http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing?hl=en
rec.bicycles.racing@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* I'm posting this before Brian??? - 10 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/51e769a57e4aaad1?hl=en
* Dr. Verner Moeller, meet Dr. Eddy Coyle - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/0c38e2cb3701806c?hl=en
* Phil Zajicek popped by USADA - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/1d0cec660ec75bf1?hl=en
* I was going to credit magilla but lafferty used it first ---- years ago - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/a0cff593a03b9548?hl=en
* Group etiquette overtaking slower riders - 6 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/0bcf6bb0a45b0785?hl=en
* Betsy Keeps Pulling Lance's Short Hairs - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/81a68b53649f59c1?hl=en
* Liz Hatch Update - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/b22282539666f9b9?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: I'm posting this before Brian???
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/51e769a57e4aaad1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 14 2010 5:11 pm
From: "Mike Jacoubowsky"
My apologies; Cyclingnews didn't say the site had been "hacked" but rather
"hijacked" and that, in fact, is an appropriate description.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 14 2010 5:13 pm
From: BLafferty
On 9/14/2010 8:11 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> My apologies; Cyclingnews didn't say the site had been "hacked" but
> rather "hijacked" and that, in fact, is an appropriate description.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
And this is news? Must be a really slow day at CyclingNews central.
== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 14 2010 6:26 pm
From: "Mike Jacoubowsky"
"BLafferty" <Brian@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:jO-dnXlW_vxakg3RnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 9/14/2010 8:11 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> My apologies; Cyclingnews didn't say the site had been "hacked" but
>> rather "hijacked" and that, in fact, is an appropriate description.
>>
>> --Mike Jacoubowsky
>> Chain Reaction Bicycles
>> www.ChainReaction.com
>> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> And this is news? Must be a really slow day at CyclingNews central.
Brian: Serious question. Do you think the motivations of those putting up
that site are genuine, that they could be so naive that they wouldn't expect
the comments they've gotten? That seems pretty unlikely to me. I don't even
allow unmoderated comments on my own site, and I certainly wouldn't attract
the audience this one does.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 14 2010 6:34 pm
From: LawBoy01
On Sep 14, 8:26 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
wrote:
> "BLafferty" <Br...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> news:jO-dnXlW_vxakg3RnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> > On 9/14/2010 8:11 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >> My apologies; Cyclingnews didn't say the site had been "hacked" but
> >> rather "hijacked" and that, in fact, is an appropriate description.
>
> >> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> >> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> >>www.ChainReaction.com
> >> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> > And this is news? Must be a really slow day at CyclingNews central.
>
> Brian: Serious question. Do you think the motivations of those putting up
> that site are genuine, that they could be so naive that they wouldn't expect
> the comments they've gotten? That seems pretty unlikely to me. I don't even
> allow unmoderated comments on my own site, and I certainly wouldn't attract
> the audience this one does.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Brian doesn't like serious questions that challenge his view of the
world.
== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 14 2010 6:37 pm
From: "derFahrer@gmail.com"
On Sep 14, 8:13 pm, BLafferty <Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> And this is news? Must be a really slow day at CyclingNews central.
I am literally rolling on the floor laughing
== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 14 2010 6:43 pm
From: Anton Berlin
I tried to post but it's moderated now
*****************************************************************************************************************
It's a shame to lose one of our best customers. We have no idea what
to do with all of this EPO now that you've quit riding.
Sneaky Fox and Pepsi Frank
PS: give us call when you need that new kidney. We know all of the
drugs have been hard on your organs.
== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 14 2010 6:51 pm
From: LawBoy01
On Sep 14, 8:43 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I tried to post but it's moderated now
>
> *****************************************************************************************************************
>
> It's a shame to lose one of our best customers. We have no idea what
> to do with all of this EPO now that you've quit riding.
>
> Sneaky Fox and Pepsi Frank
>
> PS: give us call when you need that new kidney. We know all of the
> drugs have been hard on your organs.
Are you confessing to being a troll?
== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 14 2010 7:45 pm
From: "H. Fred Kveck"
In article <fa6d3699-9e83-4bb4-95a3-1d8890c6a0f4@e20g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
"derFahrer@gmail.com" <derfahrer@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 14, 8:13 pm, BLafferty <Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> > And this is news? Must be a really slow day at CyclingNews central.
>
> I am literally rolling on the floor laughing
This must be one of those "laughing at, not laughing with" situations.
== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 14 2010 8:46 pm
From: Brad Anders
On Sep 14, 6:43 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I tried to post but it's moderated now
>
> *****************************************************************************************************************
>
> It's a shame to lose one of our best customers. We have no idea what
> to do with all of this EPO now that you've quit riding.
>
> Sneaky Fox and Pepsi Frank
>
> PS: give us call when you need that new kidney. We know all of the
> drugs have been hard on your organs.
Bastards. Mine didn't go through, either.
Brad Anders
== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 14 2010 8:49 pm
From: Brad Anders
On Sep 14, 4:52 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
wrote:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-support-website-faces...
> regarding this site-http://www.lancesupport.org/blog/messages-of-support.htmlwhich apparently
> allows un-moderated comments. That's hardly the definition of a site being
> "hacked" though. Cyclingnews doesn't quite seem to be all-there lately.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Jesus, the "badges" area makes me want to retch. Looks like something
Landis would have done.
Brad Anders
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Dr. Verner Moeller, meet Dr. Eddy Coyle
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/0c38e2cb3701806c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 14 2010 5:12 pm
From: BLafferty
On 9/14/2010 4:56 PM, LawBoy01 wrote:
> On Sep 14, 2:59 pm, BLafferty<Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 9/14/2010 3:30 PM, LawBoy01 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 14, 12:39 pm, BLafferty<Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/14/2010 1:28 PM, LawBoy01 wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Sep 14, 12:12 pm, BLafferty<Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/14/2010 1:01 PM, LawBoy01 wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 14, 11:56 am, LawBoy01<phi...@pwm-law.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sep 14, 11:31 am, Magilla Gorilla<m.gori...@sandiegozoo.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> LawBoy01 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 13, 9:27 pm, Magilla Gorilla<m.gori...@sandiegozoo.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Just because a jury of GEDs didn't find him
>>>>>>>>>>> guilty doesn't mean Jack to me.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> And some "anonymous" fuckwit's hate filled diatribe doesn't mean
>>>>>>>>>> anything to Lance.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Lance hates people who expose him for doping. He calls their employer
>>>>>>>>> and tries to get them fired. Is that the hate you're talking about?
>>
>>>>>>>>> Magilla
>>
>>>>>>>> Also, why can't I ever find an article where Frankie says "Fuck you,
>>>>>>>> Lance. You got me fired?" Do you expect Frankie to testify to that
>>>>>>>> in court?
>>
>>>>>>> Ever wonder WHY you don't hear Frankie say that? Maybe because he
>>>>>>> could get sued for libel/slander. Oh, why did Frankie get fired from
>>>>>>> Rock Racing? Surely not because he has a moral objection to doping.
>>
>>>>>> Do you really think Armstrong is going to sue anyone in this country for
>>>>>> defamation? Frankie has already testified that he heard Armstrong admit
>>>>>> that he was a doper. He's stated publicly that he had doping
>>>>>> discussions with Armstrong while training. Has Armstrong sued him? No.
>>>>>> Why? Because the last thing Armstrong wants is Betsy guiding Frankie
>>>>>> through discovery in litigation.
>>
>>>>>> Don't you have a complaint to draft in a PI action?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>> Why doesn't Frankie come out and say hey Lance, you got me fired!
>>
>>>> Why should he? It's not in his interest to do that right now.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> Why isn't it in his interests?
>>
>> You're a "lawyer." Try to figure it out on your own.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Brian,
>
> You're a washed up has been hater with nothing to do but jackoff and
> play chess.
>
> Ciao,
>
> Philip
What's wrong with jacking off and playing chess--not at the same time of
course, unless it involves correspondence chess in which case you have
to be careful to not have the post cards sticking together.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 14 2010 5:46 pm
From: LawBoy01
On Sep 14, 7:12 pm, BLafferty <Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 9/14/2010 4:56 PM, LawBoy01 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 14, 2:59 pm, BLafferty<Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> On 9/14/2010 3:30 PM, LawBoy01 wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 14, 12:39 pm, BLafferty<Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 9/14/2010 1:28 PM, LawBoy01 wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Sep 14, 12:12 pm, BLafferty<Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/14/2010 1:01 PM, LawBoy01 wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Sep 14, 11:56 am, LawBoy01<phi...@pwm-law.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sep 14, 11:31 am, Magilla Gorilla<m.gori...@sandiegozoo.org>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> LawBoy01 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Sep 13, 9:27 pm, Magilla Gorilla<m.gori...@sandiegozoo.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Just because a jury of GEDs didn't find him
> >>>>>>>>>>> guilty doesn't mean Jack to me.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> And some "anonymous" fuckwit's hate filled diatribe doesn't mean
> >>>>>>>>>> anything to Lance.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Lance hates people who expose him for doping. He calls their employer
> >>>>>>>>> and tries to get them fired. Is that the hate you're talking about?
>
> >>>>>>>>> Magilla
>
> >>>>>>>> Also, why can't I ever find an article where Frankie says "Fuck you,
> >>>>>>>> Lance. You got me fired?" Do you expect Frankie to testify to that
> >>>>>>>> in court?
>
> >>>>>>> Ever wonder WHY you don't hear Frankie say that? Maybe because he
> >>>>>>> could get sued for libel/slander. Oh, why did Frankie get fired from
> >>>>>>> Rock Racing? Surely not because he has a moral objection to doping.
>
> >>>>>> Do you really think Armstrong is going to sue anyone in this country for
> >>>>>> defamation? Frankie has already testified that he heard Armstrong admit
> >>>>>> that he was a doper. He's stated publicly that he had doping
> >>>>>> discussions with Armstrong while training. Has Armstrong sued him? No.
> >>>>>> Why? Because the last thing Armstrong wants is Betsy guiding Frankie
> >>>>>> through discovery in litigation.
>
> >>>>>> Don't you have a complaint to draft in a PI action?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>>>> Why doesn't Frankie come out and say hey Lance, you got me fired!
>
> >>>> Why should he? It's not in his interest to do that right now.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>> Why isn't it in his interests?
>
> >> You're a "lawyer." Try to figure it out on your own.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Brian,
>
> > You're a washed up has been hater with nothing to do but jackoff and
> > play chess.
>
> > Ciao,
>
> > Philip
>
> What's wrong with jacking off and playing chess--not at the same time of
> course, unless it involves correspondence chess in which case you have
> to be careful to not have the post cards sticking together.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
That was funny. Really, it was.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 14 2010 7:12 pm
From: LawBoy01
On Sep 14, 2:07 pm, Magilla Gorilla <m.gori...@sandiegozoo.org> wrote:
> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> > "Magilla Gorilla" <m.gori...@sandiegozoo.org> wrote in message
> >news:4C8FA37A.9AEFB2EE@sandiegozoo.org...
> > : LawBoy01 wrote:
> > :
> > : > On Sep 13, 9:27 pm, Magilla Gorilla <m.gori...@sandiegozoo.org> wrote:
> > : > >Just because a jury of GEDs didn't find him
> > : > > guilty doesn't mean Jack to me.
> > : >
> > : > And some "anonymous" fuckwit's hate filled diatribe doesn't mean
> > : > anything to Lance.
> > :
> > : Lance hates people who expose him for doping. He calls their employer
> > : and tries to get them fired. Is that the hate you're talking about?
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > If I was LANCE, I'd try to get Frankie fired.
>
> > Dude was having a conversation with his doctor while on his deathbed.
> > Shouldn't be repeating that shit. Frankie was there because ostensibly he
> > was supposed to be his friend.
>
> > thanks,
>
> > Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
>
> I agree with you. But the question is would you perjure yourself under
> oath?
>
> And the real question is would you perjure yourself to protect an EX-friend
> who you also didn't like?
>
> Magilla- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Magilla,
Please explain in your own words what Frankie and Betsy have to say
hurts Lance in the case in which he's been sued by Floyd Landis?
-Philip
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Phil Zajicek popped by USADA
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/1d0cec660ec75bf1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 14 2010 6:25 pm
From: coterock
Did Velonews interview you for an article?
> I know for a fact it's Phil Z. You'll see an official article about it
> soon. Real soon.
>
> Magilla
==============================================================================
TOPIC: I was going to credit magilla but lafferty used it first ---- years ago
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/a0cff593a03b9548?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 14 2010 6:51 pm
From: Anton Berlin
Pharmstrong
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Group etiquette overtaking slower riders
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/0bcf6bb0a45b0785?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 14 2010 7:01 pm
From: "derFahrer@gmail.com"
On Sep 14, 1:53 pm, Marco <marco.fanell...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Here's what happened on one of our local group rides recently:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPRkJPHWPz4
The Cliff Bar wrapper blowing away is awesome. That's like something
out of a Euro art film.
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 14 2010 8:10 pm
From: --D-y
On Sep 14, 4:43 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
wrote:
> Impressive that rbr, when asked a serious question that many of us deal with
> on a regular basis, can really get behind it in a serious way. Thank you all
> for the thoughtful responses, and reminding me why I don't do large group
> rides anymore.
>
> For the slower folk complaining about being scared when overtaken by a large
> group of cyclists, I'm suggesting they use ding-ding bells. I'm thinking the
> sound carries a fair amount and might warn people who can't see them (before
> it's too late) that there's something ahead to watch out for.
>
> In the past, I've always assumed the ding-ding bells were to let others know
> you were passing them, but I'm seeing things a bit differently now. It's
> that last half of a large group that you have to be scared of.
People in front need to point (up high) and vocalize-- "Riders Up!!!"
and swing wide in a safe manner while calling out "Passing on your
left, please!.
The people in the back need to keep their heads up and ears open, and
pass other riders with plenty of room to spare, not treat them like
pylons.
Ride like a grown-up, including taking responsibility for others'
safety.
--D-y
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 14 2010 8:55 pm
From: Fred
On Sep 14, 11:53 am, Marco <marco.fanell...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > We're seeing an increase in animosity between cyclists and
> > motorists/residents in our area, and now, faster cyclists vs slower.
> > Something that recently came up is that, when a very large fast-moving pack
> > overtakes a slower rider, and the lead part of the pack does a great job of
> > giving the slower folk room, but by the time the rear of the group comes
> > around, the message (hand signals, "rider up", whatever) has been lost, and
> > the slower folk sometimes get clipped or feel like they're being run off the
> > road.
>
> > I'd guess that a pack of 25 riders or less doesn't have this issue; it's the
> > really large groups where this is more likely to happen. Any ride leaders
> > out there with solutions to this (other than the r.b.r-standard that slower
> > folk should get off the friggin road)?
>
> Here's what happened on one of our local group rides recently:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPRkJPHWPz4
>
> Although it's not exactly your scenario, it shows what can happen.
> None of the injuries were too serious ....this time.
You should find whichever dumbass who was the first person to pass
that guy on the right, and whoop his ass. If everyone had passed on
the left, you probably wouldn't have crashed. At least the guy you
ran into tried to do the right thing by holding his line while
everyone swarmed around him.
Fred
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 14 2010 9:11 pm
From: DirtRoadie
On Sep 14, 9:10 pm, --D-y <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Sep 14, 4:43 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Impressive that rbr, when asked a serious question that many of us deal with
> > on a regular basis, can really get behind it in a serious way. Thank you all
> > for the thoughtful responses, and reminding me why I don't do large group
> > rides anymore.
>
> > For the slower folk complaining about being scared when overtaken by a large
> > group of cyclists, I'm suggesting they use ding-ding bells. I'm thinking the
> > sound carries a fair amount and might warn people who can't see them (before
> > it's too late) that there's something ahead to watch out for.
>
> > In the past, I've always assumed the ding-ding bells were to let others know
> > you were passing them, but I'm seeing things a bit differently now. It's
> > that last half of a large group that you have to be scared of.
>
> People in front need to point (up high) and vocalize-- "Riders Up!!!"
> and swing wide in a safe manner while calling out "Passing on your
> left, please!.
> The people in the back need to keep their heads up and ears open, and
> pass other riders with plenty of room to spare, not treat them like
> pylons.
>
> Ride like a grown-up, including taking responsibility for others'
> safety.
Nothing you have said is inaccurate but it does not fully reflect on
"real world" group riding. Verbal commands, warnings, instructions,
etc. often do not reach the back of the group or do not get there in a
timely manner. At 25-30 mph a rider at the front may not even be
heard by a rider just a few places back. At best that may mean
several relays of info to reach the back. A second at 30 mph is 44
feet. At worst the riders in the back NEVER get the info. Happens all
the time. We all have our vision of what we want other riders to do
and how the group should "behave." And I don't think any halfway
serious rider wants a fixed-paced, half-assed processional with
somebody, however well intentioned, barking orders (been there, done
that). Part of the enjoyment is the dynamic, the constantly changing
nature of the group, the changes in pace while maintaining flow,
working cooperatively but challenging and pushing each other.
Sometimes its nice to be able to converse with someone you have not
seen since last week.month, sometimes it fun to beat up on them,
knowing full well they are trying to do the same to you (and wishing
them well if they succeed.) It's a group effort, but it's individual
as well.
To my way of thinking (which also fails to take into account the
realities above) every rider needs to be dialed into that fact that
it's a group ride and maintain the mantra "_I_ need to make this a
better GROUP ride." A good ride is safe, it's fun, it's spirited and
it's cooperative and probably competitive. And that is probably about
the proper order of priority.
Maybe that''s what you were saying.
Now how to accomplish this? In my experience It's good to have some
guidance at the beginning of the ride "OK Here's the plan for the
ride..." And of course this is often immediately falls by the
wayside.
But a debriefing AFTER a ride can be very helpful too. This may even
be the following week. "Last week we had an incident where ____
crossed a double yellow line to pass everyone on the ____ descent and
there was an oncoming car. We need to avoid behavior like that both
because it's dangerous and it makes us look bad as a group."
I guess what I am describing is simply reinforcement of those
behaviors (group and individual) we want to perpetuate and
disincentives for those we want to discourage.
Quite frankly I have NO interest whatsoever in riding with a group
that does not have some basic communication mechanism, ideally
before, during and after a ride.
That's my fantasy perfect world and as close-to-perfect-as-I-can-hope-
for group ride.
DR
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 14 2010 9:23 pm
From: Brad Anders
Excellent observation on the whole "rider up" thing. There have been
accidents on the Palo Alto Noon Ride in the past where a group of 50+
is approaching a 40 mph sprint point, and they overtake a rider.
Anyone who believes that there's any way to control that situation
from the front is kidding themselves. IMO, a group of 50+ going over
30 mph is pretty much unmanageable, and while 99% of the time you get
lucky, it's that 1% that everyone remembers.
Brad Anders
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 14 2010 10:17 pm
From: DirtRoadie
On Sep 14, 10:23 pm, Brad Anders <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Excellent observation on the whole "rider up" thing. There have been
> accidents on the Palo Alto Noon Ride in the past where a group of 50+
> is approaching a 40 mph sprint point, and they overtake a rider.
> Anyone who believes that there's any way to control that situation
> from the front is kidding themselves. IMO, a group of 50+ going over
> 30 mph is pretty much unmanageable, and while 99% of the time you get
> lucky, it's that 1% that everyone remembers.
>
> Brad Anders
To add a simple point. My ideal group size is probably 12 or so.
I have a number of reasons I base this on.
A group of 12 can fly and is large enough so that someone who
primarily wishes to "sit in" can do so. There is likely to be a much
more even division of "work." In too large or small a group the pace
may be much faster (or slower, but probably faster ) than any
individual is really seeking. With the "Goldilocks" group (just right)
an individual can play a signifcant part in defining group pace
without necessarily controlling it. In a smaller group an individual
can control it, sometimes to the detriment of others.
Much bigger and a group becomes a "pack" independent of any of the
individuals involved.
In a group of mostly well matched riders, a dropped rider can often
regain the group.
In a spirited group of 25 it's usually "sayonara."
In a group of 12 it's easy to know who's there. I know I have been
well into rides with much larger groups when I did the "Hey Joe! I
didn't know you were here tonight."
In a large group any individual rider might never see the front for an
entire ride. What fun is that?
Anyhow that's just more of my wishful thinking out loud for the
perfect group in my perfect world.
DR
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Betsy Keeps Pulling Lance's Short Hairs
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/81a68b53649f59c1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 14 2010 9:00 pm
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd
On Sep 14, 9:15 am, mtb Dad <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> Looks like they have some inspectors doing the right things:
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tainted_eggs
>
> "Donations" to the UCI should be included in the category of 'doper
> lobby'. And how about McQuaid getting the nod as Verbruggen's
> appointed heir? Or clean docs like the Prentice getting shown the
> door? Or no chaperones in the Tour until 2 years ago? In 08 TV crews
> caught riders cyclocrossing across fields to avoid the first
> chaperones. And penalties with teeth? Steroids got you a 10 minutes
> penalty in the tour, when all other sports had 2 year suspension.
This doesn't even rise to the level of an argument.
The complaint Brad and I and others are making is that
having the _Federal Government_ go after Dopestrong for
last decade's EPO use, USPS contract, and SCA testimony
(the SCA case never should have been brought since there
was no anti-dope clause in SCA's insurance contract)
is a waste of _Federal_ resources that should be applied
to something the FDA rightly regulates.
Your comment about Dopestrong donating money to the UCI
is completely beside the point. If the UCI wants to be lenient
or tough on dopers, that is cycling's internal business.
The food-factory lobby influences Congress. The doper lobby,
such as it is, only influences McQuaid. I don't really expect or
need McQuaid to look out for the safety of the egg-buying,
amateur-racing public. Or to OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN.
Doping is not a significantly greater moral issue than throwing
spitballs in baseball, tackling with your head in football, or
excessively hard checks into the boards in hockey.
All of these are sporting fouls and should be penalized with
sporting penalties. Having the government investigate them
as crimes is a waste of government resources and risks
criminalizing sporting rivalries.
It used to be that steroids got you a 10 minute penalty in
the Tour, and other sports may have had a longer suspension -
but how many athletes ever got that long suspension, unless
they were super high profile busts like Ben Johnson?
Do you think soccer players are all clean as whistles?
Cycling now has much stiffer penalties than 10 minutes,
and doping hasn't decreased. So why do you think that
yet stiffer penalties are going to finally turn the tide on
doping? Listening to anti-dope crusaders is like hearing
Westmoreland talk about body counts. At least Lafferty
has given up on the anti-dope pretense - he just wants
to see Armstrong rot in prison, and after that we can all be
see-no-evil monkeys.
Fredmaster Ben
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 14 2010 9:17 pm
From: Brad Anders
On Sep 14, 9:00 pm, Fredmaster of Brainerd <bjwei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 14, 9:15 am, mtb Dad <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Looks like they have some inspectors doing the right things:
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tainted_eggs
>
> > "Donations" to the UCI should be included in the category of 'doper
> > lobby'. And how about McQuaid getting the nod as Verbruggen's
> > appointed heir? Or clean docs like the Prentice getting shown the
> > door? Or no chaperones in the Tour until 2 years ago? In 08 TV crews
> > caught riders cyclocrossing across fields to avoid the first
> > chaperones. And penalties with teeth? Steroids got you a 10 minutes
> > penalty in the tour, when all other sports had 2 year suspension.
>
> This doesn't even rise to the level of an argument.
>
> The complaint Brad and I and others are making is that
> having the _Federal Government_ go after Dopestrong for
> last decade's EPO use, USPS contract, and SCA testimony
> (the SCA case never should have been brought since there
> was no anti-dope clause in SCA's insurance contract)
> is a waste of _Federal_ resources that should be applied
> to something the FDA rightly regulates.
>
> Your comment about Dopestrong donating money to the UCI
> is completely beside the point. If the UCI wants to be lenient
> or tough on dopers, that is cycling's internal business.
> The food-factory lobby influences Congress. The doper lobby,
> such as it is, only influences McQuaid. I don't really expect or
> need McQuaid to look out for the safety of the egg-buying,
> amateur-racing public. Or to OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN.
>
> Doping is not a significantly greater moral issue than throwing
> spitballs in baseball, tackling with your head in football, or
> excessively hard checks into the boards in hockey.
> All of these are sporting fouls and should be penalized with
> sporting penalties. Having the government investigate them
> as crimes is a waste of government resources and risks
> criminalizing sporting rivalries.
>
> It used to be that steroids got you a 10 minute penalty in
> the Tour, and other sports may have had a longer suspension -
> but how many athletes ever got that long suspension, unless
> they were super high profile busts like Ben Johnson?
> Do you think soccer players are all clean as whistles?
> Cycling now has much stiffer penalties than 10 minutes,
> and doping hasn't decreased. So why do you think that
> yet stiffer penalties are going to finally turn the tide on
> doping? Listening to anti-dope crusaders is like hearing
> Westmoreland talk about body counts. At least Lafferty
> has given up on the anti-dope pretense - he just wants
> to see Armstrong rot in prison, and after that we can all be
> see-no-evil monkeys.
>
> Fredmaster Ben
+1.
re: your 10 minute penalty comment: that's EXACTLY what we need to do
for doping offenses. IMO, the draconian 2-year penalty allows the
doper to disappear, and re-emerge (a la Vino) somewhat anew. Screw
that. Kill 'em for 10 min and make them finish the event to keep their
pro license. Hell, even better, in the GT's, make them wear the "dope
jersey" for the rest of the event, so that fans know who to hurl eggs
at.
Probably a 10X more effective penalty.
Brad Anders
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 14 2010 9:43 pm
From: Chester Drawers
In article <db914146-b903-4927-bcf6-3d66e201b31e@g6g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Brad Anders <pbanders@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 14, 9:00 pm, Fredmaster of Brainerd <bjwei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 14, 9:15 am, mtb Dad <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Looks like they have some inspectors doing the right things:
> > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tainted_eggs
> >
> > > "Donations" to the UCI should be included in the category of 'doper
> > > lobby'. And how about McQuaid getting the nod as Verbruggen's
> > > appointed heir? Or clean docs like the Prentice getting shown the
> > > door? Or no chaperones in the Tour until 2 years ago? In 08 TV crews
> > > caught riders cyclocrossing across fields to avoid the first
> > > chaperones. And penalties with teeth? Steroids got you a 10 minutes
> > > penalty in the tour, when all other sports had 2 year suspension.
> >
> > This doesn't even rise to the level of an argument.
> >
> > The complaint Brad and I and others are making is that
> > having the _Federal Government_ go after Dopestrong for
> > last decade's EPO use, USPS contract, and SCA testimony
> > (the SCA case never should have been brought since there
> > was no anti-dope clause in SCA's insurance contract)
> > is a waste of _Federal_ resources that should be applied
> > to something the FDA rightly regulates.
> >
> > Your comment about Dopestrong donating money to the UCI
> > is completely beside the point. If the UCI wants to be lenient
> > or tough on dopers, that is cycling's internal business.
> > The food-factory lobby influences Congress. The doper lobby,
> > such as it is, only influences McQuaid. I don't really expect or
> > need McQuaid to look out for the safety of the egg-buying,
> > amateur-racing public. Or to OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN.
> >
> > Doping is not a significantly greater moral issue than throwing
> > spitballs in baseball, tackling with your head in football, or
> > excessively hard checks into the boards in hockey.
> > All of these are sporting fouls and should be penalized with
> > sporting penalties. Having the government investigate them
> > as crimes is a waste of government resources and risks
> > criminalizing sporting rivalries.
> >
> > It used to be that steroids got you a 10 minute penalty in
> > the Tour, and other sports may have had a longer suspension -
> > but how many athletes ever got that long suspension, unless
> > they were super high profile busts like Ben Johnson?
> > Do you think soccer players are all clean as whistles?
> > Cycling now has much stiffer penalties than 10 minutes,
> > and doping hasn't decreased. So why do you think that
> > yet stiffer penalties are going to finally turn the tide on
> > doping? Listening to anti-dope crusaders is like hearing
> > Westmoreland talk about body counts. At least Lafferty
> > has given up on the anti-dope pretense - he just wants
> > to see Armstrong rot in prison, and after that we can all be
> > see-no-evil monkeys.
> >
> > Fredmaster Ben
>
> +1.
Ben's on a roll, as usual.
> re: your 10 minute penalty comment: that's EXACTLY what we need to do
> for doping offenses. IMO, the draconian 2-year penalty allows the
> doper to disappear, and re-emerge (a la Vino) somewhat anew. Screw
> that. Kill 'em for 10 min and make them finish the event to keep their
> pro license. Hell, even better, in the GT's, make them wear the "dope
> jersey" for the rest of the event, so that fans know who to hurl eggs
> at.
In some ways, making a rider that got caught wear a "doper's jersey" is bordering
on the kind of thinking that had people in stocks back when. But you know, it has a
certain appeal right now. I think you're absolutely right about the present long
suspensions actually allowing a rider to do a form of PR in that the public generally
will have forgotten what he'd done two years prior.
>
> Probably a 10X more effective penalty.
>
> Brad Anders
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Liz Hatch Update
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/b22282539666f9b9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 14 2010 11:25 pm
From: Jute Andre
.
.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC9Avxpgax0&feature=youtu.be
.
.
.
This is what she's all about.
.
.
.
==============================================================================
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
