http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing?hl=en
rec.bicycles.racing@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Lance Armstrong to either commit suicide or go to prison. This is going to
be great ! - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/eff6e458d9722b66?hl=en
* UCI Complicity? - 5 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/87e4c5abda9b274a?hl=en
* Trek in the News - 8 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/cbf6db71fdc29df0?hl=en
* Perfect casual wear for Fattie Masters - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/b9119d6af12c21f6?hl=en
* Dutch culture? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/471cb84e05ba8fb2?hl=en
* Online Polls--Armstrong Doped - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/ac639448c62d7dd0?hl=en
* Pauline - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/204ae4d0b76bb459?hl=en
* Road Racing Demographics - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/cde3f8c1e33c6cb0?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Lance Armstrong to either commit suicide or go to prison. This is going
to be great !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/eff6e458d9722b66?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 7 2010 12:46 pm
From: "Beloved Fred No. 1"
On 08/07/10 19:24, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> If LANCE goes down, it'll be because of his karma.
> Shoulda been nicer to some guys.
If Simeoni provides any evidence then it would be karma.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 7 2010 6:25 pm
From: RicodJour
On Aug 7, 3:46 pm, "Beloved Fred No. 1" <n...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> On 08/07/10 19:24, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
> > If LANCE goes down, it'll be because of his karma.
> > Shoulda been nicer to some guys.
>
> If Simeoni provides any evidence then it would be karma.
And showing his true colors - a karma chameleon.
R
==============================================================================
TOPIC: UCI Complicity?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/87e4c5abda9b274a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 7 2010 12:57 pm
From: Superfly TNT
On Aug 7, 11:50 am, "derFah...@gmail.com" <derfah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 7, 12:03 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > This makes Landis' claim of a payoff to the UCI look more credible.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-voices-concerns-on-uci-biologica...
>
> I'm suspicious that cyclingnews is giving you a kickback to link-spam.
.
.
.
Lafferty: Isn't it true that you have used performance enhancing drugs
and or methods? Isn't it true that you are in fact a cyclingnews spy
in this news group?
.
.
.
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 7 2010 1:12 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"
On 8/7/2010 3:57 PM, Superfly TNT wrote:
> On Aug 7, 11:50 am, "derFah...@gmail.com"<derfah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 7, 12:03 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This makes Landis' claim of a payoff to the UCI look more credible.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-voices-concerns-on-uci-biologica...
>>
>> I'm suspicious that cyclingnews is giving you a kickback to link-spam.
>
> .
> .
> .
> Lafferty: Isn't it true that you have used performance enhancing drugs
> and or methods? Isn't it true that you are in fact a cyclingnews spy
> in this news group?
> .
> .
> .
>
No comment.
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 7 2010 1:27 pm
From: Scott
On Aug 7, 2:12 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 8/7/2010 3:57 PM, Superfly TNT wrote:
>
> > On Aug 7, 11:50 am, "derFah...@gmail.com"<derfah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Aug 7, 12:03 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>> This makes Landis' claim of a payoff to the UCI look more credible.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-voices-concerns-on-uci-biologica...
>
> >> I'm suspicious that cyclingnews is giving you a kickback to link-spam.
>
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > Lafferty: Isn't it true that you have used performance enhancing drugs
> > and or methods? Isn't it true that you are in fact a cyclingnews spy
> > in this news group?
> > .
> > .
> > .
>
> No comment.
that's a first
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 7 2010 4:23 pm
From: drmofe
On Aug 8, 4:03 am, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> This makes Landis' claim of a payoff to the UCI look more credible.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-voices-concerns-on-uci-biologica...
You wait until the Liggett/Sherwen connection comes out...
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 7 2010 5:38 pm
From: LawBoy01
On Aug 7, 3:12 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 8/7/2010 3:57 PM, Superfly TNT wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 7, 11:50 am, "derFah...@gmail.com"<derfah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Aug 7, 12:03 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>> This makes Landis' claim of a payoff to the UCI look more credible.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-voices-concerns-on-uci-biologica...
>
> >> I'm suspicious that cyclingnews is giving you a kickback to link-spam.
>
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > Lafferty: Isn't it true that you have used performance enhancing drugs
> > and or methods? Isn't it true that you are in fact a cyclingnews spy
> > in this news group?
> > .
> > .
> > .
>
> No comment.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No post would have been better.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Trek in the News
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/cbf6db71fdc29df0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 7 2010 1:32 pm
From: DirtRoadie
On Aug 6, 5:26 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 8/6/2010 7:15 PM, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
> > "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >news:aNOdnexcpbNd9sHRnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> > : On 8/6/2010 3:59 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > :> "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > :> news:-9CdnWtP7tAm3sHRnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d@giganews.com...
> > :>> http://www.jsonline.com/business/100122104.html
> > :>>
> > :>> Be sure to read the reader comments after the article.
> > :>
> > :> I think this one sums up what many feel quite well-
> > :>
> > :> ==========
> > :> nfcchamp - Aug 06, 2010 12:27 PM
> > :> Speaking of BALCO, what do we hope to get out of this? Another Gerorge
> > :> Mitchell report that gets leaked slowly? Performance enhancing goes on
> > in
> > :> all sports. Cycling and track simply are ahead in their testing due to
> > :> lack of
> > :> player's unions. I *think* the only defrauding argument relates to
> > :> converting Trek bikes into cash to fund the alleged doping program. Not
> > :> sure how winning races defrauds a sponsor - particularly if USPS is
> > getting
> > :> press a full six years after its sponsorship ended. BTW, Eddie was the
> > :> greatest, and it is not even close. But LA brought cycling to the US in
> > a
> > :> way LeMond could not and through his Comeback 2.0, arguably re-
> > :> energized cycling in Europe imho.
> > :> ==========
> > :>
> > :> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> > :> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> > :> www.ChainReaction.com
> > :> Redwood City& Los Altos, CA USA
> > :
> > : This one seems to be indicative of the shifting sentiment towards
> > Armstrong.
> > :
> > : What?
> > : I don't think the Feds would be launching such a vast investigation
> > : unless they had cause. It seems very likely that they are gathering more
> > : information, to use against Lance. I used to think (or want to believe)
> > : that he was innocent- I don't anymore.
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > Sure he was a doper.
>
> > That's still not defrauding USPS. It's the opposite - giving USPS more
> > exposure for the buck by winning.
>
> Well Henry, that's an interesting argument. Sadly, it won't work, but
> you could always run it by Bryan Daly for use in his magnificent public
> relations campaign on Lance's behalf.
>
> > If I was a sponsor, I'd consider it to be more of afraudif the riders were
> > clean, got their ass kicked anonymously, and didn't deliver any sponsorship
> > value in the way of press. I'd want my team to be doping.
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!!! Henry, thanks for the funny. You made my afternoon.
> Carry on, mon petit.
IIRC, the argument made by HC (KG) WAS a factor in the decision in
LA's action against SCA. To summarize, the decision basically said
"Hey, even if LA doped, which has not been established, there's
nothing in the contract that says that LA must win without doping."
Judgment Armstrong.
Please feel free to find a link and prove me wrong.
DR
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 7 2010 2:05 pm
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd
On Aug 7, 12:22 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 8/7/2010 2:27 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>
> > On Aug 7, 8:52 am, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> On 8/6/2010 10:17 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>
> >>> Dumbass,
>
> >>> I'm not going to because I avoid reading the
> >>> comments on newspaper articles. I get all the
> >>> idiots I can stand on Usenet. I don't care if every
> >>> commenter on every newspaper tears up their
> >>> signed photo of LANCE and feeds their Livestrong
> >>> bracelets to the neighbor's beagle. It has absolutely
> >>> no bearing on either LANCE's worth, or the
> >>> likelihood that LANCE is going to Pelican Bay,
> >>> or, God help us all, cleaning up doping in cycling.
> >>> The fact that you care about the balance of
> >>> newspaper comments shifting is a sign that
> >>> you have lost all perspective.
>
> >>> Now, do you care to explain why you think Ochowicz
> >>> is going to be sent up the river, even though he was
> >>> not a principal in either Tailwind or the USPS cycling
> >>> team?
>
> >>> Fredmaster Ben
>
> >> Then don't type stupidities about newspaper reader comments.
>
> > Brian,
>
> > You know that thing you do that makes people
> > not like you and turns them against your cause?
> > You're doing it again.
>
> > Newspaper reader comments are irrelevant.
>
> > If you want to have a substantive conversation about
> > this, you can respond to my skepticism of the
> > fraud argument since it ought to be based on a
> > violation of contract or material misrepresentation
> > (I haven't read the sponsorship agreement and it's
> > possible there is a clause in it that can be cited as
> > evidence for the fraud argument -feel free to point it out).
>
> > Or you can respond to my question, for the third time -
> > why do you keep saying Ochowicz is going up the river
> > when he wasn't a principal in either Tailwind or the
> > USPS team and is probably thus not a party to any
> > fraud even if it's proven? Counselor, if you don't
> > answer this question, you may be held in contempt of rbr.
>
> > Fredmaster Ben
>
> You're the one who made the comment about the specific WI newspaper.
> Give us a link to a newspaper, as I requested, or just admit that your
> initial reply was inane. Thanks.
Counselor,
The court of rbr opinion will note that you are
avoiding the question.
I said that the specific WI newspaper comments are
irrelevant and a sign that you are grasping at straws,
because all newspaper comments are irrelevant.
It would be ridiculous for me to provide a link to a paper
with pro-Armstrong comments, because I believe
that would also be irrelevant.
Now, answer the questions: What contract provisions
underlie the argument that the sponsorship agreement
was negotiated fraudulently?
And why do you keep indicting Ochowicz when this is
the one sleazy thing in all of US cycling that he probably
did not have a stake in?
Fredmaster Ben
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 7 2010 3:37 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"
On 8/7/2010 5:05 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> On Aug 7, 12:22 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 8/7/2010 2:27 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 7, 8:52 am, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> On 8/6/2010 10:17 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>>
>>>>> Dumbass,
>>
>>>>> I'm not going to because I avoid reading the
>>>>> comments on newspaper articles. I get all the
>>>>> idiots I can stand on Usenet. I don't care if every
>>>>> commenter on every newspaper tears up their
>>>>> signed photo of LANCE and feeds their Livestrong
>>>>> bracelets to the neighbor's beagle. It has absolutely
>>>>> no bearing on either LANCE's worth, or the
>>>>> likelihood that LANCE is going to Pelican Bay,
>>>>> or, God help us all, cleaning up doping in cycling.
>>>>> The fact that you care about the balance of
>>>>> newspaper comments shifting is a sign that
>>>>> you have lost all perspective.
>>
>>>>> Now, do you care to explain why you think Ochowicz
>>>>> is going to be sent up the river, even though he was
>>>>> not a principal in either Tailwind or the USPS cycling
>>>>> team?
>>
>>>>> Fredmaster Ben
>>
>>>> Then don't type stupidities about newspaper reader comments.
>>
>>> Brian,
>>
>>> You know that thing you do that makes people
>>> not like you and turns them against your cause?
>>> You're doing it again.
>>
>>> Newspaper reader comments are irrelevant.
>>
>>> If you want to have a substantive conversation about
>>> this, you can respond to my skepticism of the
>>> fraud argument since it ought to be based on a
>>> violation of contract or material misrepresentation
>>> (I haven't read the sponsorship agreement and it's
>>> possible there is a clause in it that can be cited as
>>> evidence for the fraud argument -feel free to point it out).
>>
>>> Or you can respond to my question, for the third time -
>>> why do you keep saying Ochowicz is going up the river
>>> when he wasn't a principal in either Tailwind or the
>>> USPS team and is probably thus not a party to any
>>> fraud even if it's proven? Counselor, if you don't
>>> answer this question, you may be held in contempt of rbr.
>>
>>> Fredmaster Ben
>>
>> You're the one who made the comment about the specific WI newspaper.
>> Give us a link to a newspaper, as I requested, or just admit that your
>> initial reply was inane. Thanks.
>
> Counselor,
>
> The court of rbr opinion will note that you are
> avoiding the question.
>
> I said that the specific WI newspaper comments are
> irrelevant and a sign that you are grasping at straws,
> because all newspaper comments are irrelevant.
> It would be ridiculous for me to provide a link to a paper
> with pro-Armstrong comments, because I believe
> that would also be irrelevant.
>
> Now, answer the questions: What contract provisions
> underlie the argument that the sponsorship agreement
> was negotiated fraudulently?
> And why do you keep indicting Ochowicz when this is
> the one sleazy thing in all of US cycling that he probably
> did not have a stake in?
>
> Fredmaster Ben
Fred, I think you should just sit back and read the indictment when it
comes down and is unsealed.
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 7 2010 5:49 pm
From: "K. Fred Gauss"
Beloved Fred No. 1 wrote:
> On 08/07/10 20:49, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
>> I followed this up with some research and I've figured out what Brian's
>> doing here. I understand why you think "mon petit" is an argumentum ad
>> hominem, but it turns out that the Greeks and Roman's compiled a list of
>> THOUSANDS of logical fallacies. Only a few of these are in common use
>> today. What Brian's actually doing is what the Romans called the "Post
>> hoc ergo talk like Gomez Addams" fallacy which is designed to end an
>> argument by convincing everyone that you're too creepy, kooky,
>> mysterious and spooky to mess with. It was only popular for a couple of
>> years, but has enjoyed brief revivals.
>
> Didn't Nero try that one once upon a time ?
Oui, mon cheri.
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 7 2010 6:22 pm
From: RicodJour
On Aug 7, 2:49 pm, "K. Fred Gauss" <I...@just.dont.know.anymore>
wrote:
>
> I followed this up with some research and I've figured out what Brian's
> doing here. I understand why you think "mon petit" is an argumentum ad
> hominem, but it turns out that the Greeks and Roman's compiled a list of
> THOUSANDS of logical fallacies. Only a few of these are in common use
> today. What Brian's actually doing is what the Romans called the "Post
> hoc ergo talk like Gomez Addams" fallacy which is designed to end an
> argument by convincing everyone that you're too creepy, kooky,
> mysterious and spooky to mess with. It was only popular for a couple of
> years, but has enjoyed brief revivals.
And left Barry in the Lurch.
R
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 7 2010 8:00 pm
From: LawBoy01
On Aug 7, 5:37 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 8/7/2010 5:05 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 7, 12:22 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> On 8/7/2010 2:27 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>
> >>> On Aug 7, 8:52 am, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 8/6/2010 10:17 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>
> >>>>> Dumbass,
>
> >>>>> I'm not going to because I avoid reading the
> >>>>> comments on newspaper articles. I get all the
> >>>>> idiots I can stand on Usenet. I don't care if every
> >>>>> commenter on every newspaper tears up their
> >>>>> signed photo of LANCE and feeds their Livestrong
> >>>>> bracelets to the neighbor's beagle. It has absolutely
> >>>>> no bearing on either LANCE's worth, or the
> >>>>> likelihood that LANCE is going to Pelican Bay,
> >>>>> or, God help us all, cleaning up doping in cycling.
> >>>>> The fact that you care about the balance of
> >>>>> newspaper comments shifting is a sign that
> >>>>> you have lost all perspective.
>
> >>>>> Now, do you care to explain why you think Ochowicz
> >>>>> is going to be sent up the river, even though he was
> >>>>> not a principal in either Tailwind or the USPS cycling
> >>>>> team?
>
> >>>>> Fredmaster Ben
>
> >>>> Then don't type stupidities about newspaper reader comments.
>
> >>> Brian,
>
> >>> You know that thing you do that makes people
> >>> not like you and turns them against your cause?
> >>> You're doing it again.
>
> >>> Newspaper reader comments are irrelevant.
>
> >>> If you want to have a substantive conversation about
> >>> this, you can respond to my skepticism of the
> >>> fraud argument since it ought to be based on a
> >>> violation of contract or material misrepresentation
> >>> (I haven't read the sponsorship agreement and it's
> >>> possible there is a clause in it that can be cited as
> >>> evidence for the fraud argument -feel free to point it out).
>
> >>> Or you can respond to my question, for the third time -
> >>> why do you keep saying Ochowicz is going up the river
> >>> when he wasn't a principal in either Tailwind or the
> >>> USPS team and is probably thus not a party to any
> >>> fraud even if it's proven? Counselor, if you don't
> >>> answer this question, you may be held in contempt of rbr.
>
> >>> Fredmaster Ben
>
> >> You're the one who made the comment about the specific WI newspaper.
> >> Give us a link to a newspaper, as I requested, or just admit that your
> >> initial reply was inane. Thanks.
>
> > Counselor,
>
> > The court of rbr opinion will note that you are
> > avoiding the question.
>
> > I said that the specific WI newspaper comments are
> > irrelevant and a sign that you are grasping at straws,
> > because all newspaper comments are irrelevant.
> > It would be ridiculous for me to provide a link to a paper
> > with pro-Armstrong comments, because I believe
> > that would also be irrelevant.
>
> > Now, answer the questions: What contract provisions
> > underlie the argument that the sponsorship agreement
> > was negotiated fraudulently?
> > And why do you keep indicting Ochowicz when this is
> > the one sleazy thing in all of US cycling that he probably
> > did not have a stake in?
>
> > Fredmaster Ben
>
> Fred, I think you should just sit back and read the indictment when it
> comes down and is unsealed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Brian is a pussy. He can't answer the question.
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 7 2010 8:23 pm
From: RicodJour
On Aug 7, 3:09 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>
> > Assuming a jury trial, which assumes a Grand Jury indicts, I don't see a
> > conviction. True that Novitsky is trying to build a case that's "not about
> > doping." But to believe that a jury will follow the rule of law instead of
> > ask "Does this makes sense?" is ludirous. I was on a jury in pretty much
> > that exact same situation. We had no doubt the guy was guilty, but what the
> > prosecutor was trying to do was simply wrong, and we actively looked for
> > (and found) a way in which "reasonable doubt" would get the guy off.
> > Basically, the arresting officers really didn't seem to have their heart in
> > it, it was obvious they'd picked this guy up for something entirely
> > unrelated, yada yada yada.
>
> > A total waste of taxpayer $$$ and juror's time.
>
> No it is not. Rethink it.
> Or I will explain it to you.
Yes it is too. USPS is either a government entity or it's not. You
can't have it both ways. Any lawsuit or prosecution that relies on
the qualifier 'quasi-governmental' should be thrown out as frivolous.
The government, or any 'quasi-governmental' agency, should not be
sponsoring any sports beyond the grade school level, as all sports
involve doping. If they want to advertise, fucking advertise. They
shouldn't try to leverage the advertising dollars and then call
backsies.
They took down Al Capone because for tax evasion because they couldn't
make anything else stick. They _knew_ they had to get him, so they
used what they could. It was hardly the most heinous of his crimes.
Unfortunately, using the 'quasi-governmental' and potential RICO
(thank you very much) statue against doping in sports is so far beyond
ludicrous it's not even funny. The fucking guy wearing the pants with
the blue stripes down the side in the post office mail room, selling a
little weed on the side, would then also qualify for the RICO thing.
It's absurd.
R
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 7 2010 8:59 pm
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd
On Aug 7, 8:23 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 7, 3:09 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>
> > > Assuming a jury trial, which assumes a Grand Jury indicts, I don't see a
> > > conviction. True that Novitsky is trying to build a case that's "not about
> > > doping." But to believe that a jury will follow the rule of law instead of
> > > ask "Does this makes sense?" is ludirous. I was on a jury in pretty much
> > > that exact same situation. We had no doubt the guy was guilty, but what the
> > > prosecutor was trying to do was simply wrong, and we actively looked for
> > > (and found) a way in which "reasonable doubt" would get the guy off.
> > > Basically, the arresting officers really didn't seem to have their heart in
> > > it, it was obvious they'd picked this guy up for something entirely
> > > unrelated, yada yada yada.
>
> > > A total waste of taxpayer $$$ and juror's time.
>
> > No it is not. Rethink it.
> > Or I will explain it to you.
>
> Yes it is too. USPS is either a government entity or it's not. You
> can't have it both ways. Any lawsuit or prosecution that relies on
> the qualifier 'quasi-governmental' should be thrown out as frivolous.
>
> The government, or any 'quasi-governmental' agency, should not be
> sponsoring any sports beyond the grade school level, as all sports
> involve doping. If they want to advertise, fucking advertise. They
> shouldn't try to leverage the advertising dollars and then call
> backsies.
I think what Press meant is that Mike J serving
on a jury that threw out a seemingly improper
prosecution, was not a waste of the jury's time.
You can argue semantically about whether the
prosecution wasted the jury's time by bringing
the case in the first place (which is what Mike J
meant) but basically I agree with Press. We have
an adversarial justice system and juries as
arbiters, and terrible as trial by a jury of your peers
is, it's far superior to the alternatives.
As to the whole USPS thing, I suspect
quasi-governmental has an actual legal meaning,
but who cares. Even fully-governmental agencies
sponsor sporting events, unless all those Army and
Marines ads I see are for private armies. The main
issue is that "the government" is not monolithic.
It is not calling backsies. Somebody at USPS
negotiated a sponsorship, and somebody at the
US Attorney's office is exploring bringing charges
related to that, completely unprompted by the USPS,
which isn't "pressing charges." You can bet that
whoever at USPS was in charge of the sponsorship
negotiations will get dragged in front of the grand jury
and is not happy about it.
Prosecutors prosecute. It is what they do. That is one
reason why we have juries. Sometimes, when the
offense is something nebulous like conspiracy or
"theft of honest services," it seems quite bogus. Whether
you think that is the only way to nail perps who cleverly
cover their tracks or is a prosecutorial trick to jail people
when they can't be convicted of an underlying crime,
depends on whose foot the boot is on.
As I previously stated, and asked Lafferty to clarify, this
whole fraud charge is going to depend on what the
contract actually says and the representations that
were made during negotiations (which might be
"We're 100% clean" or "We're 100% clean", wink-wink).
It's entirely possible it will never be brought. One thing
prosecutions do is leak their potential charges to
scare witnesses into testifying and maybe turning up
solid evidence. (Leaking prosecution strategy, unlike
leaking grand jury testimony, is perfectly legal.)
Fredmaster Ben
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Perfect casual wear for Fattie Masters
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/b9119d6af12c21f6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 7 2010 2:44 pm
From: Plano Dude
http://www.hincapie.com/products/menswear/denim/?product=RJN-PRMJ08&type=1
Nice price point and 1% lycra so they will still fit after your 10
mile/2 hour chamois time ride to Starbux for a 500 calorie foo-foo
coffee drink and two 500 calorie zucchini walnut muffins.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 7 2010 6:24 pm
From: RicodJour
On Aug 7, 5:44 pm, Plano Dude <tx.wastel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.hincapie.com/products/menswear/denim/?product=RJN-PRMJ08&t...
>
> Nice price point and 1% lycra so they will still fit after your 10
> mile/2 hour chamois time ride to Starbux for a 500 calorie foo-foo
> coffee drink and two 500 calorie zucchini walnut muffins.
$145 for jeans...? Who the fuck does he think he is, Michael Ball?
R
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 7 2010 8:43 pm
From: Plano Dude
On Aug 7, 8:24 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 7, 5:44 pm, Plano Dude <tx.wastel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.hincapie.com/products/menswear/denim/?product=RJN-PRMJ08&t...
>
> > Nice price point and 1% lycra so they will still fit after your 10
> > mile/2 hour chamois time ride to Starbux for a 500 calorie foo-foo
> > coffee drink and two 500 calorie zucchini walnut muffins.
>
> $145 for jeans...? Who the fuck does he think he is, Michael Ball?
>
> R
What else are you going to wear when you shop for your Cervelo P4?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Dutch culture?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/471cb84e05ba8fb2?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 7 2010 2:56 pm
From: Plano Dude
http://vampirefreaks.com/playvideo/?v=114311
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Online Polls--Armstrong Doped
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/ac639448c62d7dd0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 7 2010 6:32 pm
From: RicodJour
On Aug 6, 3:47 am, "Kurgan Gringioni" <soulinthemach...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> : You don't know shit about my credibility in the legal world, RICO.
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Your legal analysis skills are awful. They're completely subjective. A good
> lawyer is objective, will look at all the strengths/weaknesses of a
> position, ignores the fluff. Before going to trial the objectivity helps in
> developing awareness for what the opposition may present. In contrast, you
> grasp at every straw, no matter how weak. That, combined with your lack of
> likeability, puts you into the shallow end of the bell curve, on the wrong
> side.
I have a confession to make. Today I met the son of some woman having
a yard sale - he was a lawyer, and, well, I made a lawyer jape, and I
could see it actually pained the guy. I felt bad, and made a self-
deprecating joke in way of an apology, and we started talking. We
basically agreed that there are two types of people that become
lawyers - those that like to argue and want to get paid for it, and
those that want to help people put their best foot forward in a
negotiation.
Barry is most obviously of the first persuasion - you know, an
asshole. So, kids, please don't follow my lead in lumping all lawyers
into that category. Lawyers are people, too. 'cepting Barry.
R
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 7 2010 8:32 pm
From: DirtRoadie
On Aug 7, 7:32 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 6, 3:47 am, "Kurgan Gringioni" <soulinthemach...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> > : You don't know shit about my credibility in the legal world, RICO.
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > Your legal analysis skills are awful. They're completely subjective. A good
> > lawyer is objective, will look at all the strengths/weaknesses of a
> > position, ignores the fluff. Before going to trial the objectivity helps in
> > developing awareness for what the opposition may present. In contrast, you
> > grasp at every straw, no matter how weak. That, combined with your lack of
> > likeability, puts you into the shallow end of the bell curve, on the wrong
> > side.
>
> I have a confession to make. Today I met the son of some woman having
> a yard sale - he was a lawyer, and, well, I made a lawyer jape, and I
> could see it actually pained the guy. I felt bad, and made a self-
> deprecating joke in way of an apology, and we started talking. We
> basically agreed that there are two types of people that become
> lawyers - those that like to argue and want to get paid for it, and
> those that want to help people put their best foot forward in a
> negotiation.
>
> Barry is most obviously of the first persuasion - you know, an
> asshole. So, kids, please don't follow my lead in lumping all lawyers
> into that category. Lawyers are people, too. 'cepting Barry.
Well put. Let me add - your two types can similarly be divided into
those who SEEK conflict and those who seek resolutions. Your
conclusion remains valid.
DR
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pauline
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/204ae4d0b76bb459?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 7 2010 6:34 pm
From: RicodJour
On Aug 7, 1:30 pm, Steven Bornfeld <bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com>
wrote:
> On 8/7/2010 12:24 AM, RicodJour wrote:
>
> > Check out number 2003, Steve. I think it's up your alley.
> >http://55tools.blogspot.com/2010/08/set-348.html#answers
>
>
> I was thinking it was a piece of plumbing ductwork but then I see from
> the grain of the wood that this is probably what it says it is--
> Thanks for posting!
You're welcome, doc. I always wondered why dentists had ten
fingers. ;)
R
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Road Racing Demographics
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/cde3f8c1e33c6cb0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 7 2010 8:31 pm
From: Fred Flintstein
I apologize for busting in on the LANCE=doping circle
jerk. This is stuff that I found interesting and thought
others might also.
What sort of started it all was the realization that
bicycle ownership was near universal among my kid's
friends. But that none of them, flat zero none, owned a
road bike.
I've been involved in racing a long time. I think just
about every older rider will tell you that the peloton
didn't used to look the way it does today. In the early
1980s I remember being in a race at Superweek and being
surprised at seeing Eric Heiden's dad there. Not so much
that it was a celebrity's dad, more that it was anyone's
dad. I wasn't used to seeing guys his age in the regular
categorized rider's race. At the time he was one of the
top Veteran class riders in the country, and a former
Veteran's national champion. This was a time when they
only gave out one champion's jersey for the old guys.
Not like today where Masters champion jerseys are
delivered by a semi. But it was very unusual to see
someone old enough to be my dad in the race.
The Grandview Firehouse 50 is a useful race to look at in
this respect. It's an age graded race and it has data
going back years. It's a citizen race, and quite a large
one. The top riders are always among the best regional
USCF/USAC road riders.
This is what the top 125 at Firehouse looked like in 1992.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kondrag/4865056984/sizes/o/in/photostream/
There is an element of apples to oranges in any comparison
across years. Originally there was a single road race. Time
trials were added, and later a shorter loop was run. In 1992
there was still a single road race and the time trials were
still quite small events. There were 793(!) recorded racers.
But still, it isn't like TTs are flooded with younger riders
these days. If anything it is the opposite, older riders are
more likely to gravitate to individual start events. So in
terms of age proportions, I think comparisons are pretty
valid.
So in 1992 we see a leading group that is mostly in their 20s
and 30s, with older riders in a distinct minority. To put
numbers to it, I count 23 riders older than 40. And of those
only two are 50+.
Contrast that to this year's race...
http://www.itiming.com/raceresults/647-fh50-ovl10.pdf
The shorter race and the TTs have bled off some entries,
leaving 373 riders. So the top 125 reaches deeper into the
total than it did in 1992. But if you look at the TT and
Fantasy 50 (the shorter race) results, it is difficult to
make the case that the age proportions are any different
as a result.
At any rate, in the early 80s it was unusual for me to look
over in a race and see someone that I could picture as my
dad. In 2010, that's the majority position. 55% of the top
125 are 40+, an age where they could be the winner's father.
Where we had only two 50+ riders in that group in 1992 we
now have 26 in 2010. In 128th place we have our first 60+
rider, a guy that could conceivably be the winner's
grandfather.
Like I said, I found this interesting. I think anyone
marketing a race would be interested as well. Now you guys
can go back to the Lafferty reach around.
Fred FLintstein
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 7 2010 9:27 pm
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd
On Aug 7, 8:31 pm, Fred Flintstein <bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net>
wrote:
>
> At any rate, in the early 80s it was unusual for me to look
> over in a race and see someone that I could picture as my
> dad. In 2010, that's the majority position. 55% of the top
> 125 are 40+, an age where they could be the winner's father.
> Where we had only two 50+ riders in that group in 1992 we
> now have 26 in 2010. In 128th place we have our first 60+
> rider, a guy that could conceivably be the winner's
> grandfather.
>
> Like I said, I found this interesting. I think anyone
> marketing a race would be interested as well. Now you guys
> can go back to the Lafferty reach around.
So I guess there are several questions. Apart
from the idea that now we know why Masters champion
jersey have to be ordered by the gross - because that's
where the customers are.
One is whether this means that more old farts are racing
longer while the number of 20-something racers is
more or less constant. Or is it that fewer 20-somethings
are racing? On the one hand, I suspect that the 20-something
or just "open" race categories fill up in popular races in
your area - this seems more or less true in most places.
On the other hand, you'd think if there were more good
20-somethings, they could keep some of the old farts
out of the top 40 or so places.
I was going to look at the Tour de Tucson results to see
if they were useful in some way, but they only started listing
ages in 2000. Before that they tagged the 50+ riders, and
maybe one could look at how many riders in the top N
were 50+. On the other hand it only goes back to 1997
and the 1997 winner was Kent Bostick (not yet 50+) so
good luck figuring out a trend from that.
There is yet another issue which is figuring out if some
of the riders in the 90s and early 2000s were diverted
into MTBing.
FredMASTER Ben
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 7 2010 9:28 pm
From: Plano Dude
On Aug 7, 10:31 pm, Fred Flintstein <bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net>
wrote:
> I apologize for busting in on the LANCE=doping circle
> jerk. This is stuff that I found interesting and thought
> others might also.
>
> What sort of started it all was the realization that
> bicycle ownership was near universal among my kid's
> friends. But that none of them, flat zero none, owned a
> road bike.
>
> I've been involved in racing a long time. I think just
> about every older rider will tell you that the peloton
> didn't used to look the way it does today. In the early
> 1980s I remember being in a race at Superweek and being
> surprised at seeing Eric Heiden's dad there. Not so much
> that it was a celebrity's dad, more that it was anyone's
> dad. I wasn't used to seeing guys his age in the regular
> categorized rider's race. At the time he was one of the
> top Veteran class riders in the country, and a former
> Veteran's national champion. This was a time when they
> only gave out one champion's jersey for the old guys.
> Not like today where Masters champion jerseys are
> delivered by a semi. But it was very unusual to see
> someone old enough to be my dad in the race.
>
> The Grandview Firehouse 50 is a useful race to look at in
> this respect. It's an age graded race and it has data
> going back years. It's a citizen race, and quite a large
> one. The top riders are always among the best regional
> USCF/USAC road riders.
>
> This is what the top 125 at Firehouse looked like in 1992.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/kondrag/4865056984/sizes/o/in/photostream/
>
> There is an element of apples to oranges in any comparison
> across years. Originally there was a single road race. Time
> trials were added, and later a shorter loop was run. In 1992
> there was still a single road race and the time trials were
> still quite small events. There were 793(!) recorded racers.
> But still, it isn't like TTs are flooded with younger riders
> these days. If anything it is the opposite, older riders are
> more likely to gravitate to individual start events. So in
> terms of age proportions, I think comparisons are pretty
> valid.
>
> So in 1992 we see a leading group that is mostly in their 20s
> and 30s, with older riders in a distinct minority. To put
> numbers to it, I count 23 riders older than 40. And of those
> only two are 50+.
>
> Contrast that to this year's race...
>
> http://www.itiming.com/raceresults/647-fh50-ovl10.pdf
>
> The shorter race and the TTs have bled off some entries,
> leaving 373 riders. So the top 125 reaches deeper into the
> total than it did in 1992. But if you look at the TT and
> Fantasy 50 (the shorter race) results, it is difficult to
> make the case that the age proportions are any different
> as a result.
>
> At any rate, in the early 80s it was unusual for me to look
> over in a race and see someone that I could picture as my
> dad. In 2010, that's the majority position. 55% of the top
> 125 are 40+, an age where they could be the winner's father.
> Where we had only two 50+ riders in that group in 1992 we
> now have 26 in 2010. In 128th place we have our first 60+
> rider, a guy that could conceivably be the winner's
> grandfather.
>
> Like I said, I found this interesting. I think anyone
> marketing a race would be interested as well. Now you guys
> can go back to the Lafferty reach around.
>
> Fred FLintstein
But we don't know how that compares to other sport-for-life events
like running or golf to see how those numbers have changed across the
board. There are old people's professional tours for golf and tennis
that likely didn't exist 20 years ago.
==============================================================================
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
Posts
