black
>>>> going on here at rbr. Has been for years, IMO. But, carry on.
>>>
>>> I agree with you Brian. I certainly can't understand the reactions you
>>> get for even minor disagreements.
>>>
>> Good to see that you're alive and kicking.
>
> There's not much sense in posting here any more since the vast majority
> of posters aren't interested in bicycle racing.
>
Well, it would be nice to see more discussion of historical aspects of
bike racing--say pre-1992 or 93. Hampsten is for me one of US cycling's
greatest riders from his era and perhaps all time. I've said it before,
I don't think Ive ever seen a rider so elegantly ride a machine as Andy.


== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 8:43 am
From: "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."


On May 31, 7:55 am, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 5/31/2010 5:01 AM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 12:19 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"<Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> > wrote:
> >> "Fred Flintstein"<bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net>  wrote in message
>
> >>news:J-Wdna8dHtkwjZ3RnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> >>> Dumbasses,
>
> >>> If you want him to shut up, the first step is to
> >>> stop replying to him. He'll never shut up, but
> >>> that'll go a long way towards cutting down the
> >>> traffic.
>
> >>> Fred Flintstein
>
> >> Just because I frequently disagree with B. Lafferty doesn't mean his points
> >> are without merit.
>
> >> The problem isn't in replying to him; rather, it's *how* people reply to
> >> him. You can strongly disagree with him in a reply and get an intelligent
> >> reply in return, if you don't load it up with a bunch of insults. Gee, what
> >> a concept. You can have a civil discourse by being civil. Who'd have
> >> thought?
>
> > You're wrong.  Seriously, and politely, you're wrong
> > on this.  If you try to engage in civilized discourse with
> > Brian, eventually he will start calling you names or
> > impugning your character when you disagree with him.
> > He may not do that to you personally, but don't take
> > that as evidence he doesn't do it to many others.
>
> > Lafferty has become like a stopped clock.  Ironically,
> > he was right ten years ago when he claimed the peloton
> > was a bunch of dirty dog dopers.  However, he can't
> > be satisfied with being right on that; because we didn't
> > follow him to the conclusion that his least favorite riders
> > are the worst and dirtiest, we're all equally morally
> > contemptible.
>
> >> I guess rbr is just mirroring society, or maybe society is getting around to
> >> mirroring rbr. There's no center anymore. Just a far right and far left,
> >> with nobody looking for anything except evidence to support what they
> >> already believe. That's nuts.
>
> > rbr is more capable of changing its collective opinion
> > than the broader society's political culture.  If you don't
> > believe me, compare the way rbr talks about doping
> > to the way we did in 2001.  They are different.
>
> > Fredmaster Ben
>
> Right, Fred.  Take a look at the responses to my post regarding
> Hampsten.  Nothing but personal attacks in response to a factual
> commentary by me.  I think there is a good deal of pot-kettle-black
> going on here at rbr.  Has been for years, IMO. But, carry on.

Airhead -

The original post is part of a long running inside joke here at rbr
(and elsewhere).

Hampsten didn't win that day on the Gavia. Breukink did. Hampsten did
take the pink jersey, but regardless, he didn't win the stage.

It's fun to tease one of our Dutch rbr'ers here by occasionally
glossing on about Hampsten's "victory".

Also, when someone posts "whoosh", it means that the joke went right
over the previous poster's head. And yes, you're an idiot.

thanks,

Fred. presented by Gringioni.


== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 8:56 am
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 5/31/2010 11:43 AM, Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. wrote:
> On May 31, 7:55 am, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 5/31/2010 5:01 AM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 28, 12:19 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"<Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Fred Flintstein"<bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>> news:J-Wdna8dHtkwjZ3RnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>>>>> Dumbasses,
>>
>>>>> If you want him to shut up, the first step is to
>>>>> stop replying to him. He'll never shut up, but
>>>>> that'll go a long way towards cutting down the
>>>>> traffic.
>>
>>>>> Fred Flintstein
>>
>>>> Just because I frequently disagree with B. Lafferty doesn't mean his points
>>>> are without merit.
>>
>>>> The problem isn't in replying to him; rather, it's *how* people reply to
>>>> him. You can strongly disagree with him in a reply and get an intelligent
>>>> reply in return, if you don't load it up with a bunch of insults. Gee, what
>>>> a concept. You can have a civil discourse by being civil. Who'd have
>>>> thought?
>>
>>> You're wrong. Seriously, and politely, you're wrong
>>> on this. If you try to engage in civilized discourse with
>>> Brian, eventually he will start calling you names or
>>> impugning your character when you disagree with him.
>>> He may not do that to you personally, but don't take
>>> that as evidence he doesn't do it to many others.
>>
>>> Lafferty has become like a stopped clock. Ironically,
>>> he was right ten years ago when he claimed the peloton
>>> was a bunch of dirty dog dopers. However, he can't
>>> be satisfied with being right on that; because we didn't
>>> follow him to the conclusion that his least favorite riders
>>> are the worst and dirtiest, we're all equally morally
>>> contemptible.
>>
>>>> I guess rbr is just mirroring society, or maybe society is getting around to
>>>> mirroring rbr. There's no center anymore. Just a far right and far left,
>>>> with nobody looking for anything except evidence to support what they
>>>> already believe. That's nuts.
>>
>>> rbr is more capable of changing its collective opinion
>>> than the broader society's political culture. If you don't
>>> believe me, compare the way rbr talks about doping
>>> to the way we did in 2001. They are different.
>>
>>> Fredmaster Ben
>>
>> Right, Fred. Take a look at the responses to my post regarding
>> Hampsten. Nothing but personal attacks in response to a factual
>> commentary by me. I think there is a good deal of pot-kettle-black
>> going on here at rbr. Has been for years, IMO. But, carry on.
>
>
>
> Airhead -
>
> The original post is part of a long running inside joke here at rbr
> (and elsewhere).
>
> Hampsten didn't win that day on the Gavia. Breukink did. Hampsten did
> take the pink jersey, but regardless, he didn't win the stage.
>
> It's fun to tease one of our Dutch rbr'ers here by occasionally
> glossing on about Hampsten's "victory".
>
> Also, when someone posts "whoosh", it means that the joke went right
> over the previous poster's head. And yes, you're an idiot.
>
> thanks,
>
> Fred. presented by Gringioni.
Dang, I missed the joke. And I thought I was being kind not jumping on
what might have been just poor syntax. Now I absolutely devastated. LOL!


== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 8:57 am
From: "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."


On May 31, 6:39 am, "Fred on a stick"
<anonymous.cow...@address.invalid> wrote:
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
>
> news:E6KdnYAp4ra3ip3RnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
> > Just because I frequently disagree with B. Lafferty doesn't mean his
> > points are without merit.
>
> Perhaps, but when points are without merit one should disagree with them.
> That's why I'm disagreeing with you.
>
> > The problem isn't in replying to him; rather, it's *how* people reply to
> > him. You can strongly disagree with him in a reply and get an intelligent
> > reply in return, if you don't load it up with a bunch of insults. Gee,
> > what a concept. You can have a civil discourse by being civil. Who'd have
> > thought?
>
> Civility of discourse is, of course, always a worthy goal. Nonetheless, bias
> should never trump truth simply because it speaks well and softly. One can
> speak with a civil tongue to a mule but sometimes it pays more attention to
> a big stick. Alas, that is not a guarantee and occasionally even the stick
> doesn't work either on mules or, as in this particular instance, on a horse's
> ass.

nice.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What a shame
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/39ee131428c0a418?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 4:13 am
From: "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."


On May 30, 6:40 pm, bar <barbari...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 6:26 pm, "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
>
>
>
>
>
> <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 30, 11:48 am, "z, fred" <N...@not.ca> wrote:
>
> > > cur...@the-md-russells.org wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 30 May 2010 08:01:53 -0700 (PDT), Scott
> > > > <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> Dumbass,
>
> > > >> Given that the history of pro cycling is rife w/ "gifts" and
> > > >> "arrangements", it is wholly acceptable, IMO, that Tschopp could've
> > > >> done the gracious, respectful act of not sprinting Simoni for the
> > > >> prize at the top of the Gavia.  An act such as that is in no one
> > > >> equivalent to a single play in b-ball or football that might influence
> > > >> the outcome of the entire game.  If you don't get that, I'm guessing
> > > >> you're not much of a sportsman.
>
> > > > What you don't understand is that they are pros making their share of
> > > > money. Tschopp is NOT paid to give gifts. He is NOT Lance or Hinault
> > > > that has all the stage wins under his belt that he needs and he is
> > > > riding for GC. He is someone that has to earn his way and earn his
> > > > place on the team and he does it with wins. You are the one that
> > > > apparently does not know the history of 'gifts' in cycling. BTW, they
> > > > aren't as common as you seem to think, either. A true gift, versus
> > > > 'you get the stage, I get the GC' is very rare. There was no quid pro
> > > > quo here and no basis for a gift.
>
> > > > The history of pro cycling is more of vengeance and paying debts and
> > > > having career long wars between the leading riders of any age than it
> > > > is of gifts.
>
> > > > Curtis L. Russell
> > > > Odenton, MD (USA)
> > > > Just someone on two wheels...
>
> > > Except that the gift in question wasn't a gc win or a stage win. Neither
> > > of them was in contention for an overall category such as points or
> > > mountains. "Winning" the Gavia meant held no value to anyone except Simoni.
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > Tschopp dropped Simoni with that move and won the stage.
>
> > It was the right thing to do.
>
> > thanks,
>
> > Fred. presented by Gringioni.
>
> Bitch, you know you just wanted to write "Tschopp dropped" ...
>
> it was a dick move.

Dumbass -

It's bike racing. If Simoni wasn't the strongest (he wasn't), he
should've made a deal. Tschopp did nothing wrong.

thanks,

Fred. presented by Gringioni.


== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 6:20 am
From: curtis@the-md-russells.org


On Sun, 30 May 2010 15:12:32 -0500, "z, fred" <Nope@not.ca> wrote:

>YOu know it's kinda funny that Tschopp's own website doesn't even
>mention winning the Coma Coppi by name.
>
>http://www.johanntschopp.ch/index.php
>
>This was roughly the equivalent of letting a rider get ahead so he can
>give his family a kiss as they race goes through his hometown.
>
>Anyone who puts "Winner of the 2010 Cima Coppi" on their resume can't be
>taken seriously.

The annual Cima Coppi is considered to be a major deal in Italy, more
significant than many stage wins. Doubt they were happy that a
non-Italian won it, but it IS a big deal there.

Elsewhere, maybe not, but if you have only one pro win on your resume,
you don't ignore it or the 5,000 Euro prize.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...


== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 6:22 am
From: curtis@the-md-russells.org


On Sun, 30 May 2010 13:48:43 -0500, "z, fred" <Nope@not.ca> wrote:

>Except that the gift in question wasn't a gc win or a stage win. Neither
>of them was in contention for an overall category such as points or
>mountains. "Winning" the Gavia meant held no value to anyone except Simoni.
>
>In fact, if you put "winner of Gavia points" on your resume, people
>would realize what a dork you are.

Except it is not "winner of the Gavia points", its winner of the Cima
Coppi on the 50th anniversary of his death, when the Giro has made all
things Coppi a bit more so. So, yeah, I'm guessing winning the Cima
Coppi on the 50th anniversary on the Gavia will carry some career
weight.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...


== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 6:28 am
From: curtis@the-md-russells.org


On Sun, 30 May 2010 16:03:38 -0500, "z, fred" <Nope@not.ca> wrote:

>> I thought there was a cash prize, like the Souvenir Henri Desgranges in
>> the Tour, worth thousands of Euros.
>
>I'm sure there is, unfortunately I can't seem to find what it is. How
>much did Hampsten win for being first over the Gavia in '88?

The prize is for the Cima Coppi, first given in 1989. This year the
prize is 5,000 Euros. A big deal, there are bikes, jerseys, caps and
bike shops called Cima Coppi, although I don't know if it comes from
specifically the name for the highest peak in each year's Giro.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Riders who won a GT, got suspended for 2 years, then won another GT
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/576cafd93b6a2250?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 6:15 am
From: "Fred on a stick"


1. Basso.


== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 7:05 am
From: "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."


On May 31, 6:15 am, "Fred on a stick"
<anonymous.cow...@address.invalid> wrote:
> 1. Basso.

Dumbass -

I predict:

2. Floyd Landis

!!

thanks,

Fred. presented by Gringioni.


== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 9:10 am
From: RicodJour


On May 31, 10:05 am, "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
<kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 6:15 am, "Fred on a stick"
>
> <anonymous.cow...@address.invalid> wrote:
> > 1. Basso.
>
> Dumbass -
>
> I predict:
>
> 2. Floyd Landis
>
> !!

candyass dumbass

R


== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 9:32 am
From: "Fred on a stick"


"Kurgan. presented by Gringioni." <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:529805b0-a013-4547-9171-c9d301de400c@n37g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 31, 6:15 am, "Fred on a stick"
> <anonymous.cow...@address.invalid> wrote:
>> 1. Basso.
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> I predict:
>
> 2. Floyd Landis

Dumbass:

Should've said Valverde.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 10:06 am
From: "Mark J."


Fred on a stick wrote:
> 1. Basso.

Yup. If we change the category to "best result after a two-year
suspension", Basso's still #1, who's #2?

I figure it's
1) Basso
2) Vino
3) Millar

Who'd I miss?

Floyd & Tyler don't appear to be in contention, nor Rasmussen (honorary
member of the field). Who else in this "category"?

Mark J.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: If Andy Hampsten were racing today ...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/806468f35160d25f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 8:37 am
From: Amit Ghosh


On May 30, 12:52 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 5/29/2010 11:01 PM, derFah...@gmail.com wrote:> ... would he have gotten another stage win in the snow over the Gavia?
>
> That's difficult to answer given the conditions in which he won.  More
> generally, I don't see Hampsten being competitive in today's doping
> environment.

plus he's in his forties.


== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 8:54 am
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 5/31/2010 11:37 AM, Amit Ghosh wrote:
> On May 30, 12:52 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 5/29/2010 11:01 PM, derFah...@gmail.com wrote:> ... would he have gotten another stage win in the snow over the Gavia?
>>
>> That's difficult to answer given the conditions in which he won. More
>> generally, I don't see Hampsten being competitive in today's doping
>> environment.
>
> plus he's in his forties.
That, too. :-)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: In the US, our kids get fat. In Indonesia . . .
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/d282b90aa3c54fd1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 9:08 am
From: "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."


the toddlers smoke cigarettes.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/odd/2010-05/30/c_13323923.htm

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Two year suspension for Valverde
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/83b6b5a8624a0cb1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, May 31 2010 9:26 am
From: "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valverde-suspended-for-two-years-world-wide-keeps-results

Valverde suspended for two years world-wide, keeps results

The Court of Arbitration for Sport has handed Alejandro Valverde a two-
year suspension, effective starting January 1, 2010, for his
involvement in the Operación Puerto doping scheme.

<snip><end>


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

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

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