Friday, July 2, 2010

[socialactionfoundationforequity:3114 Oheraldo Goa\'s complete online news edition :: Gram-sabhas-to-allow-villagers-raise-objections-to-ineligible-names-in-list

Buzz It
Sensitisation on Prosecution under the Representation of Peoples Act by ECI in Goa

http://www.oheraldo.in/news/Local%20News/Gram-sabhas-to-allow-villagers-raise-objections-to-ineligible-names-in-list/38446.html

---
This message was sent by goapmsa@gmail.com via http://addthis.com. Please note that AddThis does not verify email addresses.

Make sharing easier with the AddThis Toolbar: http://www.addthis.com/go/toolbar-em

--
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

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:

* Vayer again - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5e9bb96d4d42ed31?hl=en
* Does Lemond Know Something? - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/2bb7ac6faff68d1c?hl=en
* Rumors of Injunction Being Sought Against WSJ - 6 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5632ccf2600e2d76?hl=en
* Forget doping, let's talk about cheating - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5a9c639857eaf5f6?hl=en
* Shocker--Lance Refuses to Talk With CyclingNews - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/6ce57633be96e7a8?hl=en
* Follow Team HTC - Columbia on Google Maps - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/87b40330f4bcbc93?hl=en
* which bike will win tdf? - 6 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/cc38334e79f1fd60?hl=en
* 2004 USPS Trek, 55cm - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/46609aa62d044b19?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Vayer again
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5e9bb96d4d42ed31?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 5:18 pm
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd


On Jul 3, 1:26 am, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/2/2010 6:58 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 3, 12:13 am, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com>  wrote:
> >> On 7/2/2010 6:03 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
>
> >>> B. Lafferty wrote:
> >>>> On 7/2/2010 3:48 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
> >>>>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Nice rant. Now please answer my question. What errors are their in
> >>>>>> Vayer's "math" that we should bring to WADA's attention?
>
> >>>>> Objections were raised in the 2005 thread that you haven't responded to.
> >>>>> Vayer's math hasn't changed, neither have the objections.
>
> >>>> Then it should be easy for you to tell us exactly what is wrong with
> >>>> Vayer's "math." So tell us.
>
> >>> I'm not the one hung up on his math or 5 year old threads. Since you
> >>> are, I'll help you along:
> >>>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/...
>
> >> Pitiful dissembling on your part, Fred. I'm not the one who raised a
> >> question about Vayer's "math."  What is it about Vayer's "math" that the
> >> Freds believe is a problem, Fred.  Try to outline the problem in 50
> >> words or less.  Give it a try.
>
> > Oh for fuck's sake.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/9c41457192465d86
>
> > for starters.
>
> > Ben
>
> I'm not interested in links.  You and the other Freds should be able to
> tell us exactly and concisely what the problem is with Vayer's "math."
> Tell us, Fred.  In your own brilliant words.

Look here, meat,

It's already spelled out for you. Vayer is so
busy making analogies for what power output means
that he stumbles over his own feet.

Let's accept that LANCE had a power output of
457 W and weighed 71 kg, plus about 9 kg for
bike, helmet, etc. Some power is lost to rolling
and air resistance, say 50 W. LANCE's vertical
ascent speed is then 407 W/80 kg/9.8 m/s^2 = 0.52 m/s.

If LANCE climbed at a cadence of 90 rpm and
used 170mm cranks then his crank velocity is
2*pi*0.17*(90/60) = 1.6 m/s. Power = force * velocity
so his force at the cranks averaged over a cycle
is 457/1.6 = 286 N. Let's say that he applies force
over 30% of the cycle with each leg, then each
leg is pushing with force 286/(2*0.3) N = 477 N
during its 30% on, and during the rest of the cycle
it bears no weight. 477 N is a weight of about 49 kg,
so LANCE is standing on the pedals with about
49 kg-force per leg.

Something like this is how Vayer came up with his
analogy about having 45 kg weights tied to LANCE's
legs, only I think Vayer assumed a different cadence
and doesn't understand the ~30% duty cycle. But
it's a _stupid analogy_ because pedaling doesn't
feel anything like having 45 kg weights tied to your
legs (or 20 kg for us mortals). Pushing pedals is easier
than deadlifting weights, and during the off part
of the pedal cycle, your leg _rests_. Try walking
with 20 kg weights on your legs - it's gotta be somewhere
between painful and damn near impossible.

Then Vayer says that LANCE's power is equivalent
to climbing 1 meter/second with 45 kg weights
attached. Well that makes no fucking sense, as
Chung pointed out. As I showed above, LANCE only
climbs at 0.5 m/sec even without weights attached.
Power = mgh/t, to climb at 1.0 m/sec, with weights, he'd
have to do P = (80 + 45 + 45)*9.8*1.0 = 1578 watts. No
wonder this feat sounds superhuman and unnatural. It is.

Vayer fucked up - either he dropped two factors of 2,
or he has some weird way of computing climbing
in which only the speed of deadlifting the weights
counts and he hasn't accounted for actually moving
the whole mess uphill, although I still can't get the
numbers to come out his way.

In other words, it does not make sense. It is not
physics, it is gibberish with artificial physics flavor.

Is there any other basic physics I can help you
squishy little carbon-based lifeforms with?

Fredroid Ben


== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 6:11 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 7/2/2010 8:18 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> On Jul 3, 1:26 am, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 7/2/2010 6:58 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 3, 12:13 am, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> On 7/2/2010 6:03 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
>>
>>>>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/2/2010 3:48 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
>>>>>>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Nice rant. Now please answer my question. What errors are their in
>>>>>>>> Vayer's "math" that we should bring to WADA's attention?
>>
>>>>>>> Objections were raised in the 2005 thread that you haven't responded to.
>>>>>>> Vayer's math hasn't changed, neither have the objections.
>>
>>>>>> Then it should be easy for you to tell us exactly what is wrong with
>>>>>> Vayer's "math." So tell us.
>>
>>>>> I'm not the one hung up on his math or 5 year old threads. Since you
>>>>> are, I'll help you along:
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/...
>>
>>>> Pitiful dissembling on your part, Fred. I'm not the one who raised a
>>>> question about Vayer's "math." What is it about Vayer's "math" that the
>>>> Freds believe is a problem, Fred. Try to outline the problem in 50
>>>> words or less. Give it a try.
>>
>>> Oh for fuck's sake.
>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/9c41457192465d86
>>
>>> for starters.
>>
>>> Ben
>>
>> I'm not interested in links. You and the other Freds should be able to
>> tell us exactly and concisely what the problem is with Vayer's "math."
>> Tell us, Fred. In your own brilliant words.
>
> Look here, meat,
>
> It's already spelled out for you. Vayer is so
> busy making analogies for what power output means
> that he stumbles over his own feet.
>
> Let's accept that LANCE had a power output of
> 457 W and weighed 71 kg, plus about 9 kg for
> bike, helmet, etc. Some power is lost to rolling
> and air resistance, say 50 W. LANCE's vertical
> ascent speed is then 407 W/80 kg/9.8 m/s^2 = 0.52 m/s.
>
> If LANCE climbed at a cadence of 90 rpm and
> used 170mm cranks then his crank velocity is
> 2*pi*0.17*(90/60) = 1.6 m/s. Power = force * velocity
> so his force at the cranks averaged over a cycle
> is 457/1.6 = 286 N. Let's say that he applies force
> over 30% of the cycle with each leg, then each
> leg is pushing with force 286/(2*0.3) N = 477 N
> during its 30% on, and during the rest of the cycle
> it bears no weight. 477 N is a weight of about 49 kg,
> so LANCE is standing on the pedals with about
> 49 kg-force per leg.
>
> Something like this is how Vayer came up with his
> analogy about having 45 kg weights tied to LANCE's
> legs, only I think Vayer assumed a different cadence
> and doesn't understand the ~30% duty cycle. But
> it's a _stupid analogy_ because pedaling doesn't
> feel anything like having 45 kg weights tied to your
> legs (or 20 kg for us mortals). Pushing pedals is easier
> than deadlifting weights, and during the off part
> of the pedal cycle, your leg _rests_. Try walking
> with 20 kg weights on your legs - it's gotta be somewhere
> between painful and damn near impossible.
>
> Then Vayer says that LANCE's power is equivalent
> to climbing 1 meter/second with 45 kg weights
> attached. Well that makes no fucking sense, as
> Chung pointed out. As I showed above, LANCE only
> climbs at 0.5 m/sec even without weights attached.
> Power = mgh/t, to climb at 1.0 m/sec, with weights, he'd
> have to do P = (80 + 45 + 45)*9.8*1.0 = 1578 watts. No
> wonder this feat sounds superhuman and unnatural. It is.
>
> Vayer fucked up - either he dropped two factors of 2,
> or he has some weird way of computing climbing
> in which only the speed of deadlifting the weights
> counts and he hasn't accounted for actually moving
> the whole mess uphill, although I still can't get the
> numbers to come out his way.
>
> In other words, it does not make sense. It is not
> physics, it is gibberish with artificial physics flavor.
>
> Is there any other basic physics I can help you
> squishy little carbon-based lifeforms with?
>
> Fredroid Ben

Thanks, Fred. Let's focus on the calculation of average wattage for
various climbs and not attempted analogies which i couldn't care less
about.
The wattage calculation for climbing is straight forward (I think your
assumption that air resistance is worth 50 watts is suspect unless you
can demonstrate that). Do you have something to address with regard to
that; the pre-1990 average climbing wattages calculated and those after
1990 when epo became prevalent?


== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 6:51 pm
From: Michael Press


In article
<6bd9cd90-894a-4017-bde7-0ed4042e715a@z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
Fredmaster of Brainerd <bjweiner@gmail.com> wrote:

> In other words, it does not make sense. It is not
> physics, it is gibberish with artificial physics flavor.

But it's really good gibberish. Mmmmmm.

--
Michael Press

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Does Lemond Know Something?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/2bb7ac6faff68d1c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 5:43 pm
From: "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."


On Jul 2, 4:44 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/2/2010 7:24 PM, Scott wrote:
>
> > On Jul 2, 2:13 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com>  wrote:
> >> On 7/2/2010 4:06 PM, derFah...@gmail.com wrote:>  hope he knows something ... because he apparently doesn't know that
> >>> he's become a bitter, old man trying to relive his glory days.
>
> >> Yada, yada, yada, yawn.
>
> > Your 'yada, yada, yada, yawn' response it's out of sequence.  You
> > should've posted this as a response to your first post.
>
> > It's tiresome reading Lemond's ramblings, and it's even worse reading
> > yours.
>
> Oh, Scott. I'm devastated.  You've driven a stake into my heart.  How
> will I ever go on? I'll try.................

That's the way most people in this group feel about you.


== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 5:50 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 7/2/2010 8:43 PM, Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. wrote:
> On Jul 2, 4:44 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 7/2/2010 7:24 PM, Scott wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 2, 2:13 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> On 7/2/2010 4:06 PM, derFah...@gmail.com wrote:> hope he knows something ... because he apparently doesn't know that
>>>>> he's become a bitter, old man trying to relive his glory days.
>>
>>>> Yada, yada, yada, yawn.
>>
>>> Your 'yada, yada, yada, yawn' response it's out of sequence. You
>>> should've posted this as a response to your first post.
>>
>>> It's tiresome reading Lemond's ramblings, and it's even worse reading
>>> yours.
>>
>> Oh, Scott. I'm devastated. You've driven a stake into my heart. How
>> will I ever go on? I'll try.................
>
>
>
> That's the way most people in this group feel about you.
Do I care? Rhetorical question, dumb dumb.


== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 6:51 pm
From: "derFahrer@gmail.com"


On Jul 2, 8:50 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> ... dumb dumb.

banging the drum again, eh? same rhythm, over and over.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Rumors of Injunction Being Sought Against WSJ
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5632ccf2600e2d76?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 5:48 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 7/2/2010 8:09 PM, Keith wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:35:10 -0400, "B. Lafferty"<bl@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/2/2010 7:24 PM, Keith wrote:
>>> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 18:09:10 -0400, "B. Lafferty"<bl@nowhere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unlikely given the distaste the US courts have for prior restraint.
>>>> http://road.cc/content/news/19616-wall-street-journal-landis-article-threatens-overshadow-tour-de-france-grand
>>>
>>> So what are these rumours "should some of the rumours circulating be
>>> true"...let's head out to Twitter !
>>
>> I have a feeling this will break for us on Twitter long before anyone
>> gets their hands on the WSJ tomorrow.
>
> Twitter just pointed me to
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704911704575326753200584006.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
>

Not a lot that's new. The feds contacting Trek about the alleged bikes
for doping program is interesting. Those are the kinds of things that
can be followed in numerous directions.

Lots of people not returning calls and emails.


== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 6:05 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 7/2/2010 8:48 PM, B. Lafferty wrote:
> On 7/2/2010 8:09 PM, Keith wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:35:10 -0400, "B. Lafferty"<bl@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/2/2010 7:24 PM, Keith wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 18:09:10 -0400, "B. Lafferty"<bl@nowhere.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Unlikely given the distaste the US courts have for prior restraint.
>>>>> http://road.cc/content/news/19616-wall-street-journal-landis-article-threatens-overshadow-tour-de-france-grand
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So what are these rumours "should some of the rumours circulating be
>>>> true"...let's head out to Twitter !
>>>
>>> I have a feeling this will break for us on Twitter long before anyone
>>> gets their hands on the WSJ tomorrow.
>>
>> Twitter just pointed me to
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704911704575326753200584006.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
>>
>>
>
> Not a lot that's new. The feds contacting Trek about the alleged bikes
> for doping program is interesting. Those are the kinds of things that
> can be followed in numerous directions.
>
> Lots of people not returning calls and emails.

I can see where there will be some questions for Kristen. My feeling
after re-reading the piece is that there is a sufficient level of detail
that lends credibility to his accusations and which will open many paths
for investigators to follow. Phone and text message records are going to
be one good source.


== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 6:06 pm
From: "K. Fred Gauss"


Keith wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:35:10 -0400, "B. Lafferty" <bl@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/2/2010 7:24 PM, Keith wrote:
>>> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 18:09:10 -0400, "B. Lafferty"<bl@nowhere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unlikely given the distaste the US courts have for prior restraint.
>>>> http://road.cc/content/news/19616-wall-street-journal-landis-article-threatens-overshadow-tour-de-france-grand
>>> So what are these rumours "should some of the rumours circulating be
>>> true"...let's head out to Twitter !
>> I have a feeling this will break for us on Twitter long before anyone
>> gets their hands on the WSJ tomorrow.
>
> Twitter just pointed me to
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704911704575326753200584006.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
>

"Three other former U.S. Postal riders told the Journal in interviews
that there was doping on the team during the time Mr. Armstrong was its
lead rider, and one of them admitted that he himself had doped."

I'm guessing:
Vaughters
Andreu
Creed

The "bikes for dope" deal is new to me, but most of this is as expected.
The biggest deal is that it's more damning than anything previously
published in a mass market American rag.


== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 6:14 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 7/2/2010 9:06 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
> Keith wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:35:10 -0400, "B. Lafferty" <bl@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/2/2010 7:24 PM, Keith wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 18:09:10 -0400, "B. Lafferty"<bl@nowhere.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Unlikely given the distaste the US courts have for prior restraint.
>>>>> http://road.cc/content/news/19616-wall-street-journal-landis-article-threatens-overshadow-tour-de-france-grand
>>>>>
>>>> So what are these rumours "should some of the rumours circulating be
>>>> true"...let's head out to Twitter !
>>> I have a feeling this will break for us on Twitter long before anyone
>>> gets their hands on the WSJ tomorrow.
>>
>> Twitter just pointed me to
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704911704575326753200584006.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
>>
>>
>
> "Three other former U.S. Postal riders told the Journal in interviews
> that there was doping on the team during the time Mr. Armstrong was its
> lead rider, and one of them admitted that he himself had doped."
>
> I'm guessing:
> Vaughters
> Andreu
> Creed
>
> The "bikes for dope" deal is new to me, but most of this is as expected.
> The biggest deal is that it's more damning than anything previously
> published in a mass market American rag.
I seriously doubt that Creed doped. I think that's why didn't last long
at Postal.


== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 6:31 pm
From: "K. Fred Gauss"


B. Lafferty wrote:
> On 7/2/2010 9:06 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
>> Keith wrote:
>>> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:35:10 -0400, "B. Lafferty" <bl@nowhere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/2/2010 7:24 PM, Keith wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 18:09:10 -0400, "B. Lafferty"<bl@nowhere.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Unlikely given the distaste the US courts have for prior restraint.
>>>>>> http://road.cc/content/news/19616-wall-street-journal-landis-article-threatens-overshadow-tour-de-france-grand
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> So what are these rumours "should some of the rumours circulating be
>>>>> true"...let's head out to Twitter !
>>>> I have a feeling this will break for us on Twitter long before anyone
>>>> gets their hands on the WSJ tomorrow.
>>>
>>> Twitter just pointed me to
>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704911704575326753200584006.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> "Three other former U.S. Postal riders told the Journal in interviews
>> that there was doping on the team during the time Mr. Armstrong was its
>> lead rider, and one of them admitted that he himself had doped."
>>
>> I'm guessing:
>> Vaughters
>> Andreu
>> Creed
>>
>> The "bikes for dope" deal is new to me, but most of this is as expected.
>> The biggest deal is that it's more damning than anything previously
>> published in a mass market American rag.
> I seriously doubt that Creed doped. I think that's why didn't last long
> at Postal.

Agreed. The article says that only one admitted doping. If I'm right,
then 2/3 of them told the truth.


== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 9:25 pm
From: "Mike Jacoubowsky"


"Keith" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vsvs26dkvbhsp935ckuc4uj3qvnkf90vrc@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:35:10 -0400, "B. Lafferty" <bl@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 7/2/2010 7:24 PM, Keith wrote:
>>> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 18:09:10 -0400, "B. Lafferty"<bl@nowhere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unlikely given the distaste the US courts have for prior restraint.
>>>> http://road.cc/content/news/19616-wall-street-journal-landis-article-threatens-overshadow-tour-de-france-grand
>>>
>>> So what are these rumours "should some of the rumours circulating be
>>> true"...let's head out to Twitter !
>>
>>I have a feeling this will break for us on Twitter long before anyone
>>gets their hands on the WSJ tomorrow.
>
> Twitter just pointed me to
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704911704575326753200584006.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Thanks for the link. Surprised that anyone would think the article would
warrant an injunction against it, with one exception- the picture of Floyd
and Lance with the "Blood Brothers" caption. Had it been "Blood Brothers?"
it wouldn't be troublesome, but there's nothing new in the article that I
could find, aside from claims that three had spoken with investigators
(which surely can't be a surprise to anyone?).

The "bikes for dope" thing is really interesting. For irony. Why? Because it
was Greg LeMond's bikes that caused us grief. What you read about in the
LeMond/Trek lawsuit was true; Greg's manager back-doored a lot of bikes that
went to "friends" and now we see claims of the same thing from Lance.

Also interesting, and not exactly ringing the bell of truth, are Landis's
claims of being denied top equipment. I don't get this one at all. I've been
to 9 TdFs and have seen the team bikes up close in most of them, including
Floyd's. Everyone's got the same stuff. The only exception was in, what,
2003 I think?, when Lance insisted on riding his 5900 instead of the newer
Madone for some of the climbing stages. Lance is semi-superstitious and
while he claims it's not about the bike, at the same time if he's got a bike
that did well for him on a given stage, he wants to have that same bike for
similar stages, and thus the early "aero" version of the Madone, designed
specifically with Lance in mind, was used by the rest of the team 100% of
the time but maybe half the time by Lance. Now perhaps Landis is picking up
on Lance's pickiness about things and building a non-existant story around
it?.

The Trek attorney referenced, Bob Burns, is an extraordinary guy that I
would trust to be brutally honest. Whatever claims he makes regarding those
loose bikes, I'd believe. It was likely Mr. Burns who advised John Burke,
President of Trek, to release *everything* including anything that might
make Trek look bad, when Greg sued Trek. He's not the type of hide things;
if there are lumps to be taken, get them out of the way early (which removes
the sting from the other sides planned attack).

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


==============================================================================
TOPIC: Forget doping, let's talk about cheating
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5a9c639857eaf5f6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 5:49 pm
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd


Proposition:

Luis Suarez (Uruguay) is a bigger sporting cheat than
LANCE and Floyd combined. Discuss.

(This despite the fact that he committed his offense in the
open, was duly punished, and for all I know is a human
being of fine character. Only discussing on-field here.)

Ben


==============================================================================
TOPIC: Shocker--Lance Refuses to Talk With CyclingNews
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/6ce57633be96e7a8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 6:10 pm
From: "K. Fred Gauss"


B. Lafferty wrote:

> I suspect you're right about that. Lemond has undoubtedly been
> interviewed by the WSJ for the article. I

I am pleased to see that the WSJ used sources that had direct knowledge
of USPS doping practices. That's not Lemond.


== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 6:15 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 7/2/2010 9:10 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
>> I suspect you're right about that. Lemond has undoubtedly been
>> interviewed by the WSJ for the article. I
>
> I am pleased to see that the WSJ used sources that had direct knowledge
> of USPS doping practices. That's not Lemond.
I agree.


== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 9:47 pm
From: raamman


On Jul 2, 7:30 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/2/2010 7:20 PM, Keith wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:40:05 -0400, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kimmage-calls-for-uci-transparency
>
> > Had missed that part "The Wall Street Journal are set to publish an
> > article tomorrow in which the disgraced 2006 Tour de France winner
> > goes into details about his relationship with Armstrong and the doping
> > practices he encountered."
>
> > ah...that's maybe what Lemond is privvy to.
>
> I suspect you're right about that.  Lemond has undoubtedly been
> interviewed by the WSJ for the article.  I wonder which other cyclists
> have spilled info to them.  The NY Times reported that two other riders
> had spoken to Novitsky, but asked the Times to not name them for fear of
> retribution during the Tour. I'm wondering if someone hasn't provided
> some interesting phots and/or other documentary evidence to the WSJ.
>
> What time does the WSJ hit the newsstands in NYC tonight?

The two said they knew nothing of doping practices at Postal.There.
They have spoken.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Follow Team HTC - Columbia on Google Maps
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/87b40330f4bcbc93?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 6:57 pm
From: Superfly TNT


http://www.google.com/landing/mytrackstour/


==============================================================================
TOPIC: which bike will win tdf?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/cc38334e79f1fd60?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 7:15 pm
From: Cicero Venatio


just curious, what bike is the favortie?


== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 7:21 pm
From: Superfly TNT


On Jul 2, 7:15 pm, Cicero Venatio <jazzyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> just curious, what bike is the favortie?


If they allowed recumbents, then it would probably be a Bacchetta!
Yeah baby, check it out: http://www.bacchettabikes.com

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 7:21 pm
From: Superfly TNT


On Jul 2, 7:21 pm, Superfly TNT <superfly-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 7:15 pm, Cicero Venatio <jazzyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > just curious, what bike is the favortie?
>
> If they allowed recumbents, then it would probably be a Bacchetta!
> Yeah baby, check it out:http://www.bacchettabikes.com


Can you get cleats for Berkenstocks???


== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 8:09 pm
From: NoDannyNo


On Jul 2, 10:15 pm, Cicero Venatio <jazzyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> just curious, what bike is the favortie?

Sea Biscuit


== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 8:32 pm
From: "K. Fred Gauss"


Cicero Venatio wrote:
> just curious, what bike is the favortie?

The one named "Fred".


== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 8:53 pm
From: coterock


On Jul 2, 10:21 pm, Superfly TNT <superfly-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 7:15 pm, Cicero Venatio <jazzyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > just curious, what bike is the favortie?
>
> If they allowed recumbents, then it would probably be a Bacchetta!
> Yeah baby, check it out:http://www.bacchettabikes.com

Recumbents are prohibited by the UCI because the riders always fail
the smug test. http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155205/?tag=George+Clooney
Replace hybrid with recumbent

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 2004 USPS Trek, 55cm
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/46609aa62d044b19?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 8:47 pm
From: coterock


I must sell my 2004 USPS Team edition Trek. It has low miles and is in
great shape. It was a spare bike from the USPS team. Full DuraAce,
OCLV etc... Reply for more info.


== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 9:08 pm
From: "K. Fred Gauss"


coterock wrote:
> I must sell my 2004 USPS Team edition Trek. It has low miles and is in
> great shape. It was a spare bike from the USPS team. Full DuraAce,
> OCLV etc... Reply for more info.

Will you accept amphetamines as payment?


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

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

[socialactionfoundationforequity:3114 CRPF troops fighting Naxals face lack of food, water -  National News – News – MSN India

Buzz It
Challenges for Indian Democracy to ensure Good Governance to the People

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4103970&page=0

---
This message was sent by curtorimunion@gmail.com via http://addthis.com. Please note that AddThis does not verify email addresses.

Make sharing easier with the AddThis Toolbar: http://www.addthis.com/go/toolbar-em

--
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

rec.bicycles.racing - 25 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:

* Vayer again - 4 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5e9bb96d4d42ed31?hl=en
* TdF iPhone apps? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/423ebc4001052d10?hl=en
* Rumors of Injunction Being Sought Against WSJ - 9 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5632ccf2600e2d76?hl=en
* Does Lemond Know Something? - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/2bb7ac6faff68d1c?hl=en
* Shocker--Lance Refuses to Talk With CyclingNews - 6 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/6ce57633be96e7a8?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Vayer again
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5e9bb96d4d42ed31?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 3:13 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 7/2/2010 6:03 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> On 7/2/2010 3:48 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
>>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nice rant. Now please answer my question. What errors are their in
>>>> Vayer's "math" that we should bring to WADA's attention?
>>>
>>> Objections were raised in the 2005 thread that you haven't responded to.
>>> Vayer's math hasn't changed, neither have the objections.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Then it should be easy for you to tell us exactly what is wrong with
>> Vayer's "math." So tell us.
>
> I'm not the one hung up on his math or 5 year old threads. Since you
> are, I'll help you along:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/e667e2a5c3255cd1/03263931f9c08ad0
>
Pitiful dissembling on your part, Fred. I'm not the one who raised a
question about Vayer's "math." What is it about Vayer's "math" that the
Freds believe is a problem, Fred. Try to outline the problem in 50
words or less. Give it a try.


== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 3:58 pm
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd


On Jul 3, 12:13 am, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/2/2010 6:03 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
>
>
>
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> >> On 7/2/2010 3:48 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
> >>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
> >>>> Nice rant. Now please answer my question. What errors are their in
> >>>> Vayer's "math" that we should bring to WADA's attention?
>
> >>> Objections were raised in the 2005 thread that you haven't responded to.
> >>> Vayer's math hasn't changed, neither have the objections.
>
> >> Then it should be easy for you to tell us exactly what is wrong with
> >> Vayer's "math." So tell us.
>
> > I'm not the one hung up on his math or 5 year old threads. Since you
> > are, I'll help you along:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/...
>
> Pitiful dissembling on your part, Fred. I'm not the one who raised a
> question about Vayer's "math."  What is it about Vayer's "math" that the
> Freds believe is a problem, Fred.  Try to outline the problem in 50
> words or less.  Give it a try.

Oh for fuck's sake.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/9c41457192465d86

for starters.

Ben


== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 4:26 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 7/2/2010 6:58 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> On Jul 3, 12:13 am, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 7/2/2010 6:03 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>>> On 7/2/2010 3:48 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
>>>>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Nice rant. Now please answer my question. What errors are their in
>>>>>> Vayer's "math" that we should bring to WADA's attention?
>>
>>>>> Objections were raised in the 2005 thread that you haven't responded to.
>>>>> Vayer's math hasn't changed, neither have the objections.
>>
>>>> Then it should be easy for you to tell us exactly what is wrong with
>>>> Vayer's "math." So tell us.
>>
>>> I'm not the one hung up on his math or 5 year old threads. Since you
>>> are, I'll help you along:
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/...
>>
>> Pitiful dissembling on your part, Fred. I'm not the one who raised a
>> question about Vayer's "math." What is it about Vayer's "math" that the
>> Freds believe is a problem, Fred. Try to outline the problem in 50
>> words or less. Give it a try.
>
> Oh for fuck's sake.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/9c41457192465d86
>
> for starters.
>
> Ben
I'm not interested in links. You and the other Freds should be able to
tell us exactly and concisely what the problem is with Vayer's "math."
Tell us, Fred. In your own brilliant words.


== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 5:18 pm
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd


On Jul 3, 1:26 am, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/2/2010 6:58 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 3, 12:13 am, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com>  wrote:
> >> On 7/2/2010 6:03 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
>
> >>> B. Lafferty wrote:
> >>>> On 7/2/2010 3:48 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
> >>>>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Nice rant. Now please answer my question. What errors are their in
> >>>>>> Vayer's "math" that we should bring to WADA's attention?
>
> >>>>> Objections were raised in the 2005 thread that you haven't responded to.
> >>>>> Vayer's math hasn't changed, neither have the objections.
>
> >>>> Then it should be easy for you to tell us exactly what is wrong with
> >>>> Vayer's "math." So tell us.
>
> >>> I'm not the one hung up on his math or 5 year old threads. Since you
> >>> are, I'll help you along:
> >>>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/...
>
> >> Pitiful dissembling on your part, Fred. I'm not the one who raised a
> >> question about Vayer's "math."  What is it about Vayer's "math" that the
> >> Freds believe is a problem, Fred.  Try to outline the problem in 50
> >> words or less.  Give it a try.
>
> > Oh for fuck's sake.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/9c41457192465d86
>
> > for starters.
>
> > Ben
>
> I'm not interested in links.  You and the other Freds should be able to
> tell us exactly and concisely what the problem is with Vayer's "math."
> Tell us, Fred.  In your own brilliant words.

Look here, meat,

It's already spelled out for you. Vayer is so
busy making analogies for what power output means
that he stumbles over his own feet.

Let's accept that LANCE had a power output of
457 W and weighed 71 kg, plus about 9 kg for
bike, helmet, etc. Some power is lost to rolling
and air resistance, say 50 W. LANCE's vertical
ascent speed is then 407 W/80 kg/9.8 m/s^2 = 0.52 m/s.

If LANCE climbed at a cadence of 90 rpm and
used 170mm cranks then his crank velocity is
2*pi*0.17*(90/60) = 1.6 m/s. Power = force * velocity
so his force at the cranks averaged over a cycle
is 457/1.6 = 286 N. Let's say that he applies force
over 30% of the cycle with each leg, then each
leg is pushing with force 286/(2*0.3) N = 477 N
during its 30% on, and during the rest of the cycle
it bears no weight. 477 N is a weight of about 49 kg,
so LANCE is standing on the pedals with about
49 kg-force per leg.

Something like this is how Vayer came up with his
analogy about having 45 kg weights tied to LANCE's
legs, only I think Vayer assumed a different cadence
and doesn't understand the ~30% duty cycle. But
it's a _stupid analogy_ because pedaling doesn't
feel anything like having 45 kg weights tied to your
legs (or 20 kg for us mortals). Pushing pedals is easier
than deadlifting weights, and during the off part
of the pedal cycle, your leg _rests_. Try walking
with 20 kg weights on your legs - it's gotta be somewhere
between painful and damn near impossible.

Then Vayer says that LANCE's power is equivalent
to climbing 1 meter/second with 45 kg weights
attached. Well that makes no fucking sense, as
Chung pointed out. As I showed above, LANCE only
climbs at 0.5 m/sec even without weights attached.
Power = mgh/t, to climb at 1.0 m/sec, with weights, he'd
have to do P = (80 + 45 + 45)*9.8*1.0 = 1578 watts. No
wonder this feat sounds superhuman and unnatural. It is.

Vayer fucked up - either he dropped two factors of 2,
or he has some weird way of computing climbing
in which only the speed of deadlifting the weights
counts and he hasn't accounted for actually moving
the whole mess uphill, although I still can't get the
numbers to come out his way.

In other words, it does not make sense. It is not
physics, it is gibberish with artificial physics flavor.

Is there any other basic physics I can help you
squishy little carbon-based lifeforms with?

Fredroid Ben

==============================================================================
TOPIC: TdF iPhone apps?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/423ebc4001052d10?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 3:37 pm
From: bar


On Jul 2, 5:59 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
wrote:
> Anyone here have an iPhone or iPod Touch and can recommend some decent TdF apps?  
> Versus have one, well two actually, a free one and a paid one that costs around
> $15 or $16!.  The free one is kind of limited in what it can do though.  
> Rabobank have an app, although most of the text and video footage is in Dutch.
>
> J. Spaceman

you mean menchov has an app and LANCE doesn't? someone please tweet
LANCE about this ...


== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 3:49 pm
From: Jason Spaceman


Turns out Team Radioshack has an app, so LANCE won't be beat by out by Menchov.

J. Spaceman

bar wrote:

> On Jul 2, 5:59 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
> wrote:
>> Anyone here have an iPhone or iPod Touch and can recommend some decent TdF
>> apps? Versus have one, well two actually, a free one and a paid one that
>> costs around $15 or $16!. The free one is kind of limited in what it can do
>> though. Rabobank have an app, although most of the text and video footage is
>> in Dutch.
>>
>> J. Spaceman
>
> you mean menchov has an app and LANCE doesn't? someone please tweet
> LANCE about this

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Rumors of Injunction Being Sought Against WSJ
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5632ccf2600e2d76?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 3:56 pm
From: "K. Fred Gauss"


B. Lafferty wrote:
> Unlikely given the distaste the US courts have for prior restraint.
> http://road.cc/content/news/19616-wall-street-journal-landis-article-threatens-overshadow-tour-de-france-grand
>

You're right, the article will be published.

The articles about the article speak of further "allegations". I'm
having trouble coming up with any doping allegations against LA that
haven't been alleged several time before. For this to be earth
shattering, Landis has to have told WSJ that he's turned physical
evidence over to the feds.


== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 3:58 pm
From: "K. Fred Gauss"


K. Fred Gauss wrote:
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> Unlikely given the distaste the US courts have for prior restraint.
>> http://road.cc/content/news/19616-wall-street-journal-landis-article-threatens-overshadow-tour-de-france-grand
>>
>
> You're right, the article will be published.
>
> The articles about the article speak of further "allegations". I'm
> having trouble coming up with any doping allegations against LA that
> haven't been alleged several time before. For this to be earth
> shattering, Landis has to have told WSJ that he's turned physical
> evidence over to the feds.

Another possibility: the WSJ has others who corroborate the Landis story.


== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 4:24 pm
From: Keith


On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:58:14 -0700, "K. Fred Gauss" <Not@This.Planet>
wrote:

>K. Fred Gauss wrote:
>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>> Unlikely given the distaste the US courts have for prior restraint.
>>> http://road.cc/content/news/19616-wall-street-journal-landis-article-threatens-overshadow-tour-de-france-grand
>>>
>>
>> You're right, the article will be published.
>>
>> The articles about the article speak of further "allegations". I'm
>> having trouble coming up with any doping allegations against LA that
>> haven't been alleged several time before. For this to be earth
>> shattering, Landis has to have told WSJ that he's turned physical
>> evidence over to the feds.
>
>Another possibility: the WSJ has others who corroborate the Landis story.

That's probably it, the question is whether these other sources are
dopers or not.

== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 4:24 pm
From: Keith


On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 18:09:10 -0400, "B. Lafferty" <bl@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>Unlikely given the distaste the US courts have for prior restraint.
>http://road.cc/content/news/19616-wall-street-journal-landis-article-threatens-overshadow-tour-de-france-grand

So what are these rumours "should some of the rumours circulating be
true"...let's head out to Twitter !


== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 4:32 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 7/2/2010 6:56 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> Unlikely given the distaste the US courts have for prior restraint.
>> http://road.cc/content/news/19616-wall-street-journal-landis-article-threatens-overshadow-tour-de-france-grand
>>
>
> You're right, the article will be published.
>
> The articles about the article speak of further "allegations". I'm
> having trouble coming up with any doping allegations against LA that
> haven't been alleged several time before. For this to be earth
> shattering, Landis has to have told WSJ that he's turned physical
> evidence over to the feds.

Or that the other cyclists who the NY Times said had spoken with
Novitsky turned over to the WSJ.


== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 4:33 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 7/2/2010 6:58 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
> K. Fred Gauss wrote:
>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>> Unlikely given the distaste the US courts have for prior restraint.
>>> http://road.cc/content/news/19616-wall-street-journal-landis-article-threatens-overshadow-tour-de-france-grand
>>>
>>
>> You're right, the article will be published.
>>
>> The articles about the article speak of further "allegations". I'm
>> having trouble coming up with any doping allegations against LA that
>> haven't been alleged several time before. For this to be earth
>> shattering, Landis has to have told WSJ that he's turned physical
>> evidence over to the feds.
>
> Another possibility: the WSJ has others who corroborate the Landis story.

I think that is very likely the situation.


== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 4:34 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 7/2/2010 7:24 PM, Keith wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:58:14 -0700, "K. Fred Gauss"<Not@This.Planet>
> wrote:
>
>> K. Fred Gauss wrote:
>>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>>> Unlikely given the distaste the US courts have for prior restraint.
>>>> http://road.cc/content/news/19616-wall-street-journal-landis-article-threatens-overshadow-tour-de-france-grand
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're right, the article will be published.
>>>
>>> The articles about the article speak of further "allegations". I'm
>>> having trouble coming up with any doping allegations against LA that
>>> haven't been alleged several time before. For this to be earth
>>> shattering, Landis has to have told WSJ that he's turned physical
>>> evidence over to the feds.
>>
>> Another possibility: the WSJ has others who corroborate the Landis story.
>
> That's probably it, the question is whether these other sources are
> dopers or not.
>

Well, they probably are/were dopers. It will be interesting to see if
any photos or other documentary evidence emerge.


== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 4:35 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 7/2/2010 7:24 PM, Keith wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 18:09:10 -0400, "B. Lafferty"<bl@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Unlikely given the distaste the US courts have for prior restraint.
>> http://road.cc/content/news/19616-wall-street-journal-landis-article-threatens-overshadow-tour-de-france-grand
>
> So what are these rumours "should some of the rumours circulating be
> true"...let's head out to Twitter !

I have a feeling this will break for us on Twitter long before anyone
gets their hands on the WSJ tomorrow.


== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 5:09 pm
From: Keith


On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:35:10 -0400, "B. Lafferty" <bl@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On 7/2/2010 7:24 PM, Keith wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 18:09:10 -0400, "B. Lafferty"<bl@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Unlikely given the distaste the US courts have for prior restraint.
>>> http://road.cc/content/news/19616-wall-street-journal-landis-article-threatens-overshadow-tour-de-france-grand
>>
>> So what are these rumours "should some of the rumours circulating be
>> true"...let's head out to Twitter !
>
>I have a feeling this will break for us on Twitter long before anyone
>gets their hands on the WSJ tomorrow.

Twitter just pointed me to
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704911704575326753200584006.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


==============================================================================
TOPIC: Does Lemond Know Something?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/2bb7ac6faff68d1c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 4:12 pm
From: "Fred Gringioni"

"B. Lafferty" <bl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:5NqdnYKFS8wt_bPRnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
: On 7/2/2010 5:41 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
: > On Jul 2, 9:36 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
: >> "........My Lance Armstrong prediction? Either he will not start or he
: >> will pull out just before the race enters France. I have a feeling that
: >> the world of cycling is about to change for the better."--
: >> Lemond
http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/greg-lemond/the-art-of-peaking-for-t...
: >
: > Dude,
: >
: > This is like you saying that now that the dopers
: > are on the run, we'll see some real suffering in
: > the mountains.
: >
: > What are you and Lemond going to do when LANCE
: > retires and there's still doping?
: >
: > Fredmaster Ben
: >
:
: You illogical drivel is pitiful. Try again.

Dumbass -

He's right.

There always will be doping. It's part of our culture.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

ps. how's the coffee treatin' ya?

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 4:24 pm
From: Scott


On Jul 2, 2:13 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/2/2010 4:06 PM, derFah...@gmail.com wrote:> hope he knows something ... because he apparently doesn't know that
> > he's become a bitter, old man trying to relive his glory days.
>
> Yada, yada, yada, yawn.

Your 'yada, yada, yada, yawn' response it's out of sequence. You
should've posted this as a response to your first post.

It's tiresome reading Lemond's ramblings, and it's even worse reading
yours.


== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 4:41 pm
From: "derFahrer@gmail.com"

> Yada, yada, yada, yawn.

Oh, the irony!


== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 4:44 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 7/2/2010 7:24 PM, Scott wrote:
> On Jul 2, 2:13 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 7/2/2010 4:06 PM, derFah...@gmail.com wrote:> hope he knows something ... because he apparently doesn't know that
>>> he's become a bitter, old man trying to relive his glory days.
>>
>> Yada, yada, yada, yawn.
>
> Your 'yada, yada, yada, yawn' response it's out of sequence. You
> should've posted this as a response to your first post.
>
> It's tiresome reading Lemond's ramblings, and it's even worse reading
> yours.

Oh, Scott. I'm devastated. You've driven a stake into my heart. How
will I ever go on? I'll try.................

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Shocker--Lance Refuses to Talk With CyclingNews
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/6ce57633be96e7a8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 4:20 pm
From: Keith


On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:40:05 -0400, "B. Lafferty" <bl@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kimmage-calls-for-uci-transparency

Had missed that part "The Wall Street Journal are set to publish an
article tomorrow in which the disgraced 2006 Tour de France winner
goes into details about his relationship with Armstrong and the doping
practices he encountered."

ah...that's maybe what Lemond is privvy to.


== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 4:26 pm
From: Scott


On Jul 2, 5:20 pm, Keith <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:40:05 -0400, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kimmage-calls-for-uci-transparency
>
> Had missed that part "The Wall Street Journal are set to publish an
> article tomorrow in which the disgraced 2006 Tour de France winner
> goes into details about his relationship with Armstrong and the doping
> practices he encountered."
>
> ah...that's maybe what Lemond is privvy to.

Are you and Lafferty going to give each other a reach-around every day
in July, or do you plan to stop soon?


== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 4:30 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 7/2/2010 7:20 PM, Keith wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:40:05 -0400, "B. Lafferty"<bl@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kimmage-calls-for-uci-transparency
>
> Had missed that part "The Wall Street Journal are set to publish an
> article tomorrow in which the disgraced 2006 Tour de France winner
> goes into details about his relationship with Armstrong and the doping
> practices he encountered."
>
> ah...that's maybe what Lemond is privvy to.

I suspect you're right about that. Lemond has undoubtedly been
interviewed by the WSJ for the article. I wonder which other cyclists
have spilled info to them. The NY Times reported that two other riders
had spoken to Novitsky, but asked the Times to not name them for fear of
retribution during the Tour. I'm wondering if someone hasn't provided
some interesting phots and/or other documentary evidence to the WSJ.

What time does the WSJ hit the newsstands in NYC tonight?


== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 4:45 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 7/2/2010 7:26 PM, Scott wrote:
> On Jul 2, 5:20 pm, Keith<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:40:05 -0400, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kimmage-calls-for-uci-transparency
>>
>> Had missed that part "The Wall Street Journal are set to publish an
>> article tomorrow in which the disgraced 2006 Tour de France winner
>> goes into details about his relationship with Armstrong and the doping
>> practices he encountered."
>>
>> ah...that's maybe what Lemond is privvy to.
>
> Are you and Lafferty going to give each other a reach-around every day
> in July, or do you plan to stop soon?

Don't be jealous, Scott. Kurgan can massage your prostate if you like.


== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 4:50 pm
From: Scott


On Jul 2, 5:45 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/2/2010 7:26 PM, Scott wrote:
>
> > On Jul 2, 5:20 pm, Keith<nos...@nospam.com>  wrote:
> >> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:40:05 -0400, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kimmage-calls-for-uci-transparency
>
> >> Had missed that part "The Wall Street Journal are set to publish an
> >> article tomorrow in which the disgraced 2006 Tour de France winner
> >> goes into details about his relationship with Armstrong and the doping
> >> practices he encountered."
>
> >> ah...that's maybe what Lemond is privvy to.
>
> > Are you and Lafferty going to give each other a reach-around every day
> > in July, or do you plan to stop soon?
>
> Don't be jealous, Scott.  Kurgan can massage your prostate if you like.

Damn, that was almost a funny comeback. No, I'll admit. It was a
little funny. Not really funny, but a good try. Nice attempt at
deflection, I gotta say. You and Keith are like BFF on this whole LA-
bashing thing, you know. Why don't you just stick to defending
yourself against the host of people who're sick to death of reading
your BS about that, and leave the humor to those better suited for it.


== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 4:56 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 7/2/2010 7:50 PM, Scott wrote:
> On Jul 2, 5:45 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 7/2/2010 7:26 PM, Scott wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 2, 5:20 pm, Keith<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:40:05 -0400, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kimmage-calls-for-uci-transparency
>>
>>>> Had missed that part "The Wall Street Journal are set to publish an
>>>> article tomorrow in which the disgraced 2006 Tour de France winner
>>>> goes into details about his relationship with Armstrong and the doping
>>>> practices he encountered."
>>
>>>> ah...that's maybe what Lemond is privvy to.
>>
>>> Are you and Lafferty going to give each other a reach-around every day
>>> in July, or do you plan to stop soon?
>>
>> Don't be jealous, Scott. Kurgan can massage your prostate if you like.
>
> Damn, that was almost a funny comeback. No, I'll admit. It was a
> little funny. Not really funny, but a good try. Nice attempt at
> deflection, I gotta say. You and Keith are like BFF on this whole LA-
> bashing thing, you know. Why don't you just stick to defending
> yourself against the host of people who're sick to death of reading
> your BS about that, and leave the humor to those better suited for it.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Scott.


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

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 10 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:

* Vayer again - 9 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5e9bb96d4d42ed31?hl=en
* You scratch my back I'll scratch yours... - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/bc9253cbc9e00372?hl=en
* LANCE ARMSTRONG Contemplates Retirement! But He's Still Not Telling! - 2
messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/4d7e84a131b97f15?hl=en
* Does Lemond Know Something? - 6 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/2bb7ac6faff68d1c?hl=en
* WSJ article - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/dc4626736d95889e?hl=en
* TdF GC 10 - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/88565c4e3dd77448?hl=en
* GDF GC 10 - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/b9c07fb37df20d2f?hl=en
* Shocker--Lance Refuses to Talk With CyclingNews - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/6ce57633be96e7a8?hl=en
* TdF iPhone apps? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/423ebc4001052d10?hl=en
* Rumors of Injunction Being Sought Against WSJ - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5632ccf2600e2d76?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Vayer again
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5e9bb96d4d42ed31?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 11:45 am
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 7/2/2010 2:23 PM, Fred on a stick wrote:
> On 7/2/2010 8:13 PM, B. Lafferty wrote:
>> On 7/2/2010 1:14 PM, Fred on a stick wrote:
>>> On 7/2/2010 6:37 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>
>>>> If you look at the plot Chung posted a link to
>>>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/coyle.png
>>>> and try to understand it, you'll see that VO2max
>>>> is not closely correlated with power (but VO2 at LT is)
>>>> and so these attempts to use power to estimate
>>>> VO2max, or vice versa, are pointless.
>>>
>>> If you follow that sportscientists.com link you gave earlier and follow
>>> it around a bit you can see that Vayer does the same things in this most
>>> recent iteration of his annual "la puissance: est-elle humainement
>>> possible?" article as he did in those articles we talked about in 2005.
>>
>> Of course. So do you have a problem with Vayer's "math?" If so, what is
>> the problem in your view.
>
> Reggie,
>
> He writes the same article every year, with the same errors. It
> shouldn't surprise that if he's publishing the same article with the
> same errors then my criticisms are the same.

Please do tell us exactly what the errors are so that we can alert WADA.


== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 12:22 pm
From: "K. Fred Gauss"


B. Lafferty wrote:
> On 7/2/2010 2:23 PM, Fred on a stick wrote:
>> On 7/2/2010 8:13 PM, B. Lafferty wrote:
>>> On 7/2/2010 1:14 PM, Fred on a stick wrote:
>>>> On 7/2/2010 6:37 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>>
>>>>> If you look at the plot Chung posted a link to
>>>>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/coyle.png
>>>>> and try to understand it, you'll see that VO2max
>>>>> is not closely correlated with power (but VO2 at LT is)
>>>>> and so these attempts to use power to estimate
>>>>> VO2max, or vice versa, are pointless.
>>>>
>>>> If you follow that sportscientists.com link you gave earlier and follow
>>>> it around a bit you can see that Vayer does the same things in this
>>>> most
>>>> recent iteration of his annual "la puissance: est-elle humainement
>>>> possible?" article as he did in those articles we talked about in 2005.
>>>
>>> Of course. So do you have a problem with Vayer's "math?" If so, what is
>>> the problem in your view.
>>
>> Reggie,
>>
>> He writes the same article every year, with the same errors. It
>> shouldn't surprise that if he's publishing the same article with the
>> same errors then my criticisms are the same.
>
> Please do tell us exactly what the errors are so that we can alert WADA.

WADA is going after people for publishing nonsensical tripe now? Good
decision! They weren't doing a very good job at stopping the dopers,
they need to try a different line of work.


== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 12:29 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 7/2/2010 3:22 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> On 7/2/2010 2:23 PM, Fred on a stick wrote:
>>> On 7/2/2010 8:13 PM, B. Lafferty wrote:
>>>> On 7/2/2010 1:14 PM, Fred on a stick wrote:
>>>>> On 7/2/2010 6:37 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> If you look at the plot Chung posted a link to
>>>>>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/coyle.png
>>>>>> and try to understand it, you'll see that VO2max
>>>>>> is not closely correlated with power (but VO2 at LT is)
>>>>>> and so these attempts to use power to estimate
>>>>>> VO2max, or vice versa, are pointless.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you follow that sportscientists.com link you gave earlier and
>>>>> follow
>>>>> it around a bit you can see that Vayer does the same things in this
>>>>> most
>>>>> recent iteration of his annual "la puissance: est-elle humainement
>>>>> possible?" article as he did in those articles we talked about in
>>>>> 2005.
>>>>
>>>> Of course. So do you have a problem with Vayer's "math?" If so, what is
>>>> the problem in your view.
>>>
>>> Reggie,
>>>
>>> He writes the same article every year, with the same errors. It
>>> shouldn't surprise that if he's publishing the same article with the
>>> same errors then my criticisms are the same.
>>
>> Please do tell us exactly what the errors are so that we can alert WADA.
>
> WADA is going after people for publishing nonsensical tripe now? Good
> decision! They weren't doing a very good job at stopping the dopers,
> they need to try a different line of work.

Nice rant. Now please answer my question. What errors are their in
Vayer's "math" that we should bring to WADA's attention?


== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 12:48 pm
From: "K. Fred Gauss"


B. Lafferty wrote:

> Nice rant. Now please answer my question. What errors are their in
> Vayer's "math" that we should bring to WADA's attention?

Objections were raised in the 2005 thread that you haven't responded to.
Vayer's math hasn't changed, neither have the objections.


== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 12:55 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 7/2/2010 3:48 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
>> Nice rant. Now please answer my question. What errors are their in
>> Vayer's "math" that we should bring to WADA's attention?
>
> Objections were raised in the 2005 thread that you haven't responded to.
> Vayer's math hasn't changed, neither have the objections.
>
>

Then it should be easy for you to tell us exactly what is wrong with
Vayer's "math." So tell us.


== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 2:42 pm
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd


On Jul 2, 8:12 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/2/2010 12:37 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>
> >> BTW, I don't see any posts from me on the thread you link to a Google
> >> groups.  Which thread are you saying I started?
>
> > You're "Reggie."  I sympathize.  On rbr, sometimes
> > it's hard to tell the players without a scorecard.
>
> Wrong. I haven't posted under the name "Reggie."

ROTFL!

Ben

p.s. Could you list the personalities you _have_
posted under?

== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 2:55 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 7/2/2010 5:42 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> On Jul 2, 8:12 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 7/2/2010 12:37 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>>
>>>> BTW, I don't see any posts from me on the thread you link to a Google
>>>> groups. Which thread are you saying I started?
>>
>>> You're "Reggie." I sympathize. On rbr, sometimes
>>> it's hard to tell the players without a scorecard.
>>
>> Wrong. I haven't posted under the name "Reggie."
>
> ROTFL!
>
> Ben
>
> p.s. Could you list the personalities you _have_
> posted under?
>

No.


== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 3:03 pm
From: "K. Fred Gauss"


B. Lafferty wrote:
> On 7/2/2010 3:48 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>
>>> Nice rant. Now please answer my question. What errors are their in
>>> Vayer's "math" that we should bring to WADA's attention?
>>
>> Objections were raised in the 2005 thread that you haven't responded to.
>> Vayer's math hasn't changed, neither have the objections.
>>
>>
>
> Then it should be easy for you to tell us exactly what is wrong with
> Vayer's "math." So tell us.

I'm not the one hung up on his math or 5 year old threads. Since you
are, I'll help you along:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/e667e2a5c3255cd1/03263931f9c08ad0


== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 3:13 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 7/2/2010 6:03 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> On 7/2/2010 3:48 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
>>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nice rant. Now please answer my question. What errors are their in
>>>> Vayer's "math" that we should bring to WADA's attention?
>>>
>>> Objections were raised in the 2005 thread that you haven't responded to.
>>> Vayer's math hasn't changed, neither have the objections.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Then it should be easy for you to tell us exactly what is wrong with
>> Vayer's "math." So tell us.
>
> I'm not the one hung up on his math or 5 year old threads. Since you
> are, I'll help you along:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/e667e2a5c3255cd1/03263931f9c08ad0
>
Pitiful dissembling on your part, Fred. I'm not the one who raised a
question about Vayer's "math." What is it about Vayer's "math" that the
Freds believe is a problem, Fred. Try to outline the problem in 50
words or less. Give it a try.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: You scratch my back I'll scratch yours...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/bc9253cbc9e00372?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 11:51 am
From: Keith


"Vinokourov thanks ASO for Tour return" ->

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vinokourov-thanks-aso-for-tour-return?cid=OTC-RSS&amp;attr=news_headlines

I'm pretty sure that made that Patrice Clerc barf...

So why is Kashechkin not joining in the fun? If anything he was taking
his cues from Vino, no ?

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 12:39 pm
From: "K. Fred Gauss"


Keith wrote:
> "Vinokourov thanks ASO for Tour return" ->
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vinokourov-thanks-aso-for-tour-return?cid=OTC-RSS&amp;attr=news_headlines
>
> I'm pretty sure that made that Patrice Clerc barf...
>
> So why is Kashechkin not joining in the fun? If anything he was taking
> his cues from Vino, no ?
>

I'm curious about the translation here:
"I've been for four days to Kazakhstan to visit some sponsors and
friends and to eat Kazakh meat."

==============================================================================
TOPIC: LANCE ARMSTRONG Contemplates Retirement! But He's Still Not Telling!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/4d7e84a131b97f15?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 11:52 am
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 7/2/2010 2:20 PM, Peeter wrote:
> As he nears the end, maybe a lot of reflective people have stopped
> buying into Lance's concocted-by-an-agent-for-a-heartening-money-
> making-miraculous "cancer cure"story.
>
> "CANCER"+STEROIDS = $
>
> Look you sports dupes. It doesn't take the brains of an ashtray to
> deduce that if Armstrong's stage 4 bodywide cancer recovery was free
> of fiction, his every physiological and cellular aspect would have
> been studied and scrutinized by researchers to the Nth-degree to
> determine if his recovery path could be replicated in/by other
> seriously ill patients.
>
> Of course, THAT route would have required long-term, in-depth BLOOD
> exams and analyses, wouldn't it?
>
> ============
> "Lance Armstrong still a contender entering his final Tour de France"
>
> By Jon Brand
> Saturday, July 3, 2010;
>
>
>
>
> PARIS -- Lance Armstrong won't let anyone forget: 38 years old is
> ancient in the cycling world.
>
> Over the last few weeks, the seven-time Tour de France champion has
> been trying to soften up rivals with comments through the media about
> his elderly status, going as far to say in mid-June that this year's
> Tour, set to start Saturday in Rotterdam, "will be very hard with my
> age."
>
> And on Monday the Twitter-obsessed Texan used his favorite medium to
> announce that this Tour de France, his 13th, would be his last.
>
> "It's been a great ride," he tweeted. "Looking forward to a great 3
> weeks."
>
> This will be no sentimental victory lap for Armstrong, who un-retired
> in 2009 after a three-and-a-half year absence from the sport, then
> rode to third place at the Tour last July. His recent podium finishes
> at the Tours of Switzerland and Luxembourg have shown him to be in top
> form heading into this year's Grand Boucle, and he is again favored to
> be wearing the yellow jersey in Paris three weeks from now.
>
> But Armstrong does have ample reason to want out of the saddle for
> good.
>
> Physical injuries have interrupted his comeback numerous times. Last
> year, he suffered a broken collarbone at the Vuelta Castilla y Le�n
> and missed most of May's Giro d'Italia. This season, his woes
> continued in April, when he contracted a stomach virus during the
> Circuit de la Sarthe in France's Loire Valley. In May's Tour of
> California, he crashed out of the race in the fifth stage.
>
> The Tour of California also brought off-bike headaches when former
> U.S. Postal teammate Floyd Landis accused Armstrong, along with other
> top American riders, of having used performance-enhancing drugs.
>
> Landis, stripped of the 2006 Tour de France title for a positive
> doping result, also admitted to doping during his career in a series
> of emails to cycling officials. Though Armstrong said "he had nothing
> to hide" and questioned Landis' credibility in a news conference
> following the accusations, his career is once again under scrutiny.
>
> Earlier this week, the New York Times reported that Food and Drug
> Administration agent Jeff Novitzky, the lead investigator in the BALCO
> steroids case, has started a federal investigation into the matter.
> Nothing will be resolved by the end of the Tour de France, though,
> when Armstrong's new RadioShack team hopes to have delivered him to a
> record-setting eighth career victory.
>
> After relinquishing the spotlight last season on Team Astana to
> eventual Tour winner Spaniard Alberto Contador, Armstrong is the
> undisputed lead rider on a team comprised mostly of experienced
> veterans, including American Levi Leipheimer and German Andreas
> Kl�den.
>
> "We have one of the strongest, one of the best teams," Armstrong said
> during the Tour of Switzerland. "I don't think any of us go in as a
> favorite for the Tour, but between the three of us, you never know."
>
> The favorite, like last year, is the two-time winner Contador. He had
> a strong spring, with significant wins at Paris-Nice and the Vuelta
> Castilla y Le�n. Supported by an Astana squad that includes Kazakh
> Alexander Vinokourov, back from of a two-year doping suspension, the
> 27-year old Contador is ready to conquer a Pyr�n�es-heavy course
> tailor-made to his climbing abilities.
>
> "There are more mountains than last year, and that's something that
> really pleases me," Contador told the French newspaper L'�quipe
> Wednesday.
>
> There are others who have the skill to take control of the race,
> including Team BMC's Cadel Evans, the defending world champion, Saxo
> Bank's Andy Schleck and American Christian Vande Velde, a veteran
> rider for Garmin-Transitions who is on the mend after a crash in May's
> Giro d'Italia.Because there are so many challengers this year,
> Contador, like Armstrong, is playing down expectations.
>
> "I understand that I am the big favorite," he told Dutch newspaper De
> Telegraaf this week. "But realistically it is more likely that I will
> lose than win."
>
> As is the case each July, all of the on-bike intrigue could be for
> naught if there's a doping scandal. To that end, Tour organizers and
> the Union Cycliste International, cycling's governing body, have
> enlisted the help of the World Anti-Doping Agency to oversee drug
> controls this year.
>
> They'll also be wary of mechanical tampering after a bizarre
> allegation that Swiss star Fabian Cancellara used a small internal
> motor on his bike to power away from the competition in two spring
> races. No investigation was undertaken, though Tour organizers are
> certain that motorized bikes exist.
>
> "What matters is [they] can't be used tomorrow," Tour director
> Christian Prudhomme told AFP. "We will verify anytime, anywhere on the
> course . . . to see if these bikes are really just bikes."
>
> With these measures in place, organizers hope the only attraction this
> month is a tightly-contested race throughout the 2,263-mile course.
> That -- and the chance to see Armstrong competing at the highest level
> of the sport one last time.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/AR2010070202165.html

IIRC, in the Texas arbitration between Armstrong and SCA Promotion, SCA
attempted to obtain all of Armstrong's medical records. I don't recall
if they got them or not.


== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 12:20 pm
From: raamman


On Jul 2, 2:20 pm, Peeter <kink...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As he nears the end, maybe a lot of reflective people have stopped
> buying into Lance's concocted-by-an-agent-for-a-heartening-money-
> making-miraculous "cancer cure"story.
>
> "CANCER"+STEROIDS = $
>
> Look you sports dupes. It doesn't take the brains of an ashtray to
> deduce that if Armstrong's stage 4 bodywide cancer recovery was free
> of fiction, his every physiological and cellular aspect would have
> been studied and scrutinized by researchers to the Nth-degree to
> determine if his recovery path could be replicated in/by other
> seriously ill patients.
>
> Of course, THAT route would have required long-term, in-depth BLOOD
> exams and analyses, wouldn't it?
>
> ============
>

you are pretending to be in medical research ?


==============================================================================
TOPIC: Does Lemond Know Something?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/2bb7ac6faff68d1c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 12:36 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


"........My Lance Armstrong prediction? Either he will not start or he
will pull out just before the race enters France. I have a feeling that
the world of cycling is about to change for the better."--Lemond
http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/greg-lemond/the-art-of-peaking-for-the-tour-de-france


== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 12:42 pm
From: Keith


On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:36:15 -0400, "B. Lafferty" <bl@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>"........My Lance Armstrong prediction? Either he will not start or he
>will pull out just before the race enters France. I have a feeling that
>the world of cycling is about to change for the better."--Lemond
>http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/greg-lemond/the-art-of-peaking-for-the-tour-de-france

That's strange indeed, can't see him not starting tomorrow so that
leaves "not entering France" we'll soon find out.


== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 1:06 pm
From: "derFahrer@gmail.com"


hope he knows something ... because he apparently doesn't know that
he's become a bitter, old man trying to relive his glory days.


== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 1:13 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 7/2/2010 4:06 PM, derFahrer@gmail.com wrote:
> hope he knows something ... because he apparently doesn't know that
> he's become a bitter, old man trying to relive his glory days.
Yada, yada, yada, yawn.


== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 2:41 pm
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd


On Jul 2, 9:36 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "........My Lance Armstrong prediction? Either he will not start or he
> will pull out just before the race enters France. I have a feeling that
> the world of cycling is about to change for the better."--
> Lemond http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/greg-lemond/the-art-of-peaking-for-t...

Dude,

This is like you saying that now that the dopers
are on the run, we'll see some real suffering in
the mountains.

What are you and Lemond going to do when LANCE
retires and there's still doping?

Fredmaster Ben

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 2:56 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 7/2/2010 5:41 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> On Jul 2, 9:36 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "........My Lance Armstrong prediction? Either he will not start or he
>> will pull out just before the race enters France. I have a feeling that
>> the world of cycling is about to change for the better."--
>> Lemond http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/greg-lemond/the-art-of-peaking-for-t...
>
> Dude,
>
> This is like you saying that now that the dopers
> are on the run, we'll see some real suffering in
> the mountains.
>
> What are you and Lemond going to do when LANCE
> retires and there's still doping?
>
> Fredmaster Ben
>

You illogical drivel is pitiful. Try again.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: WSJ article
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/dc4626736d95889e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 12:39 pm
From: DirtRoadie


Will this be the nearly annual preTdf surprise?

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/07/wsj_to_spoil_lance_armstrongs.php

Stay tuned.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: TdF GC 10
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/88565c4e3dd77448?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 12:56 pm
From: Ben Trovato


On Jul 2, 10:41 am, bar <barbari...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 1:05 pm, Andre <orade...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 2, 9:04 am, ronaldo_jeremiah <ronaldo_jerem...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > 1  Contador
> > > 2  Evans
> > > 3  A Schleck
> > > 4  LANCE
> > > 5  Basso
> > > 6  Wiggins
> > > 7  Kloeden
> > > 8  Menchov
> > > 9  F Schleck
> > > 10  Martin
>
> > > -rj
>
> > no, this is the way it will be:
>
> > 1.Contador
> > 2.Menchov
> > 3.A. Shleck
> > 4.Kreuziger
> > 5.VDB
> > 6.Kloden
> > 7.Basso
> > 8.Evans
> > 9.Gesink
> > 10.F. Shleck
>
> > Andre
>
> no this
>
> 1. Contador
> 2. Evans
> 3. Eff Schleck
> 4. Basso
> 5. Horner
> 6. Wiggins
> 7. A Schleck
> 8. Menchov
> 9. Gesink
> 10. LANCE

Getting closer...

1. Contador
2. Evans
3. F Schleck
4. Basso
5. A Schleck
6. Wiggins
7. Vande Velde
8. Gesink
9. LANCE
10. Le Mevel
8. A Sc

==============================================================================
TOPIC: GDF GC 10
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/b9c07fb37df20d2f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 1:05 pm
From: "derFahrer@gmail.com"

> TV times for Giro De Feminin on RAI channels are here. DISH TV I think
> carries RAI channels in their international packages. 40-50 minute daily
> segments will be broadcasted.http://www.cicloweb.it/programmazione-televisiva

I'll be sure to tune in as soon as I'm done watching RAAM.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Shocker--Lance Refuses to Talk With CyclingNews
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/6ce57633be96e7a8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 2:40 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kimmage-calls-for-uci-transparency

==============================================================================
TOPIC: TdF iPhone apps?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/423ebc4001052d10?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 2:59 pm
From: Jason Spaceman


Anyone here have an iPhone or iPod Touch and can recommend some decent TdF apps?
Versus have one, well two actually, a free one and a paid one that costs around
$15 or $16!. The free one is kind of limited in what it can do though.
Rabobank have an app, although most of the text and video footage is in Dutch.


J. Spaceman

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Rumors of Injunction Being Sought Against WSJ
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5632ccf2600e2d76?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 2 2010 3:09 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


Unlikely given the distaste the US courts have for prior restraint.
http://road.cc/content/news/19616-wall-street-journal-landis-article-threatens-overshadow-tour-de-france-grand


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

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