Friend's home: 07/31/10

Saturday, July 31, 2010

rec.bicycles.racing - 25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

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

rec.bicycles.racing@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: It's Not About the Bike
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/b39dfbad43c1028f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 3:42 pm
From: RicodJour

On Jul 31, 4:44 pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime" <F...@EuroForums.com> wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
> > On Jul 31, 1:46 pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime" <F...@EuroForums.com> wrote:
> >> Anton Berlin wrote:
> >>>> What he said. A link is MORE than sufficient.
>
> >>> I disagree. A lot of links evaporate. If you post the text it's here
> >>> (and searchable) when needed.
>
> >> Correct.
>
> >> The problem with Google is the content can disappear over time. If
> >> it's something very worthwhile to have a record of, usenet archives
> >> at least so far are a solid repository. The archive has many such
> >> articles people posted over decades of time. Some of those are gone
> >> now from Google, but not from usenet archives.
>
> >> The other reason, at least one I think is valid is some sites
> >> required registration and login to read the article. If it's
> >> something of great interest, posting it here avoids a huge amount of
> >> hassle for people. Most people won't divulge their email to acquire
> >> a free account to an online newspaper. Used to be you could fake
> >> your email and still can in some online papers or comment sections.
>
> >> In fact I noticed even some like Velonews started using registration
> >> companies now if you want to comment. In the past, they had a simple
> >> guest log in which you did not have to give your valid email to
> >> comment. With validators this usually requires a source of
> >> validation or sometimes a link to be sent to your valid email
> >> account because you have to click through to validate access to the
> >> forum, news or comments section.
>
> >> This is going to keep a lot of people out of the comments section
> >> who were in the past, bold enough to speak their mind without
> >> worrying that the news outlet knew their ID and could be forking it
> >> over to corporate spammers. What this does is water down the
> >> comments section, probably reducing it to fluff comments from
> >> well-wishers instead of straight talkers. Straight talkers often
> >> have valid points, so it tends to push things toward the pie in the
> >> sky, not the reality. I noticed the change in registration after a
> >> rider got massively flamed in the comments section of Velonews. I
> >> don't believe it was a trend though by bashers flocking to Velonews.
> >> I've seen other riders get solid 99 percent positive feedback in the
> >> comments section in some articles.
>
> > The point is to keep the post short - edit out the filler. Please
> > point out anything, anything at all, in that entire posted column that
> > hasn't been reported and posted online ad nauseum. Chaff is
> > _supposed_ to disappear over time.
>
> > Barry is just posting his jerking off material, nothing more.
>
>
> True, unless he has a personal reason for archiving it, I don't know why.

Hello...? Barry, LANCE, jerking material? Of course he's archiving
all of the drivel.

Anyone care to wager that he's got a dressing room with LANCE articles
and pictures posted all over the walls? Don't kid yourself - he puts
on lipstick and dances around the room and kisses the pictures.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3CqE_g10dg And, yes, yes, there IS
something wrong with that!

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 4:05 pm
From: "GoneBeforeMyTime"

RicodJour wrote:
> On Jul 31, 4:44 pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime" <F...@EuroForums.com> wrote:
>> RicodJour wrote:
>>> On Jul 31, 1:46 pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime" <F...@EuroForums.com> wrote:
>>>> Anton Berlin wrote:
>>>>>> What he said. A link is MORE than sufficient.
>>
>>>>> I disagree. A lot of links evaporate. If you post the text it's
>>>>> here (and searchable) when needed.
>>
>>>> Correct.
>>
>>>> The problem with Google is the content can disappear over time. If
>>>> it's something very worthwhile to have a record of, usenet archives
>>>> at least so far are a solid repository. The archive has many such
>>>> articles people posted over decades of time. Some of those are gone
>>>> now from Google, but not from usenet archives.
>>
>>>> The other reason, at least one I think is valid is some sites
>>>> required registration and login to read the article. If it's
>>>> something of great interest, posting it here avoids a huge amount
>>>> of hassle for people. Most people won't divulge their email to
>>>> acquire a free account to an online newspaper. Used to be you
>>>> could fake your email and still can in some online papers or
>>>> comment sections.
>>
>>>> In fact I noticed even some like Velonews started using
>>>> registration companies now if you want to comment. In the past,
>>>> they had a simple guest log in which you did not have to give your
>>>> valid email to comment. With validators this usually requires a
>>>> source of validation or sometimes a link to be sent to your valid
>>>> email account because you have to click through to validate access
>>>> to the forum, news or comments section.
>>
>>>> This is going to keep a lot of people out of the comments section
>>>> who were in the past, bold enough to speak their mind without
>>>> worrying that the news outlet knew their ID and could be forking it
>>>> over to corporate spammers. What this does is water down the
>>>> comments section, probably reducing it to fluff comments from
>>>> well-wishers instead of straight talkers. Straight talkers often
>>>> have valid points, so it tends to push things toward the pie in the
>>>> sky, not the reality. I noticed the change in registration after a
>>>> rider got massively flamed in the comments section of Velonews. I
>>>> don't believe it was a trend though by bashers flocking to
>>>> Velonews. I've seen other riders get solid 99 percent positive
>>>> feedback in the comments section in some articles.
>>
>>> The point is to keep the post short - edit out the filler. Please
>>> point out anything, anything at all, in that entire posted column
>>> that hasn't been reported and posted online ad nauseum. Chaff is
>>> _supposed_ to disappear over time.
>>
>>> Barry is just posting his jerking off material, nothing more.
>>
>>
>> True, unless he has a personal reason for archiving it, I don't know
>> why.
>
> Hello...? Barry, LANCE, jerking material? Of course he's archiving
> all of the drivel.
>
> Anyone care to wager that he's got a dressing room with LANCE articles
> and pictures posted all over the walls? Don't kid yourself - he puts
> on lipstick and dances around the room and kisses the pictures.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3CqE_g10dg And, yes, yes, there IS
> something wrong with that!
>
> R

Laff's admitted to having one signed autographed of Lance I believe. It's
been a very long time since that confession. It's in the archive somewhere.
However, I was wondering if Laff's going to write a book?

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 4:09 pm
From: RicodJour

On Jul 31, 7:05 pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime" <F...@EuroForums.com> wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
> > On Jul 31, 4:44 pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime" <F...@EuroForums.com> wrote:
> >> RicodJour wrote:
>
> >>> The point is to keep the post short - edit out the filler. Please
> >>> point out anything, anything at all, in that entire posted column
> >>> that hasn't been reported and posted online ad nauseum. Chaff is
> >>> _supposed_ to disappear over time.
>
> >>> Barry is just posting his jerking off material, nothing more.
>
> >> True, unless he has a personal reason for archiving it, I don't know
> >> why.
>
> > Hello...? Barry, LANCE, jerking material? Of course he's archiving
> > all of the drivel.
>
> > Anyone care to wager that he's got a dressing room with LANCE articles
> > and pictures posted all over the walls? Don't kid yourself - he puts
> > on lipstick and dances around the room and kisses the pictures.
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3CqE_g10dg And, yes, yes, there IS
> > something wrong with that!
>
>
> Laff's admitted to having one signed autographed of Lance I believe. It's
> been a very long time since that confession. It's in the archive somewhere.
> However, I was wondering if Laff's going to write a book?

With what? His mad literary skillz? Let's see where his expertise
falls...

Okay, I'm stumped.

The autographed picture is unsettling, but it does help explain his
obsession.
LANCE done a fanboi wrong!

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 4:48 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"

On 7/31/2010 7:05 PM, GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
>> On Jul 31, 4:44 pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime"<F...@EuroForums.com> wrote:
>>> RicodJour wrote:
>>>> On Jul 31, 1:46 pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime"<F...@EuroForums.com> wrote:
>>>>> Anton Berlin wrote:
>>>>>>> What he said. A link is MORE than sufficient.
>>>
>>>>>> I disagree. A lot of links evaporate. If you post the text it's
>>>>>> here (and searchable) when needed.
>>>
>>>>> Correct.
>>>
>>>>> The problem with Google is the content can disappear over time. If
>>>>> it's something very worthwhile to have a record of, usenet archives
>>>>> at least so far are a solid repository. The archive has many such
>>>>> articles people posted over decades of time. Some of those are gone
>>>>> now from Google, but not from usenet archives.
>>>
>>>>> The other reason, at least one I think is valid is some sites
>>>>> required registration and login to read the article. If it's
>>>>> something of great interest, posting it here avoids a huge amount
>>>>> of hassle for people. Most people won't divulge their email to
>>>>> acquire a free account to an online newspaper. Used to be you
>>>>> could fake your email and still can in some online papers or
>>>>> comment sections.
>>>
>>>>> In fact I noticed even some like Velonews started using
>>>>> registration companies now if you want to comment. In the past,
>>>>> they had a simple guest log in which you did not have to give your
>>>>> valid email to comment. With validators this usually requires a
>>>>> source of validation or sometimes a link to be sent to your valid
>>>>> email account because you have to click through to validate access
>>>>> to the forum, news or comments section.
>>>
>>>>> This is going to keep a lot of people out of the comments section
>>>>> who were in the past, bold enough to speak their mind without
>>>>> worrying that the news outlet knew their ID and could be forking it
>>>>> over to corporate spammers. What this does is water down the
>>>>> comments section, probably reducing it to fluff comments from
>>>>> well-wishers instead of straight talkers. Straight talkers often
>>>>> have valid points, so it tends to push things toward the pie in the
>>>>> sky, not the reality. I noticed the change in registration after a
>>>>> rider got massively flamed in the comments section of Velonews. I
>>>>> don't believe it was a trend though by bashers flocking to
>>>>> Velonews. I've seen other riders get solid 99 percent positive
>>>>> feedback in the comments section in some articles.
>>>
>>>> The point is to keep the post short - edit out the filler. Please
>>>> point out anything, anything at all, in that entire posted column
>>>> that hasn't been reported and posted online ad nauseum. Chaff is
>>>> _supposed_ to disappear over time.
>>>
>>>> Barry is just posting his jerking off material, nothing more.
>>>
>>>
>>> True, unless he has a personal reason for archiving it, I don't know
>>> why.
>>
>> Hello...? Barry, LANCE, jerking material? Of course he's archiving
>> all of the drivel.
>>
>> Anyone care to wager that he's got a dressing room with LANCE articles
>> and pictures posted all over the walls? Don't kid yourself - he puts
>> on lipstick and dances around the room and kisses the pictures.
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3CqE_g10dg And, yes, yes, there IS
>> something wrong with that!
>>
>> R
>
> Laff's admitted to having one signed autographed of Lance I believe. It's
> been a very long time since that confession. It's in the archive somewhere.
> However, I was wondering if Laff's going to write a book?
>
>
Nope. I have George Hincapie and Eddy Merckx autographs. And a
Geneviève Jeanson somewhere.

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 4:49 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"

On 7/31/2010 7:09 PM, RicodJour wrote:
> On Jul 31, 7:05 pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime"<F...@EuroForums.com> wrote:
>> RicodJour wrote:
>>> On Jul 31, 4:44 pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime"<F...@EuroForums.com> wrote:
>>>> RicodJour wrote:
>>
>>>>> The point is to keep the post short - edit out the filler. Please
>>>>> point out anything, anything at all, in that entire posted column
>>>>> that hasn't been reported and posted online ad nauseum. Chaff is
>>>>> _supposed_ to disappear over time.
>>
>>>>> Barry is just posting his jerking off material, nothing more.
>>
>>>> True, unless he has a personal reason for archiving it, I don't know
>>>> why.
>>
>>> Hello...? Barry, LANCE, jerking material? Of course he's archiving
>>> all of the drivel.
>>
>>> Anyone care to wager that he's got a dressing room with LANCE articles
>>> and pictures posted all over the walls? Don't kid yourself - he puts
>>> on lipstick and dances around the room and kisses the pictures.
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3CqE_g10dg And, yes, yes, there IS
>>> something wrong with that!
>>
>>
>> Laff's admitted to having one signed autographed of Lance I believe. It's
>> been a very long time since that confession. It's in the archive somewhere.
>> However, I was wondering if Laff's going to write a book?
>
> With what? His mad literary skillz? Let's see where his expertise
> falls...
>
> Okay, I'm stumped.
>
> The autographed picture is unsettling, but it does help explain his
> obsession.
> LANCE done a fanboi wrong!
>
> R
Your fixation on me and Lance is becoming truly fascinating--and
entertaining. Carry on.

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 7:16 pm
From: Anton Berlin

On Jul 31, 6:48 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/31/2010 7:05 PM, GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
>
> > RicodJour wrote:
> >> On Jul 31, 4:44 pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime"<F...@EuroForums.com> wrote:
> >>> RicodJour wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 31, 1:46 pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime"<F...@EuroForums.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Anton Berlin wrote:
> >>>>>>> What he said. A link is MORE than sufficient.
>
> >>>>>> I disagree. A lot of links evaporate. If you post the text it's
> >>>>>> here (and searchable) when needed.
>
> >>>>> Correct.
>
> >>>>> The problem with Google is the content can disappear over time. If
> >>>>> it's something very worthwhile to have a record of, usenet archives
> >>>>> at least so far are a solid repository. The archive has many such
> >>>>> articles people posted over decades of time. Some of those are gone
> >>>>> now from Google, but not from usenet archives.
>
> >>>>> The other reason, at least one I think is valid is some sites
> >>>>> required registration and login to read the article. If it's
> >>>>> something of great interest, posting it here avoids a huge amount
> >>>>> of hassle for people. Most people won't divulge their email to
> >>>>> acquire a free account to an online newspaper. Used to be you
> >>>>> could fake your email and still can in some online papers or
> >>>>> comment sections.
>
> >>>>> In fact I noticed even some like Velonews started using
> >>>>> registration companies now if you want to comment. In the past,
> >>>>> they had a simple guest log in which you did not have to give your
> >>>>> valid email to comment. With validators this usually requires a
> >>>>> source of validation or sometimes a link to be sent to your valid
> >>>>> email account because you have to click through to validate access
> >>>>> to the forum, news or comments section.
>
> >>>>> This is going to keep a lot of people out of the comments section
> >>>>> who were in the past, bold enough to speak their mind without
> >>>>> worrying that the news outlet knew their ID and could be forking it
> >>>>> over to corporate spammers. What this does is water down the
> >>>>> comments section, probably reducing it to fluff comments from
> >>>>> well-wishers instead of straight talkers. Straight talkers often
> >>>>> have valid points, so it tends to push things toward the pie in the
> >>>>> sky, not the reality. I noticed the change in registration after a
> >>>>> rider got massively flamed in the comments section of Velonews. I
> >>>>> don't believe it was a trend though by bashers flocking to
> >>>>> Velonews. I've seen other riders get solid 99 percent positive
> >>>>> feedback in the comments section in some articles.
>
> >>>> The point is to keep the post short - edit out the filler. Please
> >>>> point out anything, anything at all, in that entire posted column
> >>>> that hasn't been reported and posted online ad nauseum. Chaff is
> >>>> _supposed_ to disappear over time.
>
> >>>> Barry is just posting his jerking off material, nothing more.
>
> >>> True, unless he has a personal reason for archiving it, I don't know
> >>> why.
>
> >> Hello...? Barry, LANCE, jerking material? Of course he's archiving
> >> all of the drivel.
>
> >> Anyone care to wager that he's got a dressing room with LANCE articles
> >> and pictures posted all over the walls? Don't kid yourself - he puts
> >> on lipstick and dances around the room and kisses the pictures.
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3CqE_g10dg And, yes, yes, there IS
> >> something wrong with that!
>
> >> R
>
> > Laff's admitted to having one signed autographed of Lance I believe. It's
> > been a very long time since that confession. It's in the archive somewhere.
> > However, I was wondering if Laff's going to write a book?
>
> Nope. I have George Hincapie and Eddy Merckx autographs. And a
> Geneviève Jeanson somewhere.

I have Lemond's in his book when he came to the springs around 86-87.
I remember having a kind of pity for him because no one showed up at
this bike shop where he was signing and selling his book. So I bought
one and pretended like I was fascinated. The book was crap

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 8:25 pm
From: "GoneBeforeMyTime"

Anton Berlin wrote:
> On Jul 31, 6:48 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 7/31/2010 7:05 PM, GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
>>
>>> RicodJour wrote:
>>>> On Jul 31, 4:44 pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime"<F...@EuroForums.com> wrote:
>>>>> RicodJour wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 31, 1:46 pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime"<F...@EuroForums.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Anton Berlin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> What he said. A link is MORE than sufficient.
>>
>>>>>>>> I disagree. A lot of links evaporate. If you post the text it's
>>>>>>>> here (and searchable) when needed.
>>
>>>>>>> Correct.
>>
>>>>>>> The problem with Google is the content can disappear over time.
>>>>>>> If it's something very worthwhile to have a record of, usenet
>>>>>>> archives at least so far are a solid repository. The archive
>>>>>>> has many such articles people posted over decades of time. Some
>>>>>>> of those are gone now from Google, but not from usenet archives.
>>
>>>>>>> The other reason, at least one I think is valid is some sites
>>>>>>> required registration and login to read the article. If it's
>>>>>>> something of great interest, posting it here avoids a huge
>>>>>>> amount of hassle for people. Most people won't divulge their
>>>>>>> email to acquire a free account to an online newspaper. Used to
>>>>>>> be you could fake your email and still can in some online
>>>>>>> papers or comment sections.
>>
>>>>>>> In fact I noticed even some like Velonews started using
>>>>>>> registration companies now if you want to comment. In the past,
>>>>>>> they had a simple guest log in which you did not have to give
>>>>>>> your valid email to comment. With validators this usually
>>>>>>> requires a source of validation or sometimes a link to be sent
>>>>>>> to your valid email account because you have to click through
>>>>>>> to validate access to the forum, news or comments section.
>>
>>>>>>> This is going to keep a lot of people out of the comments
>>>>>>> section who were in the past, bold enough to speak their mind
>>>>>>> without worrying that the news outlet knew their ID and could
>>>>>>> be forking it over to corporate spammers. What this does is
>>>>>>> water down the comments section, probably reducing it to fluff
>>>>>>> comments from well-wishers instead of straight talkers.
>>>>>>> Straight talkers often have valid points, so it tends to push
>>>>>>> things toward the pie in the sky, not the reality. I noticed
>>>>>>> the change in registration after a rider got massively flamed
>>>>>>> in the comments section of Velonews. I don't believe it was a
>>>>>>> trend though by bashers flocking to Velonews. I've seen other
>>>>>>> riders get solid 99 percent positive feedback in the comments
>>>>>>> section in some articles.
>>
>>>>>> The point is to keep the post short - edit out the filler. Please
>>>>>> point out anything, anything at all, in that entire posted column
>>>>>> that hasn't been reported and posted online ad nauseum. Chaff is
>>>>>> _supposed_ to disappear over time.
>>
>>>>>> Barry is just posting his jerking off material, nothing more.
>>
>>>>> True, unless he has a personal reason for archiving it, I don't
>>>>> know why.
>>
>>>> Hello...? Barry, LANCE, jerking material? Of course he's archiving
>>>> all of the drivel.
>>
>>>> Anyone care to wager that he's got a dressing room with LANCE
>>>> articles and pictures posted all over the walls? Don't kid
>>>> yourself - he puts on lipstick and dances around the room and
>>>> kisses the pictures. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3CqE_g10dg
>>>> And, yes, yes, there IS something wrong with that!
>>
>>>> R
>>
>>> Laff's admitted to having one signed autographed of Lance I
>>> believe. It's been a very long time since that confession. It's in
>>> the archive somewhere. However, I was wondering if Laff's going to
>>> write a book?
>>
>> Nope. I have George Hincapie and Eddy Merckx autographs. And a
>> Geneviève Jeanson somewhere.
>
> I have Lemond's in his book when he came to the springs around 86-87.
> I remember having a kind of pity for him because no one showed up at
> this bike shop where he was signing and selling his book. So I bought
> one and pretended like I was fascinated. The book was crap

Greg Lemond's complete book of Cycling?

I have it, date, 1987. I got it too about that time. For way back then, it's
wasn't really all that bad. I liked a few of his tips, and some of the
stories.

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 8:46 pm
From: Anton Berlin

On Jul 31, 10:25 pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime" <F...@EuroForums.com> wrote:
> Anton Berlin wrote:
> > On Jul 31, 6:48 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> On 7/31/2010 7:05 PM, GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
>
> >>> RicodJour wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 31, 4:44 pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime"<F...@EuroForums.com> wrote:
> >>>>> RicodJour wrote:
> >>>>>> On Jul 31, 1:46 pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime"<F...@EuroForums.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Anton Berlin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> What he said. A link is MORE than sufficient.
>
> >>>>>>>> I disagree. A lot of links evaporate. If you post the text it's
> >>>>>>>> here (and searchable) when needed.
>
> >>>>>>> Correct.
>
> >>>>>>> The problem with Google is the content can disappear over time.
> >>>>>>> If it's something very worthwhile to have a record of, usenet
> >>>>>>> archives at least so far are a solid repository. The archive
> >>>>>>> has many such articles people posted over decades of time. Some
> >>>>>>> of those are gone now from Google, but not from usenet archives.
>
> >>>>>>> The other reason, at least one I think is valid is some sites
> >>>>>>> required registration and login to read the article. If it's
> >>>>>>> something of great interest, posting it here avoids a huge
> >>>>>>> amount of hassle for people. Most people won't divulge their
> >>>>>>> email to acquire a free account to an online newspaper. Used to
> >>>>>>> be you could fake your email and still can in some online
> >>>>>>> papers or comment sections.
>
> >>>>>>> In fact I noticed even some like Velonews started using
> >>>>>>> registration companies now if you want to comment. In the past,
> >>>>>>> they had a simple guest log in which you did not have to give
> >>>>>>> your valid email to comment. With validators this usually
> >>>>>>> requires a source of validation or sometimes a link to be sent
> >>>>>>> to your valid email account because you have to click through
> >>>>>>> to validate access to the forum, news or comments section.
>
> >>>>>>> This is going to keep a lot of people out of the comments
> >>>>>>> section who were in the past, bold enough to speak their mind
> >>>>>>> without worrying that the news outlet knew their ID and could
> >>>>>>> be forking it over to corporate spammers. What this does is
> >>>>>>> water down the comments section, probably reducing it to fluff
> >>>>>>> comments from well-wishers instead of straight talkers.
> >>>>>>> Straight talkers often have valid points, so it tends to push
> >>>>>>> things toward the pie in the sky, not the reality. I noticed
> >>>>>>> the change in registration after a rider got massively flamed
> >>>>>>> in the comments section of Velonews. I don't believe it was a
> >>>>>>> trend though by bashers flocking to Velonews. I've seen other
> >>>>>>> riders get solid 99 percent positive feedback in the comments
> >>>>>>> section in some articles.
>
> >>>>>> The point is to keep the post short - edit out the filler. Please
> >>>>>> point out anything, anything at all, in that entire posted column
> >>>>>> that hasn't been reported and posted online ad nauseum. Chaff is
> >>>>>> _supposed_ to disappear over time.
>
> >>>>>> Barry is just posting his jerking off material, nothing more.
>
> >>>>> True, unless he has a personal reason for archiving it, I don't
> >>>>> know why.
>
> >>>> Hello...? Barry, LANCE, jerking material? Of course he's archiving
> >>>> all of the drivel.
>
> >>>> Anyone care to wager that he's got a dressing room with LANCE
> >>>> articles and pictures posted all over the walls? Don't kid
> >>>> yourself - he puts on lipstick and dances around the room and
> >>>> kisses the pictures.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3CqE_g10dg
> >>>> And, yes, yes, there IS something wrong with that!
>
> >>>> R
>
> >>> Laff's admitted to having one signed autographed of Lance I
> >>> believe. It's been a very long time since that confession. It's in
> >>> the archive somewhere. However, I was wondering if Laff's going to
> >>> write a book?
>
> >> Nope. I have George Hincapie and Eddy Merckx autographs. And a
> >> Geneviève Jeanson somewhere.
>
> > I have Lemond's in his book when he came to the springs around 86-87.
> > I remember having a kind of pity for him because no one showed up at
> > this bike shop where he was signing and selling his book. So I bought
> > one and pretended like I was fascinated. The book was crap
>
> Greg Lemond's complete book of Cycling?
>
> I have it, date, 1987. I got it too about that time. For way back then, it's
> wasn't really all that bad. I liked a few of his tips, and some of the
> stories.

At that time he had won the Tour once and looked to never ride again
because of the hunting incident. I recall that it was strange that I
felt sorry for him but that's the feeling I had at the time. I was
only in the store to pick up some tubulars. It was a store on north
academy that always had a stock of cheap training tires.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Do TdF Winners Dope?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/98a79879b2f6096e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 3:45 pm
From: Keith

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:34:04 -0400, "B. Lafferty" <bl@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On 7/30/2010 7:40 PM, Keith wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:29:47 -0400, "B. Lafferty"<bl@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Do most Tour winners dope?
>>> Apparently so. Since 1976, 16 different riders have won the Tour,
>>> including American Lance Armstrong, who won a record seven straight from
>>> 1999 through 2005. Twelve of those champions have either tested
>>> positive, confessed to doping, or fallen under strong suspicion of drug
>>> use.
>>
>> So who are the 5 on "clean" list ?
>>
>> - Lemond (iron shots anyone ?)
>> - Contador (although his involvement with Manolo and the AC of
>> Operation Fuentes raises some doubts)
>> - Roche
>>
>> Close but no cigar :
>> - Hinault : refused a doping test during a crit in 1982 I think
>> - Van Impe : refused a doping test during a crit in 1981 (had to look
>> it up)
>> - Indurain (tested positive in 1994 according to
>> http://www.cyclisme-dopage.com/chiffres/tdf1991.htm - didn't remember
>> that)
>Van Impe
>Fignon
>Hinault
>Lemond
>Roche

So you stated further down that your list is for non EPO dopers, but
that's not fair to those who came after 1992 ;-)

I really can't think of anyone else but Lemond/Contador/Roche who
didn't get caught (Hinault and Van Impe refused a test once so one has
to assume they had something to hide).

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 4:51 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"

On 7/31/2010 6:14 PM, RicodJour wrote:
> On Jul 31, 3:53 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni"<soulinthemach...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Someone like Tyler will not be vulnerable to RICO.
>
> Bullshit. No one can resist me.
>
> R
>
Men like Lance and Thom could give you a good time, Rico.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 5:23 pm
From: RicodJour

On Jul 31, 7:51 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/31/2010 6:14 PM, RicodJour wrote:
> On Jul 31, 3:53 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni"<soulinthemach...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Someone like Tyler will not be vulnerable to RICO.
>
> > Bullshit. No one can resist me.
>
>
> Men like Lance and Thom could give you a good time, Rico.

Your fantasy, Barry, not mine. Mine includes the Fat Bottom Girls
from that Queen poster.
http://wfs.velvet.jp/70s/img/queen01.jpg

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 8:39 pm
From: Anton Berlin

On Jul 31, 12:40 pm, raamman <raam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 31, 9:31 am, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 7/30/2010 9:59 PM, raamman wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 30, 5:29 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > >> Do most Tour winners dope?
> > >> Apparently so. Since 1976, 16 different riders have won the Tour,
> > >> including American Lance Armstrong, who won a record seven straight from
> > >> 1999 through 2005. Twelve of those champions have either tested
> > >> positive, confessed to doping, or fallen under strong suspicion of drug
> > >> use. Floyd Landis, the American who finished first in the 2006 Tour,
> > >> tested positive during the race for artificial testosterone and was
> > >> stripped of his title. For three years, he vehemently denied using drugs
> > >> and mounted a bare-knuckle campaign to clear his name. In May, though,
> > >> he changed his tune, confessing to career-long drug use. He also
> > >> implicated Armstrong, his former teammate, saying he and the United
> > >> States Postal Service team relied on a highly sophisticated blood-doping
> > >> system designed to evade testing. Armstrong denied the accusation,
> > >> pointing out that Landis has "an established pattern of recanting
> > >> tomorrow what he swears to today." Nonetheless, the FBI is investigating.
>
> > >> Is there other evidence Armstrong cheated?
> > >> Yes. In 2005, someone at the Union Cycliste Internationale, the sport's
> > >> Swiss-based governing body, leaked the results of tests performed
> > >> retroactively on urine samples taken from Armstrong during the 1999
> > >> Tour, when there were no reliable tests for EPO. The
> > >> performance-enhancer was present in six of Armstrong's samples.
> > >> Armstrong claims the samples were tampered with. But former Armstrong
> > >> teammates besides Landis have implicated Armstrong in doping, and the
> > >> wife of a former teammate has said under oath that Armstrong confessed
> > >> during his treatment for testicular cancer that he'd used
> > >> performance-enhancing drugs. Armstrong denies the allegations, and has
> > >> hired a criminal defense lawyer. But last week, a lawyer for former
> > >> teammate Tyler Hamilton, who has admitted to doping during his career,
> > >> revealed that Hamilton was speaking to FBI investigators and "arranging
> > >> a situation where Hamilton can speak confidentially and give them the
> > >> information they need."http://theweek.com/article/index/205493/cleaning-up-the-tour-de-france
>
> > > what does tyler have to say to the fbi that he can't say in public ?
> > > that he ate his twin brother in the womb ? ( hey, stewie)
>
> > He'll talk under oath but not until he gets a grant of immunity.
>
> that's silly, there's the fifth ammendment- the fbi is not a rc
> confessional- immunity for what ? tax evaision ? there's no immunity
> for that.

In a practical way there is. I've been audited several times and the
IRS won't go past 7 years back.

Last time they sent me a bill for close to $2M they ended up owing me
just under $100k. I look forward to their next audit.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 8:41 pm
From: Anton Berlin

On Jul 31, 2:34 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <636e8855-4d71-45a9-b700-87c5908f6...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 31, 8:33 am, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > On 7/31/2010 12:58 AM, Anton Berlin wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 30, 7:34 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > >> On 7/30/2010 7:40 PM, Keith wrote:
>
> > > >>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:29:47 -0400, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
>
> > > >>>> Do most Tour winners dope?
> > > >>>> Apparently so. Since 1976, 16 different riders have won the Tour,
> > > >>>> including American Lance Armstrong, who won a record seven straight from
> > > >>>> 1999 through 2005. Twelve of those champions have either tested
> > > >>>> positive, confessed to doping, or fallen under strong suspicion of drug
> > > >>>> use.
>
> > > >>> So who are the 5 on "clean" list ?
>
> > > >>> - Lemond (iron shots anyone ?)
> > > >>> - Contador (although his involvement with Manolo and the AC of
> > > >>> Operation Fuentes raises some doubts)
> > > >>> - Roche
>
> > > >>> Close but no cigar :
> > > >>> - Hinault : refused a doping test during a crit in 1982 I think
> > > >>> - Van Impe : refused a doping test during a crit in 1981 (had to look
> > > >>> it up)
> > > >>> - Indurain (tested positive in 1994 according to
> > > >>>http://www.cyclisme-dopage.com/chiffres/tdf1991.htm-didn'tremember
> > > >>> that)
>
> > > >> Van Impe
> > > >> Fignon
> > > >> Hinault
> > > >> Lemond
> > > >> Roche
>
> > > > Horrible List Lafferty - Roche doped - he's confessed. Lemond doped,
> > > > you've admitted so yourself. Hinault ? Haven't studied but it's a
> > > > coin flip. Fignon - lots of sickness now - what was the cause?
>
> > > > Van Impe ? You just made that name up to fuck with people.
>
> > > > (grin)
>
> > > The problem with the statement in the article is that I suspect there
> > > are no winners who didn't use some form of doping. I based my list on
> > > non-EPO doping. Should we add Joop to the list?
>
> > That's like qualifying druggies by saying only those that use hash -
>
> > Here's a more complete list of what cyclists use
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=dyqyVKSJiOM&feature=related
>
> Here is the complete list:
>
> <http://www.last.fm/music/Tom+Lehrer/_/The+Elements>
>
> --
> Michael Press

Someone just programmed my computer to play Saturday afternoon NPR.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Fresno Bee"? What's next, Lodi Weekly? Lompoc Shopper?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5df4c780b5a21e1c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 4:01 pm
From: RicodJour

On Jul 31, 6:38 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 31, 1:11 pm, Betty <n...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> > Don't you wish it was 1984 again.
>
> Hell yes. I could ride without fear of SUVs and texting drivers.

Yes, fear and a person's awareness of mortality increase with age.
Sorry.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 4:43 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"

On 7/31/2010 6:17 PM, RicodJour wrote:
> On Jul 31, 4:59 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> The bottom line is that it appears public
>> perception of Landis changing for the good. People are asking more and
>> more questions about how Lance could have beaten all those dopers riding
>> clean. It's Lance and his mouthpieces, Herman and Daly, who are looking
>> unbelievable.
>
> Yeah, stoolie's have always had fine standing on both sides, Barry.
> You're a piece of work.
>
> R
The truth coming out about Lance is really bothering you, Rico. Won't
it be ironic if these guys are indicted under RICO, Rico?

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 7:18 pm
From: Phil H

On Jul 31, 1:59 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/31/2010 1:21 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>
>
> > "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >news:-O2dnWd2TuwrxcnRnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> >> On 7/31/2010 12:03 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>> "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:n6adndcE0NopvsnRnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> >>>> On 7/31/2010 1:59 AM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>>>> "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:pLSdnWK0PsNY6c7RnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> >>>>>>http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/07/30/2024459/landis-rides-in-catskills...
>
> >>>>> So I'm thinking, who would read the Fresno Bee except someone
> >>>>> living in
> >>>>> Fresno? Of course, the answer is nobody. So why would someone use a
> >>>>> wire
> >>>>> story from the Fresno Bee as a "news" source? The only thing I can
> >>>>> come
> >>>>> up with is that that somebody has a wire service "scraper"
> >>>>> programmed to
> >>>>> look for certain keywords in articles and collect those articles.
> >>>>> Basically you program a robot to do your work for you. And the
> >>>>> interesting thing about this is, instead of research, you can
> >>>>> carefully
> >>>>> choose your keywords so that you get results that support what you
> >>>>> already believe.
>
> >>>>> The real beauty to this is that you avoid being exposed to things you
> >>>>> don't want to see or disagree with. You can construct your own safe
> >>>>> world where everything supports what you already believe, and you can
> >>>>> tell the world look, I'm right, here's proof I found on the 'net!
>
> >>>>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> >>>>>www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> >>>>http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/38495011/ns/sports/
>
> >>> How is this a response to my post? What is your intent in posting a link
> >>> to the identical story in a different website? How does that respond to
> >>> my point about scraping for news one agrees with? Proof that your
> >>> scraper works?
>
> >>> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> >>> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> >>>www.ChainReaction.com
> >>> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> >> I took your comment to mean that the story wasn't worth being covered
> >> by larger news outlets. But of course, it is.
>
> > The worst thing about some of your "answers" is that I can see myself in
> > them, back in high school and college. If I didn't know the answer to
> > the question on a test, I'd substitute an answer for a question that I
> > did know, hoping that somebody would think, oh, perhaps the question
> > wasn't clear enough, I'll let that one slide.
>
> > --Mike Jacoubowsky
> > Chain Reaction Bicycles
> >www.ChainReaction.com
> > Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> Nice straw man, Mike. The bottom line is that it appears public
> perception of Landis changing for the good. People are asking more and
> more questions about how Lance could have beaten all those dopers riding
> clean. It's Lance and his mouthpieces, Herman and Daly, who are looking
> unbelievable.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The same way some previous champions have beaten the rest. Did you
ever hear of normal distribution and outliers?
While a doper may achieve exceptional performance, it is in no shape
or form one iota of proof of doping. From what we know so far
publicly, if it came to a jury trial, all Lance needs is one unbiased
juror with an IQ > 100.

Phil H

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 9:25 pm
From: RicodJour

On Jul 31, 7:43 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/31/2010 6:17 PM, RicodJour wrote:> On Jul 31, 4:59 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> The bottom line is that it appears public
> >> perception of Landis changing for the good. People are asking more and
> >> more questions about how Lance could have beaten all those dopers riding
> >> clean. It's Lance and his mouthpieces, Herman and Daly, who are looking
> >> unbelievable.
>
> > Yeah, stoolie's have always had fine standing on both sides, Barry.
> > You're a piece of work.
>
> The truth coming out about Lance is really bothering you, Rico. Won't
> it be ironic if these guys are indicted under RICO, Rico?

That word, irony, I do not think it means what you think it means,
Barry. Funnily enough, I really don't care what happens with things
that are beyond my control. I'm not invested in them, and I don't
have a man-crush affecting, and afflicting, my brain.

As far as the truth with respect to cycling...WTF are you talking
about? I give people the benefit of the doubt, that is all. If they
all go to jail, or no one goes to jail, what's it to me? Right -
nothing. I'm content to let it play out.

You, on the other hand, are dribbling from the end of your little
dinky with anticipation. Be polite - clean up after yourself and
remember to change your underwear once a day...okay, twice a day, you
dribbling douche baggie.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bike Racing goes Pro Wresting.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/8c28d59d0e7e92e8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 4:25 pm
From: --D-y

On Jul 31, 3:50 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <4715ea07-2e31-4fb0-bc91-fbd18ed85...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> --D-y <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 31, 6:52 am, CowPunk <cowpun...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >http://www.cyclingnews.com/races/post-tour-criteriums-ne/cibel-na-tou...
>
> > > "Ivan Basso and Fabian Cancellara also rode the Flemish criterium as
> > > part of a 37-rider field that entertained an estimated 60,000 crowd."
>
> > > Twiggy Chaindropper beats The Gruberator in a crit? yeah I know it's
> > > a post-Tour dog and pony show. But come on. Makes me wonder if AS
> > > didn't drop his chain on purpose in the Tour. It also explains the
> > > noobish floundering trying to get it back on.
>
> > These, from my understanding, are exhibtions put on for people to see
> > the stars in action, with repeated laps so viewing has more duration
> > than one shot per stage for 20 seconds or so, as in the TdF.
> > Either that or Mark Cavendish better start looking for a new job.
>
> He was not there.

Well, that card might have been a bit much.
Nope, I didn't think about his being there, just "thinking" about how
lethal a combination climber-sprinter would be in the GT's or
elsewhere for that matter.

> Cavendish wins the Welser Innenstadt Kriterium
> in Austria, soundly trouncing such luminaries as
> Josef Benetseder (Vorarlberg-Corratec),
> Riccardo Zoid (Abro Gourmetfein Wels), and
> Peter Pichler (Abro Gourmetfein Wels),
> two days before the Sint-Niklaas

Now that I can believe!

Doesn't this show to some extent how perhaps the Euro's are happy with
the show?
Did someone immediately grab Andy by the elbow and head him over to
testtesttesting? Another welcome feature.
--D-y
--D-y

==============================================================================
TOPIC: invitation to all you LA haters and "they all dope"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/e04e8559e73b53c6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 4:26 pm
From: --D-y

On Jul 31, 10:38 am, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> We will continue to make up stuff to make your ball gargling sessions
> with Lance less enjoyable.

I've noticed that Lafferty has carefully distanced himself from Greg
on the personal level. Sort of.
--D-y

==============================================================================
TOPIC: I thought I was invincible, that they wouldn't catch me.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/c394a4045e928746?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 4:52 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"

On 7/31/2010 6:13 PM, RicodJour wrote:
> On Jul 31, 5:05 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> He was pretty much a one day racer pre-cancer. That 1995 placing at 80th
>> in the Tour was truly awesome, Henry.
>
> Hey Barry. Not that the little amount of blood your hard on for LANCE
> consumes should affect your brain so much, but something is. You
> should do some fact checking so you don't look biased AND stupid. He
> finished five places back of Johan. Frankie A finished 82nd - but
> what the hell, they all look alike, right?

Theywere all pack fodder in that Tour. Your point was?

>
> Seriously, I'll make a call to see if you could get a leading role in
> the sequel. You're a natural.
>
> R

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 5:19 pm
From: RicodJour

On Jul 31, 5:05 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> He was pretty much a one day racer pre-cancer. That 1995 placing at 80th
> in the Tour was truly awesome, Henry.

You know, maybe I have been too hard on you, Barry. I took a look at
the 95 team LANCE was on, and you're right, with a stellar makeup like
that, he should have won the thing walking away. It's not like having
a strong team helps, right? I mean each guy pedals his own bike.
Sheesh.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/archives/letour/tdfteams.html

That article had this to say about Motorola:
"America's premier cycling team is led by 1993 World Champion Lance
Armstrong. Although Armstrong was often frustrated in 1994, he has
returned with renewed vigor this year. He stifled his opponents in
America's Tour DuPont and is admittedly hungry to confirm his good
form in Europe. Still only 23, Armstrong seems a bit young to contest
the overall classification. He would be satisfied with a spectacular
stage win."

America's premier cycling team - this from the era where those three
words were a joke. And he did win a stage in a spectacular way.

So, to sum it up...you're a Grade A schmuck, Barry, who conveniently
forgets dates, placings, just about everything about cycling, when it
suits your main objective - to get LANCE to notice you. Good luck
with that.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 100 Years on the Tourmalet
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/1174e542793cba78?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 4:55 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"

Enjoy
http://www.lequipemag.fr/EquipeMag/Reportages/PORTFOLIO_100-ans-de-tourmalet.html

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Simple Hack To Get $2000 From PayPal.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/a39649f5b770895d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 8:26 pm
From: paypal money

Simple Hack To Get $2000 From PayPal At http://1023setvideos.co.cc

Due to high security risks, i have hidden the PayPal Form link in an
image. in that website On Top Side Above search box , click on image
and enter your PayPal id And Your name.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The 'doping levels the playing field' theory is a null argument.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/e43058bc511313db?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 9:20 pm
From: Anton Berlin

Lance supporters frequently post the theory "if Lance doped in a
peloton of dopers then if he remained clean in a field of clean riders
the results would be the same - Lance would win."

I don't think this is the case - even in a perfect experiment (where
all riders were dosed with the same amounts and equal intervals) - I
would suspect that some would respond better (or extraordinary) to the
doping while others would only marginally improve and some may react
negatively and even get sick.

Where's a good basis for this idea? Look back to the OTC where Strock
and Kaiter were injected with cortisone
(a drug Lance was using as late as 1999) During that period Lance
excels in the Worlds while these guys get too sick to live.
Additional evidence includes Evanshine. And of course Lance
eventually comes down with cancer despite his day to day tolerance of
the doping cocktail he's using - most likely EPO and cortisone.

(Cortisone, a potent but legal* performance-enhancing drug used to
dampen inflammation, also reduces
the discomfort of heavy daily training and competition and lifts the
mood. It is also widely abused
by professional cyclists.)

* legal from the medical point of view

http://www.scifun.org/Conversations/Conversations4Teachers/2006/Tainted%20Glory.PDF

(Also in 1999, Armstrong tested positive for a glucocorticosteroid
hormone. Armstrong explained he had used an external cortisone
ointment to treat a saddle sore and produced a prescription for it.
The amount detected was below the threshold and said to be consistent
with the amount used for a topical skin cream, but UCI rules required
that prescriptions be shown to sports authorities in advance of use.)

Recall that Scott Moninger took a 2 year suspension for something most
cyclists believe he got through a tainted batch of herbal products.

Bernard Thévenet won the 1975 and 1977 Tour de France editions by
using cortisone. "I was doped with cortisone for three years and there
were many like me," he said.[30] The experience had ruined his health,
he said.

Perhaps Lance's strength is not his ability', desire or discipline -
(Bostick was disciplined and anyone that rode in ABQ in the 80s and
90s can tell you incredible stories of that time) but Lance's greatest
strength would be his ability to tolerate these drugs - in combination
and benefit in a way that others can not.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2006/04/news/six-years-later-strock-case-comes-to-court_9763

Summary from the PDF referenced above - Thus,
drug use in a subgroup of athletes who — even in
the absence of drugs — are able to compete at an
elite level causes their separation into a distinct
athletic population, distanced from "natural" humans
by a margin determined by the potency of the
drug combinations that are used. These athletes,
quite simply, have moved off the natural bell-shaped
curve of normal human performance.

If 7 Tour wins during the era of doping isn't moving off the bell
curve - then what is? I submit that Lance was just more tolerant of
these chemicals.

PS - Except for the day that he foamed at the mouth during that TT.

I'd love to have recordings and transcripts of the emails and phone
calls to Ferrari and whoever else they called that night. I'll bet
Jeff Novitzky would too.

(maybe he already has)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Doping in Elite Sport - how drug testing fails
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/7bc3dac757aac39b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 9:23 pm
From: Anton Berlin

http://books.google.com/books?id=wi2d4YyLh3wC&pg=PA241&lpg=PA241&dq=%22How+drug+testing+fails:+the+politics+of+doping+control%22&source=bl&ots=p9pSF8TP3Q&sig=RbUyhp7KqKE-grmMa1RyrlS2bwU&hl=en&ei=UPZUTMkKhL-eB5yQzKoD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22How%20drug%20testing%20fails%3A%20the%20politics%20of%20doping%20control%22&f=false

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

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

Touching - Developed Plot for Sale-Marcela Goa - contact 9922413356 / 9822702333

ESTATES, PROPERTIES - PLOTS FOR SALE

A new listing with title Main Road Touching - Developed Plot for Sale-Marcela Goa - contact 9922413356 / 9822702333 has just been submitted.

===================================================
http://www.magicingoa.com/index.php?list=advertisement&method=showdetails&rollid=10034&eid=microvinitster@GMAIL.COM
===================================================

Additional message:
Unsubscribe from our newsletters
http://www.egoa.info/unsubscribe.php

rec.bicycles.racing - 25 new messages in 9 topics - digest

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

rec.bicycles.racing@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 12:46 pm
From: Michael Press

In article <P_SdnbvmR7jC_MnRnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@sti.net>,
"GoneBeforeMyTime" <Fans@EuroForums.com> wrote:

> Anton Berlin wrote:
> >> What he said. A link is MORE than sufficient.
> >
> > I disagree. A lot of links evaporate. If you post the text it's here
> > (and searchable) when needed.
>

[...]

> The other reason, at least one I think is valid is some sites required
> registration and login to read the article. If it's something of great
> interest, posting it here avoids a huge amount of hassle for people. Most
> people won't divulge their email to acquire a free account to an online
> newspaper. Used to be you could fake your email and still can in some online
> papers or comment sections.
>
> In fact I noticed even some like Velonews started using registration
> companies now if you want to comment. In the past, they had a simple guest
> log in which you did not have to give your valid email to comment. With
> validators this usually requires a source of validation or sometimes a link
> to be sent to your valid email account because you have to click through to
> validate access to the forum, news or comments section.
>
> This is going to keep a lot of people out of the comments section who were
> in the past, bold enough to speak their mind without worrying that the news
> outlet knew their ID and could be forking it over to corporate spammers.
> What this does is water down the comments section, probably reducing it to
> fluff comments from well-wishers instead of straight talkers. Straight
> talkers often have valid points, so it tends to push things toward the pie
> in the sky, not the reality. I noticed the change in registration after a
> rider got massively flamed in the comments section of Velonews. I don't
> believe it was a trend though by bashers flocking to Velonews. I've seen
> other riders get solid 99 percent positive feedback in the comments section
> in some articles.

It's a funny old world, isn't it?

--
Michael Press

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 1:44 pm
From: "GoneBeforeMyTime"

RicodJour wrote:
> On Jul 31, 1:46 pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime" <F...@EuroForums.com> wrote:
>> Anton Berlin wrote:
>>>> What he said. A link is MORE than sufficient.
>>
>>> I disagree. A lot of links evaporate. If you post the text it's here
>>> (and searchable) when needed.
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>> The problem with Google is the content can disappear over time. If
>> it's something very worthwhile to have a record of, usenet archives
>> at least so far are a solid repository. The archive has many such
>> articles people posted over decades of time. Some of those are gone
>> now from Google, but not from usenet archives.
>>
>> The other reason, at least one I think is valid is some sites
>> required registration and login to read the article. If it's
>> something of great interest, posting it here avoids a huge amount of
>> hassle for people. Most people won't divulge their email to acquire
>> a free account to an online newspaper. Used to be you could fake
>> your email and still can in some online papers or comment sections.
>>
>> In fact I noticed even some like Velonews started using registration
>> companies now if you want to comment. In the past, they had a simple
>> guest log in which you did not have to give your valid email to
>> comment. With validators this usually requires a source of
>> validation or sometimes a link to be sent to your valid email
>> account because you have to click through to validate access to the
>> forum, news or comments section.
>>
>> This is going to keep a lot of people out of the comments section
>> who were in the past, bold enough to speak their mind without
>> worrying that the news outlet knew their ID and could be forking it
>> over to corporate spammers. What this does is water down the
>> comments section, probably reducing it to fluff comments from
>> well-wishers instead of straight talkers. Straight talkers often
>> have valid points, so it tends to push things toward the pie in the
>> sky, not the reality. I noticed the change in registration after a
>> rider got massively flamed in the comments section of Velonews. I
>> don't believe it was a trend though by bashers flocking to Velonews.
>> I've seen other riders get solid 99 percent positive feedback in the
>> comments section in some articles.
>
> The point is to keep the post short - edit out the filler. Please
> point out anything, anything at all, in that entire posted column that
> hasn't been reported and posted online ad nauseum. Chaff is
> _supposed_ to disappear over time.
>
> Barry is just posting his jerking off material, nothing more.
>
> R

True, unless he has a personal reason for archiving it, I don't know why.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 3:42 pm
From: RicodJour

Hello...? Barry, LANCE, jerking material? Of course he's archiving
all of the drivel.

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 12:47 pm
From: "Kurgan Gringioni"

"B. Lafferty" <bl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4ZKdnQRRMYMGusnRnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@giganews.com...

: > Dumbass -
: >
: > LANCE most likely (I say most likely because I have no first hand
evidence)
: > before and after cancer. The difference was his body changed from the
chemo.
: > Doping alone doesn't do it. Reasons:
: >
: > 1) dopers are competing against other dopers.
: >
: > 2) climbing ability is still determined by power to weight RATIO. Weight
is
: > equally important as power output.
: >
: > thanks,
: >
: > Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
: >
: That wasn't the question. I doubt that pre-cancer Armstrong had the EPO
: doping regimen down pat. No doubt his post-cancer weight loss help
: considerably.

Dumbass -

He was pretty awesome pre-cancer. So much so that they built US Postal
around a rider coming off chemo, not racing for a year. They didn't decide
to make him a GT rider until he rode the Vuelta and unexpectedly got 4th. It
was the weight.

If he hadn't shed that weight, he wouldn't be competitive as a Grand Tour GC
rider, optimized doping or no. Remember, weight is half the equation. Going
uphill, cutting 10% off bodyweight is the same as gaining 10% in power.
"Optimizing" a doping program isn't going to yield those results. In 1998,
they had the 50% hematocrit limits. Where's the 10% extra power gonna come
from? It's fiction.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 2:05 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"

On 7/31/2010 3:47 PM, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
> "B. Lafferty"<bl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:4ZKdnQRRMYMGusnRnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> :> Dumbass -
> :>
> :> LANCE most likely (I say most likely because I have no first hand
> evidence)
> :> before and after cancer. The difference was his body changed from the
> chemo.
> :> Doping alone doesn't do it. Reasons:
> :>
> :> 1) dopers are competing against other dopers.
> :>
> :> 2) climbing ability is still determined by power to weight RATIO. Weight
> is
> :> equally important as power output.
> :>
> :> thanks,
> :>
> :> Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
> :>
> : That wasn't the question. I doubt that pre-cancer Armstrong had the EPO
> : doping regimen down pat. No doubt his post-cancer weight loss help
> : considerably.
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> He was pretty awesome pre-cancer. So much so that they built US Postal
> around a rider coming off chemo, not racing for a year. They didn't decide
> to make him a GT rider until he rode the Vuelta and unexpectedly got 4th. It
> was the weight.
>
> If he hadn't shed that weight, he wouldn't be competitive as a Grand Tour GC
> rider, optimized doping or no. Remember, weight is half the equation. Going
> uphill, cutting 10% off bodyweight is the same as gaining 10% in power.
> "Optimizing" a doping program isn't going to yield those results. In 1998,
> they had the 50% hematocrit limits. Where's the 10% extra power gonna come
> from? It's fiction.
>
> thanks,
>
> Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
>
He was pretty much a one day racer pre-cancer. That 1995 placing at 80th
in the Tour was truly awesome, Henry.

Johan's motivation was to gamble on Armstrong and dope him to the gills.
If it didn't work out, it mean only that Johan would look good for
humanitarian reasons and Lance could go back to Texas.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 3:13 pm
From: RicodJour

On Jul 31, 5:05 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> He was pretty much a one day racer pre-cancer. That 1995 placing at 80th
> in the Tour was truly awesome, Henry.

Hey Barry. Not that the little amount of blood your hard on for LANCE
consumes should affect your brain so much, but something is. You
should do some fact checking so you don't look biased AND stupid. He
finished five places back of Johan. Frankie A finished 82nd - but
what the hell, they all look alike, right?

Seriously, I'll make a call to see if you could get a leading role in
the sequel. You're a natural.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: ITU To Use Biological Passports
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/04bc0d736cc77eb6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 12:49 pm
From: Michael Press

In article <i30bcb$5fq$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
"Kurgan Gringioni" <soulinthemachine@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Anton Berlin" <truth_88888@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9008f6ab-c849-48c5-895e-2de4457938f8@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 29, 8:49 am, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > http://www.zimbio.com/Lance+Armstrong/articles/reOzd3vF3Sc/Biological...
>
> :: And in a related headline.... "LANCE ARMSTRONG DECIDES NOT TO PURSUE
> :: TRIATHLON CAREER AFTER CYCLING"
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> No ex-professional bike racer will ever be a top level triathlete. The years
> spent on the bike (no weight bearing ) steal away the body's running ability
> and running is the most important discipline in triathlon.

As currently organized.
Let's see run-swim-bike.
That will pose a strategic conundrum.

--
Michael Press

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Should this be allowed to happen?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/d1ef244da86b2c25?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 12:49 pm
From: "Kurgan Gringioni"

"Nancy Adams" <nhadams64@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6a9d6aeb-e817-430d-90cd-7c7ce7cca5f1@d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
: K. receives a subpoena from Congress. He travels to the hearing as
: required. He is asked "Have you ever done anything embarassing?".
: What is K. to do? If he says no, he will he convicted of perjury; if
: he refused to answer he will be convicted of comtempt. If he pleads
: the fifth this itself will be embarrasing and technically it will be
: lying since there is no chance he will incriminate himself. If he
: says yes, then he will be ask to describe the embarassing action. If
: he refuses then he will be convicted of comtempt, and so on.
:
: This is pretty much what happened to Mark Mcgwire.

Dumbass -

Testifying before Congress is the Kiss of Death.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 12:56 pm
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd

On Jul 31, 4:09 am, Nancy Adams <nhadam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> K. receives a subpoena from Congress. He travels to the hearing as
> required. He is asked "Have you ever done anything embarassing?".
> What is K. to do? If he says no, he will he convicted of perjury; if
> he refused to answer he will be convicted of comtempt. If he pleads
> the fifth this itself will be embarrasing and technically it will be
> lying since there is no chance he will incriminate himself. If he
> says yes, then he will be ask to describe the embarassing action. If
> he refuses then he will be convicted of comtempt, and so on.
>
> This is pretty much what happened to Mark Mcgwire.

Dumbass,

I already used the Kafka joke a few weeks ago.

You don't have a constitutional right to freedom
from embarrassment. If you become the target of
a prosecutor or a Congressional probe, there are
all kinds of things they can do to make your life
miserable. If you only recently noticed this, it's
because you don't read newspapers and/or put
professional athletes on some kind of pedestal.
However, you have to do something to be brought
to their attention, and they can only ask questions
that are relevant to the investigation. So if you
want to avoid being embarrassed, don't get investigated.

But you know, embarrassment isn't so bad. McGwire
isn't poor; we all survived embarrassment as
teenagers; and you showed that you can't google
"bicycle racing crit" yet still return to rbr.

McGwire got embarrassed for a variety of reasons,
some of which were the credulity of the audience
and the sports media when he was breaking all
the records. Remember that during his rise to
demigodhood he admitted using androstenedione,
but everyone made excuses for that in a "Oh, I'm
sure a nice boy like him would never touch the
rocket fuel" kind of way. So guess what, he did, but
because of the saintly act now he's embarrassed.

The baseball guys, IMO, pissed in their own river
by taking the rocket fuel too far, like Gewiss-Ballan
or the 60-percenters or Festina in bicycle racing.
They got so huge that it started to distort the game.
That's not why the investigation started, of course -
fans liked the distorted game. But once the revelations
started coming out and you saw how retired stars
were half the size of their playing days it was hard
to pretend they'd just been trying out a taste of hot
sauce here and there.

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 12:51 pm
From: "Kurgan Gringioni"

"B. Lafferty" <bl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:U9KdnZNSjPrXu8nRnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@giganews.com...

: The problem with the statement in the article is that I suspect there
: are no winners who didn't use some form of doping. I based my list on
: non-EPO doping. Should we add Joop to the list?

Dumbass -

There might've been some clean winners before 1980.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 12:53 pm
From: "Kurgan Gringioni"

"B. Lafferty" <bl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:wYmdnZjpZIxc-cnRnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
:
: Immunity here would, IMO for Tyler, center on not being prosecuted for
: prior perjury under oath, any possible involvement in a conspiracy to
: commit fraud and possible RICO indictment.

Dumbass -

Someone like Tyler will not be vulnerable to RICO.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 2:01 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"

On 7/31/2010 3:51 PM, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
> "B. Lafferty"<bl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:U9KdnZNSjPrXu8nRnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> : The problem with the statement in the article is that I suspect there
> : are no winners who didn't use some form of doping. I based my list on
> : non-EPO doping. Should we add Joop to the list?
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> There might've been some clean winners before 1980.
>
> thanks,
>
> Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
>
There might have been some dirty winners before 1980. Thanks again for
sharing your thoughts with us, Henry.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 3:14 pm
From: RicodJour

On Jul 31, 3:53 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni" <soulinthemach...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Someone like Tyler will not be vulnerable to RICO.

Bullshit. No one can resist me.

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 1:26 pm
From: Frederick the Great

In article <BvSdndQNebczJs7RnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote:

> "B. Lafferty" <bl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:pLSdnWK0PsNY6c7RnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> > http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/07/30/2024459/landis-rides-in-catskills-race.html
>
> So I'm thinking, who would read the Fresno Bee except someone living in
> Fresno? Of course, the answer is nobody. So why would someone use a wire
> story from the Fresno Bee as a "news" source? The only thing I can come
> up with is that that somebody has a wire service "scraper" programmed to
> look for certain keywords in articles and collect those articles.
> Basically you program a robot to do your work for you. And the
> interesting thing about this is, instead of research, you can carefully
> choose your keywords so that you get results that support what you
> already believe.
>
> The real beauty to this is that you avoid being exposed to things you
> don't want to see or disagree with. You can construct your own safe
> world where everything supports what you already believe, and you can
> tell the world look, I'm right, here's proof I found on the 'net!

You can do that? I am all over it!
Let's see ...
"Bike shop" "bloated plutocrat" grind face poor dust

That's odd. I'm not getting any hits.

--
Old Fritz

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 1:52 pm
From: "Mike Jacoubowsky"

> You can do that? I am all over it!
> Let's see ...
> "Bike shop" "bloated plutocrat" grind face poor dust
>
>
> That's odd. I'm not getting any hits.
>
> --
> Old Fritz

"Bike shop" and "plutocrat" in the same sentence? "Bloated" no less? No
wonder you didn't get a hit. :-)

"Bloated" and "bike shop owner" and ("has-been" or "washed up" or "never
was") would likely turn up a few. At least me anyway. Different definition
of "bloated" though.

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

"Frederick the Great" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:rubrum-BECCF0.13263331072010@news.albasani.net...
> In article <BvSdndQNebczJs7RnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>
>> "B. Lafferty" <bl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:pLSdnWK0PsNY6c7RnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> > http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/07/30/2024459/landis-rides-in-catskills-race.html
>>
>> So I'm thinking, who would read the Fresno Bee except someone living in
>> Fresno? Of course, the answer is nobody. So why would someone use a wire
>> story from the Fresno Bee as a "news" source? The only thing I can come
>> up with is that that somebody has a wire service "scraper" programmed to
>> look for certain keywords in articles and collect those articles.
>> Basically you program a robot to do your work for you. And the
>> interesting thing about this is, instead of research, you can carefully
>> choose your keywords so that you get results that support what you
>> already believe.
>>
>> The real beauty to this is that you avoid being exposed to things you
>> don't want to see or disagree with. You can construct your own safe
>> world where everything supports what you already believe, and you can
>> tell the world look, I'm right, here's proof I found on the 'net!
>
> You can do that? I am all over it!
> Let's see ...
> "Bike shop" "bloated plutocrat" grind face poor dust
>
>
> That's odd. I'm not getting any hits.
>
> --
> Old Fritz

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 1:59 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"

On 7/31/2010 1:21 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> "B. Lafferty" <bl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:-O2dnWd2TuwrxcnRnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On 7/31/2010 12:03 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> "B. Lafferty" <bl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:n6adndcE0NopvsnRnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> On 7/31/2010 1:59 AM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>>> "B. Lafferty"<bl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:pLSdnWK0PsNY6c7RnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>> http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/07/30/2024459/landis-rides-in-catskills-race.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So I'm thinking, who would read the Fresno Bee except someone
>>>>> living in
>>>>> Fresno? Of course, the answer is nobody. So why would someone use a
>>>>> wire
>>>>> story from the Fresno Bee as a "news" source? The only thing I can
>>>>> come
>>>>> up with is that that somebody has a wire service "scraper"
>>>>> programmed to
>>>>> look for certain keywords in articles and collect those articles.
>>>>> Basically you program a robot to do your work for you. And the
>>>>> interesting thing about this is, instead of research, you can
>>>>> carefully
>>>>> choose your keywords so that you get results that support what you
>>>>> already believe.
>>>>>
>>>>> The real beauty to this is that you avoid being exposed to things you
>>>>> don't want to see or disagree with. You can construct your own safe
>>>>> world where everything supports what you already believe, and you can
>>>>> tell the world look, I'm right, here's proof I found on the 'net!
>>>>>
>>>>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>>>>> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/38495011/ns/sports/
>>>
>>> How is this a response to my post? What is your intent in posting a link
>>> to the identical story in a different website? How does that respond to
>>> my point about scraping for news one agrees with? Proof that your
>>> scraper works?
>>>
>>> --Mike Jacoubowsky
>>> Chain Reaction Bicycles
>>> www.ChainReaction.com
>>> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
>> I took your comment to mean that the story wasn't worth being covered
>> by larger news outlets. But of course, it is.
>
> The worst thing about some of your "answers" is that I can see myself in
> them, back in high school and college. If I didn't know the answer to
> the question on a test, I'd substitute an answer for a question that I
> did know, hoping that somebody would think, oh, perhaps the question
> wasn't clear enough, I'll let that one slide.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Nice straw man, Mike. The bottom line is that it appears public
perception of Landis changing for the good. People are asking more and
more questions about how Lance could have beaten all those dopers riding
clean. It's Lance and his mouthpieces, Herman and Daly, who are looking
unbelievable.

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 3:05 pm
From: "H. Fred Kveck"

In article <45d52938-c3b2-44a4-8861-2204af6a151c@d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote:

> I think I might take a page from his book and set up a web crawler of
> my own...let's see:
> 'Brian Lafferty OCD trolling douchebag'
> On second thought, I'd never be able to review all of those hits, so I
> need to trim it down:
> 'Brian Lafferty OCD trolling douchebag NAMBLA'
> That should do it.

Just so you know in da fyooocha: When speaking of products by Massengill or
Summer's Eve, it's "douchebag." In this case it's "douche bag." A copy editor told me
so. Otherwise, spot on.

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 3:17 pm
From: RicodJour

On Jul 31, 4:59 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> The bottom line is that it appears public
> perception of Landis changing for the good. People are asking more and
> more questions about how Lance could have beaten all those dopers riding
> clean. It's Lance and his mouthpieces, Herman and Daly, who are looking
> unbelievable.

Yeah, stoolie's have always had fine standing on both sides, Barry.
You're a piece of work.

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 3:28 pm
From: RicodJour

On Jul 31, 6:05 pm, "H. Fred Kveck" <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com>
wrote:
> In article <45d52938-c3b2-44a4-8861-2204af6a1...@d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> > I think I might take a page from his book and set up a web crawler of
> > my own...let's see:
> > 'Brian Lafferty OCD trolling douchebag'
> > On second thought, I'd never be able to review all of those hits, so I
> > need to trim it down:
> > 'Brian Lafferty OCD trolling douchebag NAMBLA'
> > That should do it.
>
> Just so you know in da fyooocha: When speaking of products by Massengill or
> Summer's Eve, it's "douchebag." In this case it's "douche bag." A copy editor told me
> so. Otherwise, spot on.

Thanks for the correction. If you don't mind me asking, why did you
get feedback from a copy instead of an original?

English is a stupid language. ;)

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 3:34 pm
From: RicodJour

On Jul 31, 12:03 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
wrote:
> "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> >http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/38495011/ns/sports/
>
> How is this a response to my post? What is your intent in posting a link to
> the identical story in a different website? How does that respond to my
> point about scraping for news one agrees with? Proof that your scraper
> works?

Well, I set up a web spider to search for 'Brian Lafferty douche
bag' (thanks to H. Fred Kveck), and the spider up and died. Can't
blame it. But I did manage to get one piece of information - the
single individual that was so instrumental in Barry-otomy's status as
The World's Foremost Authority.

You'll see where Barry got his rapier-like twit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxtN0xxzfsw

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 3:38 pm
From: Anton Berlin

On Jul 31, 1:11 pm, Betty <n...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> Anton Berlin wrote:
> > Mike - all news is like this. And music. An algorithm computes how
> > many times one should hear lady gaga at 2.1 times an hour and at a
> > ration not to exceed 1.317 that of Zac Bieber
>
> > In this way we call all think the same news and dance to the same
> > music. It's Orwell's heaven
>
> Don't you wish it was 1984 again.

Hell yes. I could ride without fear of SUVs and texting drivers.

( + the skanks were plentiful )

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 1:33 pm
From: Jeff Jones

On Jul 31, 7:14 pm, Betty <n...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
> > Cyclingnews spun off the forum to some extent, which fed on the
> > doping articles CN produced. Perhaps you should complain to them?
>
> Jeff, I want my royalties.

Sorry, it's standard Web 1.5 practice.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: WSJ: Prosecutors Step Up Armstrong Probe
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/4daf5e927c629c39?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 1:32 pm
From: Betty

RicodJour wrote:
> Here's another opinion - anything that includes 'Armstrong' and
> 'probe' in the subject line interests you way, way too much.

Perl bots tend to be simplistic, buy as someone once said simplicity is
a prerequisite for reliability.

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 1:50 pm
From: Michael Press

In article
<4715ea07-2e31-4fb0-bc91-fbd18ed85df6@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
--D-y <dustoyevsky@mac.com> wrote:

> On Jul 31, 6:52 am, CowPunk <cowpun...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > http://www.cyclingnews.com/races/post-tour-criteriums-ne/cibel-na-tou...
> >
> > "Ivan Basso and Fabian Cancellara also rode the Flemish criterium as
> > part of a 37-rider field that entertained an estimated 60,000 crowd."
> >
> > Twiggy Chaindropper beats The Gruberator in a crit? yeah I know it's
> > a post-Tour dog and pony show. But come on. Makes me wonder if AS
> > didn't drop his chain on purpose in the Tour. It also explains the
> > noobish floundering trying to get it back on.
>
> These, from my understanding, are exhibtions put on for people to see
> the stars in action, with repeated laps so viewing has more duration
> than one shot per stage for 20 seconds or so, as in the TdF.
> Either that or Mark Cavendish better start looking for a new job.

He was not there. Cavendish wins the Welser Innenstadt Kriterium
in Austria, soundly trouncing such luminaries as
Josef Benetseder (Vorarlberg-Corratec),
Riccardo Zoid (Abro Gourmetfein Wels), and
Peter Pichler (Abro Gourmetfein Wels),
two days before the Sint-Niklaas

--
Michael Press

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2010 3:37 pm
From: RicodJour

On Jul 31, 4:50 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> He was not there. Cavendish wins the Welser Innenstadt Kriterium
> in Austria, soundly trouncing such luminaries as
> Josef Benetseder (Vorarlberg-Corratec),
> Riccardo Zoid (Abro Gourmetfein Wels), and

Damn. Riccardo Zoid?! I wish I'd seen that before I chose my nom de
plume!

Zoid, Zoid, he be null and void. He be wigging!*

* Extra credit to the first person to identify the paraphrased quote.

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

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

Friend's home

Saturday, July 31, 2010

rec.bicycles.racing - 25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

Touching - Developed Plot for Sale-Marcela Goa - contact 9922413356 / 9822702333

rec.bicycles.racing - 25 new messages in 9 topics - digest

gsk

Followers

Popular Posts

Blog Archive

visitors

suggest

About Me

Friend's home

Saturday, July 31, 2010

rec.bicycles.racing - 25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

Touching - Developed Plot for Sale-Marcela Goa - contact 9922413356 / 9822702333

rec.bicycles.racing - 25 new messages in 9 topics - digest

gsk

Followers

Popular Posts

Blog Archive

visitors

Subscribe To

suggest

About Me