Saturday, October 2, 2010

rec.bicycles.racing - 25 new messages in 11 topics - digest

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

rec.bicycles.racing@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Looks like Lim perjured himself today - 5 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/4ec5a58e9b036147?hl=en
* Why not a shadow at a GT? - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/643d029a54806970?hl=en
* Contador says he probably should have informed Riis earlier - 2 messages, 2
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/2f26137be3699750?hl=en
* Why did the Contador dope story come out ? - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/e8e52c6aa8a7a445?hl=en
* jersey question - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/703d5561a48305ae?hl=en
* Lance Armstrong releases theme song - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/f54eb3792382e3cc?hl=en
* McQuaid comes out from under his rock... - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/2696859d9e50f3db?hl=en
* tied for Bronze - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/3e37b2f517b22fa1?hl=en
* Which would you choose? Which would Bruce choose? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/2b0e1926fc380faf?hl=en
* Worlds On Now! - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/9fbebdac92974eaf?hl=en
* RIP RAAM Fred #1 - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/ee308000b422299d?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Looks like Lim perjured himself today
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/4ec5a58e9b036147?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Oct 1 2010 7:30 pm
From: LawBoy01


On Oct 1, 8:46 pm, BLafferty <Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 10/1/2010 8:08 PM, LawBoy01 wrote:
>
> > Brian Chokesoncock cannot understand why witnesses aren't agreeing to
> > his pre-conceived version of events.  What a surprise!
>
> Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us, LawGirl.

Your welcome, Brian Chokesoncock


== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 2 2010 7:49 am
From: Fred Flintstein


BLafferty wrote:
> Quite a counterpoint to McIlvain's attorney who told us the essence of
> her testimony.
>
> If witnesses keep coming in to commit perjury, the witnesses not knowing
> what evidence the Grand Jury has in hand to contradict them, I see a
> very upset US Attorney taking action against a number of them. This is
> going to be a fun show. Pour a glass of wine and fasten your seat belt.

McIlvain won't go down for perjury. Neither will Lim.

No one will. Not a single person. Grow some nuts and
stop hedging. Two years from now I'll be able to point
to this to show that I was right. And I'll be able to
show that not only are you repeatedly wrong but you're
pretty craven about it too.

Fred Flintstein


== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 2 2010 11:58 am
From: "Mike Jacoubowsky"


"Fred Fredburger" <I@just.dont.know.anymore> wrote in message
news:4ca690e7@news.x-privat.org...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> "Anton Berlin" <truth_88888@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:fc9abee7-2599-4001-be5c-a254c8317c2a@a19g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 30, 8:10 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sep 30, 8:39 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I think you have it wrong Mike - Landis has no incentive to lie or
>>> > embellish. These guys do.
>>>
>>> No incentive...? Revenge does not have to be directed at someone that
>>> actually caused someone harm. They just have to feel wronged. Then
>>> they tell themselves that they are A-venging, and put on their Thor
>>> jammies when they go to bed.
>>>
>>> R
>> ========
>> If you and Mike are right about Landis I hope the fucker sits right
>> next to Armstrong even then I think Landis has good counsel and has
>> been advised not to embellish or distort. And as a newly reformed
>> liar he's probably following that to the best of his ability.
>>
>> Even if Landis pulls a long sentence on perjury - Armstrong will still
>> be a doper.
>> ========
>>
>> Have we all conveniently forgotten this little gem from the now-truthful
>> Floyd?
>>
>> "As for his own positive test, Landis still maintains that result was
>> inaccurate and that he had not used synthetic testosterone during the
>> 2006 season -- although he now admits he used human growth hormone during
>> that time. At this point, he said he does not want to dwell on any of the
>> issues he and his lawyers hammered at during his case."
>>
>> http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5203604 on May 21st,
>> 2010. After he "came clean" and reformed.
>>
>> Simple question. Do you believe Floyd is telling the truth about not
>> taking testosterone during the TdF in the same way you feel Lance is
>> lying about riding clean?
>
> That was well done!

Thanks. The problem is that it may have been too well done, which kills any
response. You're better off laying a trap and holding something back for the
kill.

To tell you the truth, I was flabbergasted (a word I doubt I've ever used in
print before) that Floyd still maintains he was innocent regarding the
testosterone at the 'Tour. I agree that the testing methodology was flawed,
and that he should have been let off on technicalities. But, like with OJ,
we know he did it. If Floyd hadn't surrounded himself with some seriously
bad people, I think it likely he would have prevailed. And somehow, becuase
he should have prevailed on technicalities or whatever, he's able to
rationalize to himself that he didn't do it. As I've said, he can't help
himself. I know people like that.

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

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 2 2010 12:05 pm
From: "Mike Jacoubowsky"


"Fred Flintstein" <bob.schwartz@sbcREMOVEglobal.net> wrote in message
news:w9mdncwCsKDn2zrRnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> BLafferty wrote:
>> Quite a counterpoint to McIlvain's attorney who told us the essence of
>> her testimony.
>>
>> If witnesses keep coming in to commit perjury, the witnesses not knowing
>> what evidence the Grand Jury has in hand to contradict them, I see a very
>> upset US Attorney taking action against a number of them. This is going
>> to be a fun show. Pour a glass of wine and fasten your seat belt.
>
> McIlvain won't go down for perjury. Neither will Lim.
>
> No one will. Not a single person. Grow some nuts and
> stop hedging. Two years from now I'll be able to point
> to this to show that I was right. And I'll be able to
> show that not only are you repeatedly wrong but you're
> pretty craven about it too.
>
> Fred Flintstein

Two weeks ago I was thinking Brian was right. Momentum really seemed to be
building. But now, I agree, I don't think anyone's going down on perjury
charges.

Of course, people will make the argument that we're saying this based on
knowing very little about what's gone on behind closed doors. Not much
different than the anti-Lance folk who know everything based on what they've
"heard" or read or just simply know. Everyone looks at what little
information is at hand and believes that which supports their own
pre-existing belief and discounts that which doesn't.

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

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 2 2010 12:06 pm
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd


On Oct 1, 1:31 pm, BLafferty <Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> This is going to be a fun show.
> Pour a glass of wine and fasten your seat belt.

I recognize that the failure-to-materialize of a parade
of witnesses eager to denounce Pharmstrong has
you depressed, but don't you think drinking and
driving is an inappropriate response on a cycling
newsgroup?

Fredmaster Ben

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why not a shadow at a GT?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/643d029a54806970?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 2 2010 1:16 am
From: "Beloved Fred No. 1"


Fred Fredburger wrote:
> You believe that embedding reporters with units in Iraq lead to truthful
> reporting?

More like suck-up ass-licking reporting.


== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 2 2010 6:40 am
From: RicodJour


On Oct 1, 9:51 pm, Fred Fredburger <I...@just.dont.know.anymore>
wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
> > On Oct 1, 6:46 pm, Fred <fred.gar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I think you have misconstrued what Mike was saying.  I believe he is
> > talking about having a reporter embedded with the team during a GT -
> > similar to what happens with some army units in Iraq.  
>
> You believe that embedding reporters with units in Iraq lead to truthful
> reporting?

Do you believe that drug testing leads to clean races?
Do you believe that any reporter, anywhere, at any time in history,
has been totally unbiased?
Do you believe that marriage prevents infidelity - that a ring plugs a
hole?

You're asking a silly question. Please re-read my post you are
replying to - nowhere did I mention guarantees. It's kind of like
life...there are none.

R


== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 2 2010 6:44 am
From: RicodJour


On Oct 2, 4:16 am, "Beloved Fred No. 1" <n...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> Fred Fredburger wrote:
> > You believe that embedding reporters with units in Iraq lead to truthful
> > reporting?
>
> More like suck-up ass-licking reporting.

Well, I guess it's a good thing then that we're talking about
entertainment - cycling, and not Iraq, huh?

BTW, when you're embedded with anyone that has massive amounts of
weaponry, where people die all of the time, it's really pretty smart
to suck up to people. The ass licking is probably just recreation.

R

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Contador says he probably should have informed Riis earlier
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/2f26137be3699750?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 2 2010 6:20 am
From: TheCoz


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contador-says-he-probably-should-have-informed-riis-earlier

Why are the owner's of team not informed of testings? I mean, they do
OWN the team. I understand that testing is done un-announced but after
the testing, the doping agency should inform the owner's that it was
done. Surely if the agency wants to help control doping, any actions
taken should be passed on to the team owners, doctors and even
coaches.
Coz


== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 2 2010 11:58 am
From: Keith


On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 06:20:33 -0700 (PDT), TheCoz
<cycledogg@hotmail.com> wrote:

>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contador-says-he-probably-should-have-informed-riis-earlier
>
>Why are the owner's of team not informed of testings? I mean, they do
>OWN the team. I understand that testing is done un-announced but after
>the testing, the doping agency should inform the owner's that it was
>done. Surely if the agency wants to help control doping, any actions
>taken should be passed on to the team owners, doctors and even
>coaches.
>Coz


Wow, Mr 60% must have blown a gasket when he heard the news!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why did the Contador dope story come out ?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/e8e52c6aa8a7a445?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 2 2010 7:47 am
From: Bart

Why didn't UCI go chat with Fuyu Li about what he had on his plate?

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 2 2010 12:04 pm
From: Iris Postler


On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:54:32 -0700, Keith <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>Has anyone seen a good explanation for that?
>
>Everyone, like doping experts Bruyneel , Millar and Vaughters, are all
>crying crocodile tears because the story came out until all the facts
>are known, but they are since A and B are positive...anyway, isn't it
>Alberto's "clan" that went public?
>
>I guess there might have been leaks as German papers are saying that
>the UCI refused to confirm the news earlier this week.
>
>Damage control I guess...too bad
German television was going to go public with the story (the UCI still
denied it), they had heard lots of rumours, so the UCI went first


== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 2 2010 12:33 pm
From: Keith


On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 21:04:26 +0200, Iris Postler
<t.postler@t-online.de> wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:54:32 -0700, Keith <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Has anyone seen a good explanation for that?
>>
>>Everyone, like doping experts Bruyneel , Millar and Vaughters, are all
>>crying crocodile tears because the story came out until all the facts
>>are known, but they are since A and B are positive...anyway, isn't it
>>Alberto's "clan" that went public?
>>
>>I guess there might have been leaks as German papers are saying that
>>the UCI refused to confirm the news earlier this week.
>>
>>Damage control I guess...too bad
>German television was going to go public with the story (the UCI still
>denied it), they had heard lots of rumours, so the UCI went first

Makes sense, thanks. If it had been up to McQuaid, it would have been
swept under the carpet.


== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 2 2010 4:28 pm
From: "Mike Jacoubowsky"


"Keith" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:o62fa6ldjes700t9j6vuhcgahta9ubo4mk@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 21:04:26 +0200, Iris Postler
> <t.postler@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:54:32 -0700, Keith <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Has anyone seen a good explanation for that?
>>>
>>>Everyone, like doping experts Bruyneel , Millar and Vaughters, are all
>>>crying crocodile tears because the story came out until all the facts
>>>are known, but they are since A and B are positive...anyway, isn't it
>>>Alberto's "clan" that went public?
>>>
>>>I guess there might have been leaks as German papers are saying that
>>>the UCI refused to confirm the news earlier this week.
>>>
>>>Damage control I guess...too bad
>>German television was going to go public with the story (the UCI still
>>denied it), they had heard lots of rumours, so the UCI went first
>
> Makes sense, thanks. If it had been up to McQuaid, it would have been
> swept under the carpet.

Not so sure of that anymore. Even a drunken Irishman can tell which way the
wind is blowing from. Think of Louie from Casablanca. McQuaid's going to
find a way to ride this new horse and try and make it sound like he invented
anti-doping efforts.

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


==============================================================================
TOPIC: jersey question
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/703d5561a48305ae?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 2 2010 7:56 am
From: Fred Flintstein


RicodJour wrote:
> On Oct 1, 9:24 pm, Dear Crabby <crabbycycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 22, 7:18 am, Cicero Venatio <jazzyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Has there ever been a case where a cycling Superman jersey was made or
>>> is for sale today? I'd like to make a statement here locally, as I've
>>> been feeling rather strong lately.
>> Try this kit!!
>>
>> http://goo.gl/Lfz2
>
> Even cycling pacifists would stick a pump in your spokes if you wore
> that get up.
>
> R

If it came in XXXL they'd sell more.

Fred Flintstein

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Lance Armstrong releases theme song
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/f54eb3792382e3cc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 2 2010 8:22 am
From: BLafferty


On 10/1/2010 10:24 PM, LawBoy01 wrote:
> On Oct 1, 8:48 pm, BLafferty<Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 10/1/2010 8:06 PM, LawBoy01 wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 1, 11:49 am, BLafferty<Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/30/2010 9:37 PM, LawBoy01 wrote:> On Sep 30, 7:33 pm, Anton Berlin<truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sWzA24lqHI&feature=related
>>
>>>>> Yawn.
>>
>>>> Which of those guys looked most like your grandfather?
>>
>>> Brian,
>>
>>> Your mother could pee while standing up.
>>
>>> -Philip
>>
>> FuckTard, ALL women CAN pee while standing up. Try again, LawGirl.
>
> Not while holding a dick, like your mom.

FuckTard, we all knew what you were *trying* to communicate. I hope you
do a better job or communicating for the few clients that you have.


== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 2 2010 10:05 am
From: LawBoy01


On Oct 2, 10:22 am, BLafferty <Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 10/1/2010 10:24 PM, LawBoy01 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 1, 8:48 pm, BLafferty<Br...@nowhere.com>  wrote:
> >> On 10/1/2010 8:06 PM, LawBoy01 wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 1, 11:49 am, BLafferty<Br...@nowhere.com>    wrote:
> >>>> On 9/30/2010 9:37 PM, LawBoy01 wrote:>    On Sep 30, 7:33 pm, Anton Berlin<truth_88...@yahoo.com>      wrote:
> >>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sWzA24lqHI&feature=related
>
> >>>>> Yawn.
>
> >>>> Which of those guys looked most like your grandfather?
>
> >>> Brian,
>
> >>> Your mother could pee while standing up.
>
> >>> -Philip
>
> >> FuckTard, ALL women CAN pee while standing up.  Try again, LawGirl.
>
> > Not while holding a dick, like your mom.
>
> FuckTard, we all knew what you were *trying* to communicate.  I hope you
> do a better job or communicating for the few clients that you have.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You hurt my tender little feelings, Brian.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: McQuaid comes out from under his rock...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/2696859d9e50f3db?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 2 2010 11:59 am
From: Keith


...where he was apparently living, yes there is a problem in
Spain...er wait, where did Operation Puerto come from...never mind.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-criticises-spanish-government?cid=OTC-RSS&amp;attr=news_headlines


== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 2 2010 4:56 pm
From: "Mike Jacoubowsky"


"Keith" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:j60fa65v4fnlfqltlt4lg5j726qikhdu8j@4ax.com...
> ...where he was apparently living, yes there is a problem in
> Spain...er wait, where did Operation Puerto come from...never mind.
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-criticises-spanish-government?cid=OTC-RSS&amp;attr=news_headlines

McQuaid's throwing Contador under the bus. I think we're seeing a message
here, an extreme resentment of Contador's attempts to manipulate the UCI by
trying to take control of the dissemination of information regarding the
behind-the-scenes stuff, making it appear that the UCI is working with him
to prove his innocence. Contador went too far, and McQuaid realized this
could end very badly if he was on the wrong side.

For now, McQuaid doesn't criticize Contador directly, but you'd have to be
pretty stupid not to read between the lines.

How could Riis be so disconnected that he had no idea any of this was going
down???

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


==============================================================================
TOPIC: tied for Bronze
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/3e37b2f517b22fa1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 2 2010 1:11 pm
From: --D-y


I found this refreshing. Only thing I minded was "Phinney Sneaks Into
Bronze". I mean, it sounds like they had a well-contested sprint and
there was a tie for third. Whatever, the headline isn't official, and
this placing might go against Anolexia Grewal's assertion that "twenty
years from now no one will remember how you did it".

An important result for the career, and he's an American. Bravo!
--Chauvinisky

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Which would you choose? Which would Bruce choose?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/2b0e1926fc380faf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 2 2010 2:20 pm
From: ronaldo_jeremiah


http://tinyurl.com/24quy8q

-rj

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Worlds On Now!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/9fbebdac92974eaf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 2 2010 4:46 pm
From: Jute Andre


http://www.fromsport.com/v-0/6/102/v-70343.html


== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 2 2010 5:28 pm
From: Fred Flintstein


On 10/2/2010 6:46 PM, Jute Andre wrote:
> http://www.fromsport.com/v-0/6/102/v-70343.html

I hope Worlds never goes back to Australia. One of
the cool things about Euro coverage is the helicopter
shots of interesting architecture. Not gonna get that
this year.

Fred Flintstein

==============================================================================
TOPIC: RIP RAAM Fred #1
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/ee308000b422299d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 2 2010 5:03 pm
From: Steven Bornfeld


On 9/30/2010 7:40 PM, Steve Freides wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> I wrote:
>
>>> I wonder if anyone has tried to train sleep deprivation, e.g.,
>>> gradually lengthening their work day past 24 hours, or doing
>>> something like alternating a week of only a few hours sleep with a
>>> week of unrestricted sleep. I imagine - and it's only a guess - that
>>> one could become at least somewhat acclimated to this, but I really
>>> don't know.
>>>
>>> -S-
>>
>> I assume that serious RAAMers do "train" for sleep deprivation if only
>> to mentally prepare for the effects.
>
> I'm not so sure - nor am I suggesting it's an effective strategy, but I
> haven't heard about it being done at all.
>
>> Isolation experiments have demonstrated that the natural body clock
>> will do things like lengthen out to 36-hour "days," but that's with a
>> proportionate amount of the "day" still devoted to sleep.
>>
>> "Somewhat acclimated" is probably right, and the Wikipedia article on
>> sleep deprivation is interesting throughout:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation#Impairment_of_ability
>
> That article still doesn't mention what I have in mind. If you'll allow
> an example of another body system, eating and insulin response. Most
> people who eat several times per day feel lousy if they miss a meal,
> even lousier if they miss two in a single day. But there are thousand
> of people who practice one form or another of intermittent fasting,
> e.g., there's a program that recommends, for purposes of weight loss
> primarily, a 24-hour fast done twice a week.

Most authorities recommend smaller, more frequent meals. This is for
health, not performance. Obviously if you are fasting, a lot depends
upon your level of activity.
If you are fasting and active, you train your body to use fat. Long
ago, when endurance athletes started carbo loading, I tried it before I
planned to do my first century ride. At this point you did this by
carbohydrate depletion for several days while staying active, and then
carbo loaded before your event. This was not fun. It's also not safe
for anyone with abnormal glucose tolerance. So yes, you can demonstrate
how fasting coupled with long-steady endurance training will "teach" the
muscles to burn more fat, esp. when the glycogen is gone.
I doubt very much that sleep is understood anywhere near as well as
carbohydrate or fat metabolism. But besides the obvious safety risks of
enforced sleep deprivation, I've never heard of sleep deprivation being
something you can "train".
Maybe I'm wrong. But I think it's more like trying to train your body
to do better tolerating dehydration. I don't think that works either.

Steve

>
> Further, there are people - the Bragg family, about whom I know because
> I read a book by one of them - routinely eat nothing but slightly
> flavored water for three days at a time, sometimes even as long a week
> or more.
>
> So, what I'm asking is if one could, e.g., try something like staying up
> for 24 hours, twice a week, and eventually adapt to it, to the point
> where, like a short bike ride can be training for a longer one, those
> 24-hour awake episodes become "normal" enough that going for a bit
> longer wouldn't be nearly as difficult as it otherwise might be.
>
> If anyone is aware of such a thing having been tried and/or studies, I'd
> love to know about it.
>
> No, I'm not planning on doing RAAM - I abhor participating endurance
> events, but I am curious about this since the not eating often thing is
> actually what I do almost every day and it works great for me. I eat
> only one meal per day at dinner - the rest of the day I might have just
> water, coffee and/or tea, and maybe a 100 calorie chewie bar at 4 PM or
> something along those lines if I'm feeling hungry. Google "Warrior
> Diet" or "Eat Stop Eat" or "Intermittent Fasting" to read more about
> this approach to eating.
>
>> Solo RAAM is a pretty bizarre event. "Some racers do hallucinate and
>> this can make for some entertaining stories." Entertaining? Really?
>> Hallucinating while riding on public roads? It would be even less
>> funny if they were driving a car, but at least the risk to non-
>> participants is pretty low.
>>
>> Indeed, given the hazards of the World Sleep-Deprivation-on-a-Bike
>> Championships, I'm a little surprised there haven't been more
>> accidents. I daresay the high DNF rate tells a tale.
>
> Yes, I agree it's a weird event, but so is Paris-Brest-Paris, and so are
> a lot of other, similar events involving bicycles.
>
> -S-
>
>

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 2 2010 5:43 pm
From: "Steve Freides"


Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> On 9/30/2010 7:40 PM, Steve Freides wrote:
>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>>
>> I wrote:
>>
>>>> I wonder if anyone has tried to train sleep deprivation, e.g.,
>>>> gradually lengthening their work day past 24 hours, or doing
>>>> something like alternating a week of only a few hours sleep with a
>>>> week of unrestricted sleep. I imagine - and it's only a guess -
>>>> that one could become at least somewhat acclimated to this, but I
>>>> really don't know.
>>>>
>>>> -S-
>>>
>>> I assume that serious RAAMers do "train" for sleep deprivation if
>>> only to mentally prepare for the effects.
>>
>> I'm not so sure - nor am I suggesting it's an effective strategy,
>> but I haven't heard about it being done at all.
>>
>>> Isolation experiments have demonstrated that the natural body clock
>>> will do things like lengthen out to 36-hour "days," but that's with
>>> a proportionate amount of the "day" still devoted to sleep.
>>>
>>> "Somewhat acclimated" is probably right, and the Wikipedia article
>>> on sleep deprivation is interesting throughout:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation#Impairment_of_ability
>>
>> That article still doesn't mention what I have in mind. If you'll
>> allow an example of another body system, eating and insulin
>> response. Most people who eat several times per day feel lousy if
>> they miss a meal, even lousier if they miss two in a single day. But
>> there are thousand of people who practice one form or another of
>> intermittent fasting, e.g., there's a program that recommends, for
>> purposes of weight loss primarily, a 24-hour fast done twice a week.
>
> Most authorities recommend smaller, more frequent meals. This is for
> health, not performance.

The same thing could be said about running shoes - a highly technical
shoe that protects the foot is, at least 10 years ago, what most experts
were recommending. Fortunately, barefoot running is making a comeback.
Our insulin response system is absolutely trainable, and for one's
health, one ought to train it.

> Obviously if you are fasting, a lot depends
> upon your level of activity.
>
> If you are fasting and active, you train your body to use fat. Long
> ago, when endurance athletes started carbo loading, I tried it before
> I planned to do my first century ride. At this point you did this by
> carbohydrate depletion for several days while staying active, and then
> carbo loaded before your event. This was not fun. It's also not safe
> for anyone with abnormal glucose tolerance. So yes, you can
> demonstrate how fasting coupled with long-steady endurance training
> will "teach" the muscles to burn more fat, esp. when the glycogen is
> gone.

What I do, and the many, many others who practice some form of what I
call cyclic eating do, isn't carb loading or anything like that. I have
learned to embrace eating what I need, not what I want, and learning to
need less. I look at it very much like weight lifting - if you put 300
lbs. in front of me before I started weight lifting and asked me to pick
it up, either the weight wouldn't move, I'd have ended up in the
hospital, or both. But now, it's no problem, and practicing it keeps me
strong. Same thing with intermittent fasting and its various
permutations.

> I doubt very much that sleep is understood anywhere near as well as
> carbohydrate or fat metabolism. But besides the obvious safety risks
> of enforced sleep deprivation, I've never heard of sleep deprivation
> being something you can "train".
>
> Maybe I'm wrong. But I think it's more like trying to train your body
> to do better tolerating dehydration. I don't think that works either.

I don't know about dehyrdration - the mind is such an important of any
physical performance, and we certainly can get used to functioning in a
state of less than perfect hydration, but whether or not we physically
adapt in some way isn't something I know anything about. Ditto sleep
deprivation, but I am curious, which is why I think it ought to be
studied. The food thing has been well studied, but no one like to talk
about it because it doesn't serve anyone's financial interests. In
animal studies, alternating periods of 24 hours of no food with 24 hour
periods of unlimited caloric intake resulted in more muscle and less
fat. I humbly offer myself as but one example of this working in human
beings, too.

I highly recommend the book "Consistent Winning" which talks about the
cyclic nature of human beings.

-S-


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

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.bicycles.racing"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.bicycles.racing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

[socialactionfoundationforequity:7049 Creation, Human and Satan in Islam

Buzz It
Blatant fallacies in the Islamic description of creation, human and Satan. In
Hindi and English.

http://agniveer.com/956/islam-creation-human-and-satan/
in Hindi and English

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

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

[socialactionfoundationforequity:7049 CAPT GLEN AROZA RELEASED INNOCENT 02 Oct 2010, Errors in Jurisdiction and Admissibility of Evidence, Hualien District Court, Order dt 26 March 2010 in Case No. 8 of Chung-Su-Tze, 2009 (M.T. TOSA)

Buzz It

Capt Glen Aroza and his crew were released earlier yesterday and while his crew members arrived in Bangladesh/ Phillipines a few hours back, he will land on Indian territory early morning 3 Oct 2010, after an incarceration of 18 months in Taiwan.
 
The High Court in Taiwan aquitted the mariners. NYK paid compensation to the families of fishermen who lost their lives in April 2009 after the Court reduced the amount of compensation sought by the prosecutor.
 
I can now release the letter written to the President of Taiwan establishing that the mariners were illegally detained breaching all international norms.
 
While one can understand lack of response from President of Taiwan, the lack of response from President of India, Prime Minister of India and Minister of Shipping is shameful given that an assurance was made on the floor of Parliament by Minister of Shipping, a few years back on 17 May 2007, to protect seafarers enmeshed in such situations abroad subsequent to promulgation of Ministry of Shipping (Recruitment and Placement of Seafarers) Rules 2005 and issue of DG Shipping Circular 2 of 8th May 2007.
 
Regards.

Sarvadaman Oberoi
Tower 1 Flat 1102, The Uniworld Garden,
Sohna Road, Gurgaon 122018 Haryana INDIA
Mobile: +919818768349 Tele: +911244227522
Website: http://www.freewebs.com/homeopathy249/
email: manioberoi@gmail.com

Jaago Re "Aaj Se Khilana Bandh, Pilana Shuru"



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sarvadaman Oberoi <manioberoi@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:56 AM
Subject: Errors in Jurisdiction and Admissibility of Evidence, Hualien District Court, Order dt 26 March 2010 in Case No. 8 of Chung-Su-Tze, 2009 (M.T. TOSA)
To: His Excellency The President of the Republic of China <work1@mail.oop.gov.tw>
Cc: Central Govt Smt Pratibha Patil Hon'ble President of India <presidentofindia@rb.nic.in>, Central Govt Hon'ble Prime Minister of India <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, "Shri G.K. Vasan Minister of Shipping" <gkvasan@sansad.nic.in>, Foreign Division Taipei Taiwan India <ind@mofa.gov.tw>


REMINDER NO. 1
 
Dear Mr President,
 
Still awaiting acknowledgment of my email letter of 5 June 2010. (delivered on 5 June 2010; email to Foreign Division Taipei Taiwan India <ind@mofa.gov.tw> bounced and not delivered)
 
Regards.

Sarvadaman Oberoi
Tower 1 Flat 1102, The Uniworld Garden,
Sohna Road, Gurgaon 122018 Haryana INDIA
Mobile: +919818768349 Tele: +911244227522
Website: http://www.freewebs.com/homeopathy249/
email: manioberoi@gmail.com

Jaago Re "Aaj Se Khilana Bandh, Pilana Shuru"



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sarvadaman Oberoi <manioberoi@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 1:04 AM
Subject: Errors in Jurisdiction and Admissibility of Evidence, Hualien District Court, Order dt 26 March 2010 in Case No. 8 of Chung-Su-Tze, 2009 (M.T. TOSA)
To: work1@mail.oop.gov.tw
Cc: Foreign Division Taipei Taiwan India <ind@mofa.gov.tw>



CONFIDENTIAL - BY EMAIL

To, 
                                                                                                        5th June 2010

His Excellency

The President

The Republic of China

Taipei 100, Taiwan.

Email: work1@mail.oop.gov.tw

 

Subject: Errors in Jurisdiction and Admissibility of Evidence, Hualien District Court,

              Order dt 26 March 2010 in Case No. 8 of Chung-Su-Tze, 2009 (M.T. TOSA)

 

Dear Mr President,

May I request your kind indulgence so that the Hon'ble Minister of Justice, who has final control of all the prosecutors, may be requested to direct the prosecutor to act as a law officer of the court, and assist the court in doing justice in this case, which appears to have suffered grave errors in jurisdiction and in admissibility of evidence, causing grave prejudice to the three detained seafarers of M.T. TOSA. Administratively, prosecutors' office at all levels are subject to the supervision of the Minister of Justice.

1. "The two constitutive elements of international customary law are (1) a general practice of states on a universal, general, or regional basis, and (2) the acceptance by the states concerned of this practice as law." [Encyclopaedia Britannica 15th Edition 1982 Volume 9 Page 746]

2. International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with respect to Collisions between Vessels (Brussels, 23 September 1910) was accepted by the international community and came into force on 1 February 1913 . Thus one constitutive element of international customary law, "a general practice of states on a universal, general, or regional basis" stood satisfied on 1 February 1913. However the 1910 Convention was never ratified by the Legislative Yuan (the Congress) of Republic of China.

3. Republic of China framed its own Code of Maritime Law, the Chinese Maritime Law, 1929 on the general pattern of the various existing international convention of 1910, promulgated on December 4, 1930 and implemented on July 1, 1931. This law is still valid in the Republic of China, in its amended form, Law of Ships, 1974. Mao-Ching Huang writes (in respect of the amended law as it then stood in 1962), "As a matter of fact, the provisions of collision liability in the Maritime Law follow the liability law of the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law in Regard to Collisions, although the Republic of China is not a signatory". [Page 233 "Maritime Liens in the Republic of China", Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 1977, pp. 227-246, by Mao-Ching Huang.]

4. Thus the second constitutive element of international customary law, "the acceptance by the states concerned of this practice as law" stood satisfied on 1 July 1931, and has become binding international customary law as regards the Republic of China.

5. It is also to be noted that the Republic of China was a founding member of the League of Nations on 10 January 1920 (ratified 16 July 1920). Statute of the Court of PCIJ was signed by Republic of China on 28 January 1921 and ratified on 13 May 1922. Articles 1 and 2 of Kellogg-Briand Pact, 27 August 1928, "the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means." was also ratified by Republic of China. One case was submitted by Republic of China to jurisdiction of PCIJ, Permanent Court of International Justice. ["Denunciation of the Treaty of 2 November 1865 between China and Belgium", PCIJ Order dated 25 May 1929, PCIJ, 1929 Series A, No 18]. From Republic of China - Chun Hui Wang was Deputy Judge of PCIJ from 30 January 1920- 6 December 1930 and Judge of PCIJ from 15 January 1931- 15 January 1936; Tien Hsi Cheng was a Judge of PCIJ from 8 October 1936- October 1945. League of Nations was dissolved 18 April 1946.

6. Hence from 1 July 1931 to 18 April 1946, over 15 years, Republic of China applied its own Code of Maritime Law which followed the liability law of the International Convention as regards the provisions of collision liability on the high seas. Chinese Maritime Law, 1929 (43 articles) was promulgated on December 4, 1930 and implemented on July 1, 1931; full text (98 articles) promulgated on January 30, 1961 by Presidential Decree; full text (89 articles) promulgated on November 1, 1974 by Presidential Decree. It is now called Law of Ships, 1974.

7. International Convention on Certain Rules concerning Civil Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision, signed at Brussels on 10 May 1952 was not overtly ratified by the Legislative Yuan (the Congress) of Republic of China; International Convention on the High Seas (Geneva, 29 April 1958) was also not overtly ratified by the Legislative Yuan (the Congress) of Republic of China; full text (98 articles) of Chinese Maritime Law promulgated on January 30, 1961 by Presidential Decree, also followed the liability law of the International Convention as regards the provisions of collision liability on the high seas.

8. Thus the second constitutive element of international customary law, "the acceptance by the states concerned of this practice as law" stood reinforced and has become doubly binding international customary law as regards the Republic of China.

9. Even if covert ratification is absent, there is clearly implicit ratification of the liability law of the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law in Regard to Collisions by the Legislative Yuan (the Congress).

10. We may apply the seven fundamental principles or rules that govern international law in unorganized international society which apply to non-member states of United Nations such as the Republic of China (sovereignty, recognition, consent, good faith, freedom of the seas, international responsibility and self-defense), and conclude that Republic of China has been accorded limited recognition by many UN member states even as uncertain status dogs its international personality. We may also conclude that its sovereignty is intact and maritime laws made by it in 1929 which recognize international (maritime) conventions irrevocably bind the Republic of China in matters related to international conventions and freedom of the seas.

11. Other rules, such as the powers exercised by states in relation to pirates, blockade runners, and war criminals constitute extraordinary forms of national jurisdiction. They are lawful because the home states of these three groups of individuals may not in good faith contest the exercise of such jurisdiction.

12. Republic of China was a founding member of the United Nations on 24 October 1945 till passing of Resolution 2758(XXVI) of 25 October 1971. Upon dissolution of PCIJ on 31 January 1946, Hsu Mo of Republic of China served as a Judge of ICJ from 1946 to 1956. Wellington Koo of Republic of China served as a Judge of ICJ from 1957 to 1964 and as its Vice President from 1964 to 1967. During this period, Articles 1, 2 & 3 of the INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE UNIFICATION OF CERTAIN RULES RELATING TO PENAL JURISDICTION IN MATTERS OF COLLISION OR OTHER INCIDENTS OF NAVIGATION BRUSSELS, 10.5.1952 were adopted by United Nations, providing a legal framework for freedom of navigation on the high seas. (based on Mare Liberum principle of freedom of the high seas since the 17th Century).  Chinese Maritime Law, 1929/ Law of Ships, 1974/ Article 64 of Shipping Law, 1981 also follows the international conventions as they concern collisions on the high seas even today.  From 10 July 1920 to 23 October 1945 and 24 October 1945 to 25 October 1971, the Republic of China adhered to the covenants of the International Court of Justice, ICJ and its predecessor Permanent Court of International Justice, PCIJ.  In 1956, the International Law Commission, in its draft article 35, followed the approach of the 1952 Convention, stating that its position had the object of protecting ships and their crews from the risk of penal proceedings before foreign courts in the event of collision on the high seas, since such proceedings may constitute an intolerable interference with international navigation.[Report of the International Law Commission covering the work of its eighth session (A/3159), article 35 Commentary, para. (1), II YB ILC 1956, at 253, 281]. It is also noted that during this period, Article 11 of the International Convention on the High Seas, Geneva 29 April 1958 was adopted by United Nations, reinforcing the legal framework for freedom of navigation on the high seas. Today, interpretation of "high seas" requires a consideration of four factors, the 12 nautical mile territorial waters limit, the 24 nautical mile contiguous waters limit, the 200 nautical mile ( 100/350 nautical mile alternate clause) limit for EEZ and designated archipelagic sea lanes or traditional sea lanes where archipelagic states have not yet designated sea lanes. Chinese Maritime Law, 1929/ Law of Ships, 1974/ Article 64 of Shipping Law, 1981, passed by the Legislative Yuan (the Congress) of Republic of China, also follow the international conventions as they concern marine law as evidenced by Article 64 of Shipping Law, 1981. "Article 64 In case provisions involving international matters are not provided in the present Law, MOTC may, by reference, undertake to adopt, promulgate and enact the relevant international conventions or agreements and the regulations, directives, standards, recommendations or programs prescribed in the annexes thereto as the provisions." Law on the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf of the Republic of China 1998, Law on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone of the Republic of China 1998, The Coast Guard Act 2000, Marine Pollution Control Act of Taiwan, 2000 and Enforcement Rules of the Marine Pollution Control Act 2001 are the laws involving international matters referred to in Article 64 of Shipping Law, 1981, which are at slight variance with the international convention. However Articles 9, 14, 32, 33, 49, 87-1 and 87-10 of Law of Ships, 1974 passed by the Legislative Yuan (the Congress) of Republic of China uphold the international conventions generally and also specify as follows:

"Article 9 Any ship shall be provided with the following documents:

...2. Ship Inspection Certificate or other certificates that shall be maintained pursuant to international conventions;...."

"Article 14 .....may be substituted by valid certificates of international conventions ..."

"Article 32 A ship governed by the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea shall be inspected pursuant to the regulations provided in the Convention, and shall possess the certificates specified therein. ....."

"Article 33 A ship possessing valid certificates issued according to the International Convention, .... exempted from the issue of the inspection certificate."

"Article 49 When a foreign ship, of which load lines shall be assigned subject to the provisions of the International Load Line Convention ....master of the ship shall submit the Load Line Certificate or Exemption Certificate ......."

"Article 87-1 ...certificates which are required by the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea ...the issuance of certificates of the International Convention; the qualifications of surveyors and the issuance and withdrawal of the licenses thereof; and the impositions of inspection fees."

"Article 87-10 ...prescribe other regulations or guidances regarding the technology and administration of ships by reference to the international conventions or agreements, and the standards, recommendations, directives or programs provided in the appendixes thereto.."

13. District Court of Rotterdam in its Judgment of 8 April 1969, S&S 1969. no. 50. (The Torrey Canyon) held as follows, "Escape to a national system of law may be necessary to solve certain problems, but we believe that the question who is to blame for a collision on the high seas, is of such an international character that to turn to a national system of law for a solution would be far from satisfactory. Application of a national system of law is also not possible from a logical point of view: infra n. 14, and C.W. Dubbink, De Onrechtmatige Daad in het Nederlandse Internationaal Privaatrecht, Dissertation (Amsterdam 1947), p. 97, where he says: "in relation to collisions on the high seas the choice of law rule cannot be applied, as the sea is not subject to a certain system of law." See furthermore G. Ripert, Droit Maritime, vol. III, 4th ed, 1953, p. 19, and R. Rodiere, Traite General de droit maritime, evenements de mer 1972, p. 115. G. Schaps, Das deutsche  Seerecht, band II. 3rd ed. by H.J. Abraham, 1960, p. 50, on the contrary, is of the opinion that the law of the flag is the lex loci delicti commisi on the high seas. Compare G.O.Z Sundstrom, Foreign Ships and Foreign Waters; British, American, German and Scandinavian Court Practice in Collision Cases, 1971, p. 146 et seq."

14. District Court of Rotterdam in its Judgment of 17 January 1977, S&S 1977. no. 60. (The Nedlloyd Kembla) held as follows, "Since the present damage-causing occurrence has taken place on the high seas, no system of national law can be assigned on the basis of which can be decided whether the facts establish liability in tort and which obligations between which persons follow from it. So Dutch national law cannot be applied. At the place where the above mentioned occurrence has happened it is possible that written and or unwritten rules of international law are valid on the basis of which above mentioned decision can be taken. The Court will now see whether such a rule exists and applies in the present case. Article 38 sub I of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, which has been mentioned by the defendant and which is binding upon the Netherlands and the United Kingdom mentions only in the third place "the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations."," Before in the same article (beginning and sub a) it is said: "The Court .... shall apply: a. international conventions, whether genera1 or particular establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states". Generally it is understood that this article of the Statute states - in a hierarchical order - the kinds of international rules to be applied by the Court (so among others Shabtai Rosenne, The Law and Practice of the International Court (Leiden 1965) vol. II, p. 605). It follows from this that the International Court of Justice in the first place has to find the applicable international law in relevant conventions and only in the third place in the above mentioned general principles of law. It is self-evident that a national court that has to decide whether there is a rule of international law applicable to the case it has to decide, will analogically respect the hierarchy laid down in the above mentioned Article 38. The Court, therefore, will have to decide in the first place whether a convention is applicable that contains the rule of law which must be applied to the present case."

15. Article 38 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice (virtually identical to Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice) states, "The Court shall apply: 1. International conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting States; 2. International custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; 3. The general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; 4. Subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law. This provision shall not prejudice the power of the Court to decide a case ex aequo et bono, if the parties agree thereto." 

16. Article 2(6) of the Charter of the United Nations states "The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security." which includes Article 2(4), "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

17. Unified Interpretations are adopted resolutions on matters arising from implementing the requirements of IMO Conventions or Recommendations. Such adopted resolutions can involve uniform interpretations of Convention Regulations or IMO Resolutions on those matters which in the Convention are left to the satisfaction of the Administration or vaguely worded. For June 2007, "IACS MONTHLY REPORT OF THE VESSELS THE CLASS OF WHICH HAS BEEN/WAS SUSPENDED FOR MORE THAN 7 DAYS", reveals that between 7 Feb 2007 and 11 May 2007, the classification society, DNV, was unable to declare eight R.O.C. Taiwan Coast Guard vessels, all 2004 built, produced before it for classification, as "class withdrawn at owners request." They were the  56 ton vessels ID/ Name,  24919/PP-3569, 24920/PP-3570, 24921/ PP-3571, 24922/ PP-3572, 24923/ PP-3573,  and 162/163 ton vessels ID/ Name, 24806/ PP-10025,24807/ PP-10026 and 24808/ PP-10027.

18. Proceedings of Taiwan Hualien District Court of 7 January 2010 at Page 34 are quoted,

"Witness Hsu Kuo-Ching answers:

No. STCW Convention is the "Standards of Training, Certification & Watchkeeping Convention". The Chinese translation of the title of this convention can be found in the Article 4 of the Seafarer Law of Taiwan.

The prosecutor asks:

Is there any provision in this Convention providing that how a captain should give his order?

Witness Hsu Kuo-Ching answers:

There are provisions stipulating the Master's duties.

The prosecutor asks:

How do the provisions stipulate?

Witness Hsu Kuo-Ching answers:

We can refer to the Article 58 of the Seafarer Law of Taiwan. The Seafarer Law is legislated based on the rules provided in the STCW Convention. The Article 58 of the Seafarer Law of Taiwan provides: "The Master of a ship is responsible for commanding the ship. The Master has rights to command and administrate the seafarers and other persons on"

19. Article 6 of the Taiwan Seafarer Law, 1999 (and not Article 4 as erroneously recorded above) states, "Qualifications of seafarers shall be in conformity with the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended." Article 89 of the Taiwan Seafarer Law, 1999 states, "In the absence of provisions in this Law, the MOTC is entitled to promulgate, by reference with or adoption of, rules, regulations, guidelines, standards, recommendations and programs established in relevant international conventions and their protocols."

20. With such deep commercial and legal interlocking of the national shipping interests of Republic of China with the international seafaring community and given the implicit acceptance of the international law of the sea by ROC, the warlike threat made by the ROC Coastguard vessels, reported in ROC news media and in the official incident report of the TOSA Master on 19 April 2010, that it would not hesitate to fire its guns to prevent the safe and peaceful continuation of passage of TOSA to Singapore on 18 April 2009 was indeed a surprising and an unwarranted act liable to attract the provisions of Article 2(6) of the Charter of the United Nations and the well settled law of the sea on flag status as regards collisions on the high seas. Note 37 of The impact on the Law of the Sea Convention on the roles and activities of the RAN in meeting Australian Government requirements, Commander M.H. Miller, RAN [Geddes Papers, 2005 published by Joint Education, Training and Warfare Command (JETWC), Australia] states "Article 58(1) of the well settled law of the sea states that in the EEZ other states enjoy the freedoms of the high seas (Article 87) for navigation, overflight, scientific research and other lawful uses of the sea such as the operation of ships and aircraft. The limitations upon these activities are that states should refrain from unlawful threat...."

21. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stated to the Taiwan Hualien District Court at Para 2(1) of letter File No.: 09801244560 dated 6th January 2010, "According to the information available on the United Nation official website, Taiwan (Republic of China) is not a member state of the "Convention on the High Seas (1958)" and the "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982)". Although Taiwan has signed the "Convention on the High Seas (1958)", this convention has not been ratified because it has never been sent to the Legislative Yuan (the Congress) for review."

22. The Republic of China Ministry of Foreign Affairs has completely skirted the issue of international customary law as it applies lock, stock and barrel to the facts of this case. It has sought to shift the onus for not following international convention upon the "United Nation official website" !! It has omitted mention of Article 64 of Republic of China Shipping Law, 1981 and Articles 9, 14, 32, 33, 49, 87-1 and 87-10 of Republic of China Law of Ships, 1974 passed by the Legislative Yuan (the Congress) of Republic of China which uphold the international conventions generally and also specifically.

23. In the 2001 article "Blue-Water Brawls: The latest on disputes in the South China Sea" http://taiwanreview.nat.gov.tw/fp.asp?xItem=628&CtNode=128, Mark J Valencia anticipated problems between PRC and ROC regarding freedom of navigation beyond territorial waters in the South China Seas, "Moreover, when tension rises between Beijing and Taipei, incidents between the two in the Spratly area may be anticipated...Although the PRC has promised the United States several times that it will not interfere with freedom of navigation, it has .... drawn closing lines around the Paracel Islands, thus putting large stretches of water beyond the reach of the freedom-of-navigation regime, including overflight, and has indicated it may do the same with the Spratlys. Such closing lines are not permitted by the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, which China has ratified and which it avows it will follow in resolving disputes in the South China Sea. Moreover, it has declared that its territorial waters extend twelve nautical miles from the closing baselines and insists, contrary to the Convention, that foreign warships cannot enter those waters without permission." Here ROC and US both aligned/ taking support of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea in settling issues of territorial waters with PRC.

24. In a 2010 article, M. Taylor Fravel, the Cecil and Ida Green Career Development Associate Professor of Political Science and member of the Security Studies Program at MIT states "China and Japan hold conflicting claims over the sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands. Japan asserts that the islands were determined to be unoccupied and terra nullius ("as empty land") in 1885 and formally incorporated into Japan in 1895. China claims discovery of the islands under the Ming dynasty and asserts that they were ceded to Japan along with Taiwan in the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki and thus returned to China at the end of World War II. From 1945 to 1972, however, the United States administered the islands directly as part of the Ryukyu Islands (which included Okinawa) and used one of the islets as a bombing range. With the conclusion of the Okinawa Reversion Agreement, the islands have been administered by Japan since May 1972. China (People's Republic of China) issued its first formal claim to the islands in December 1970, after Taiwan (in the name of the Republic of China) and Japan both issued claims in bids to ensure access to nearby petroleum resources."["Explaining Stability in the Senkaku (Diaoyu) Dispute, by M. Taylor Fravel" in Gerald Curtis, Ryosei Kokubun and Wang Jisi, eds., Getting the Triangle Straight: Managing China-Japan-US Relations (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Press, 2010) Reprinted in Japanese as Book title:"Senkaku/Diaoyu Shoto mondai ha naze antei shite iru no ka," in Sankyoku o toku: Nichibeichu kankei no kizo to tenbo" (Iwanami Shoten, 2010)]. Without passing any judgment on the apparently superior claim of Taiwan, in the uncertain event that the China-Taiwan issue is finally resolved by both parties accepting two separate and independent nations, Taiwan would still have to respect the freedom of navigation outside the 12 nautical mile limit enshrined in the international maritime conventions, which it has implicitly accepted over the last 79 years since 1931. ROC has also maintained extensive association with the international fraternity ever since 1920 as a founding member of the League of Nations, that is, for the last 90 years.

25. The Republic of China Ministry of Interior has stated to the Taiwan Hualien District Court at Para 3 of letter File No.: 0980218491 dated 29th November 2009, "3. From our investigation, the sea area of E 123º 5-8' N 25º 46-48' is in the distance of 17.68 nautical miles to 20.54 nautical miles from the baseline of our country's Diaoyutai Islands (Senkaku Shoto). According to Article 3 and Article 14 of the Law on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone of the Republic of China, such sea area is not within our 12 nautical miles territorial sea." As per Ministry of Interior the ship was at all times 12 nautical miles away; which as per international conventions on law of the seas, implicitly endorsed by ROC, as exhaustively detailed above, lies on the high seas for navigation related incidents.

26. The learned Hualien District Court fell in patent error in deciding the question of jurisdiction, when it equated navigation related incident upon high seas with international criminal jurisdiction reserved for the powers exercised by states in relation to pirates, blockade runners, and war criminals constituting extraordinary forms of national jurisdiction, which are lawful because the home states of these three groups of individuals may not in good faith contest the exercise of such jurisdiction. The relevant portion of the judgement is Part I (II) Para 1 at Page 9 "For instance, the principle of passive nationality is embodied in the Diplomatic Security and Anti-Terrorism Act enacted by the United States in 1986. Also, with a state being deemed a protector of its own people, the principle of passive nationality is justifiable. Just because the extradition that follows the exercise of jurisdiction can only be enforced under a diplomatic agreement, it does not mean that a government may give up its protective function with respect to its own people from the very beginning. By the principle of protection and the principle of universality, a state shall have international criminal jurisdiction over specific crimes which endanger the state's security or economy and crimes which definitely outrage the international community, such as piracy, respectively." The defence had rightly contended that "Although the Republic of China (Taiwan) is not a member state of the above conventions, it is still subject to the international maritime customary law." and this has been duly recorded by the learned Hualien District Court at Part I (I) Para 2 at Page 7 of the judgement.

27. Since the charge "Desertion causing Death" has first to be established in a fair and just manner, which can only be an impartial flag state (Panama) incident investigation, and also it does not qualify as "powers exercised by states in relation to pirates, blockade runners, and war criminals... extraordinary forms of national jurisdiction...lawful because the home states of these three groups of individuals may not in good faith contest the exercise of such jurisdiction" the learned Hualien District Court fell in patent error in deciding the question of jurisdiction, based on its recording at Part I (II) Para 3 at Page 11, "In this case, the charge filed by the public prosecutor is the offense of "Desertion causing Death" as prescribed in Article 294, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code, which is punishable for a minimum of 7 years of imprisonment. Hence, it falls within the scope of Article 8 of the Criminal Code." As already noted above in Paras 13 & 14, District Court of Rotterdam in its Judgment of 8 April 1969, S&S 1969. no. 50. (The Torrey Canyon) and District Court of Rotterdam in its Judgment of 17 January 1977, S&S 1977. no. 60. (The Nedlloyd Kembla) have categorically ruled out escape to a national system of law in the words, "Since the present damage-causing occurrence has taken place on the high seas, no system of national law can be assigned on the basis of which can be decided whether the facts establish liability in tort and which obligations between which persons follow from it. So Dutch national law cannot be applied."

28. As regards "no system of national law can be assigned on the basis of which can be decided whether the facts establish liability in tort and which obligations between which persons follow from it", COLREGS RULE 3(d) states, " The term 'vessel engaged in fishing' means any vessel fishing with nets, lines, trawls or other fishing apparatus which restrict manoeuvrability, but does not include a vessel fishing with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict mansuvrability." Hence the correct position of a fishing vessel underway is that it is to be treated as a power driven vessel.  Also COLREGS RULE 10 (c) states, "A vessel shall so far as practicable avoid crossing traffic lanes, but if obliged to do so shall cross on a heading as nearly as practicable at right angles to the general direction of traffic flow." Crossing a traffic lane may disturb the traffic flow pattern and increase the risk of collision. When risk of collision exists between vessels in a traffic lane the relevant Rule from Part B will usually apply, although small vessels and sailing vessels have a general obligation to avoid impeding the safe passage of power-driven vessels following the lane. A power-driven vessel, proceeding along a traffic lane, which sees another power-driven vessel crossing from her own starboard side will usually be required to keep clear by Rule 15. It may be difficult for such a vessel to take substantial avoiding action without making it necessary for other vessels to manoeuvre. The requirement to cross as nearly as practicable at right angles to the general direction of traffic flow applies at all times, whether there are vessels proceeding along the lane or not. Tgt 2, Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 was on Course 333 deg while crossing the traffic separation scheme following Course 200 deg, that is 43 deg off course from the stipulated right angle Course 290 deg which was compulsory to follow COLREG RULE 10 (c). It was a grave violation, one which in all probability sealed the fate of the two vessels and took them on an unavoidable path to a deadly close quarters crossing.

29. Japan Coast Guard was nearest to site and sent 5 boats with special rescue capability at 01:45 hours Taiwan time incl 3 divers and 2 helicopters which reached by 02:15 hours Taiwan time. The China Post, Taiwan Saturday, April 18, 2009 reported at 9:21 am, "The Foreign Ministry expressed gratitude to the Japanese government for helping with the search mission. Tiaoyutais are currently controlled by Japan, but China and Taiwan also claim sovereignty over the islands." Taiwan Coast Guard received first report at 00:38 hours Taiwan time and sent 4 rescue cruisers at 00:47 hours Taiwan time which could only reach by 02:47 hours Taiwan time, 32 minutes after Japan CG had commenced rescue operations. The documents attached have clearly revealed from Taiwan Coast Guard sources that first report was at 00:38 hours and hence alleged report of 00:00 hours Taiwan time, is revealed to be insubstantial with the witnesses first denying they reported at this time and after tutoring "remembering the so called facts" as revealed by court proceedings at Pages 28-29 of Minutes of the Hearing Held on 7th January 2010 (Criminal) in Case No.: No. 8 of Chung-Su-Tze, 2009:

"The presiding judge asks:

Did you use the wireless radio to report to the Su-Ao District Fishermen Association that "Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86" was hit by an unknown merchant vessel and capsized?

Witness Huang Jen-Ho answers:

Another fishing vessel "Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 82" did.

The presiding judge asks:

(Showing the witness the reporting record; P. 142 of file No. 1873 of 2009) Do you have any opinion to this record?

Witness Huang Jen-Ho answers:

Yes, I forgot. Anyway, there was a report sent to the fishermen association. I don't remember the time.

The presiding judge asks:

Did you report that "Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86" was collided and capsized at the position of N 25° 47´ E 123° 6´?

Witness Huang Jen-Ho answers:

That was reported by another fishing vessel. The skipper of that vessel just reported an approximate position to the fishermen association.

The presiding judge asks:

Why didn't you report the correct position to the fishermen association?

Witness Huang Jen-Ho answers:

There was current. It was to tell the fishermen association the position where to tow the capsized vessel. It was position where the vessel presently was after the incident happened."

30. The learned Hualien District Court fell in patent error in deciding the question of admissibility of evidence, based on its recording at Part I (II) Para (VIII) at Page 20,"Though the advocate attorneys further made a request to confirm with the Japan Coast Guard by letter, the Japan Coast Guard was not at the place of the occurrence when the incident took place." The potential lack of jurisdiction should have been duly balanced with allowing important evidence from Japan Coast Guard which reached the incident site 32 minutes earlier than the Taiwan Coast Guard, whose evidence should, in that view of the Court, have also been declared hearsay, as it was also not at the place of the occurrence when the incident took place. It appears to the international maritime community that the prosecutor unfairly exercised his veto. This has been recorded at Part I (II) Para (VIII) Pages 19-20, "Further, the prosecutor objected the admissibility of the evidence during session; according to Article 159-5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there was no admissibility of evidence." In the event grave prejudice has been caused to the defence of the mariners being tried for navigation related criminal offences by the denial of unimpeachable evidence from the Japanese Coast Guard and the learned Hualien District Court fell in grave miscarriage of justice in deciding the question of admissibility of evidence, based on its recording at Part I (II) Para (VIII) at Page 20,"Though the advocate attorneys further made a request to confirm with the Japan Coast Guard by letter, the Japan Coast Guard was not at the place of the occurrence when the incident took place. Therefore, the position data provided by them are also subject to hearsay, in which the location of the capsizing Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 as per such facsimile paper should not be deemed reliable. Subsequently, the request for sending a confirmation letter is unnecessary."

             Thanking You for a just and kind intervention which your high office is eminently capable of.

                                Yours faithfully.

Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi

Lt Col (Retd)

1/1102 Uniworld Gardens

Sector 47, Gurgaon 122018

Haryana, INDIA

manioberoi@gmail.com

+919818768349

 

Enclosures by Email:

All related documents

Copy to:

His Excellency

The Director General,

Taipei Economic and Cultural Center

84 Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar

New Delhi 110 057

Email: ind@mofa.gov.tw

 

 

 










--
Regards.

Sarvadaman Oberoi
Tower 1 Flat 1102, The Uniworld Garden,
Sohna Road, Gurgaon 122018 Haryana INDIA
Mobile: +919818768349 Tele: +911244227522
Website: http://www.freewebs.com/homeopathy249/
email: manioberoi@gmail.com

Jaago Re "Aaj Se Khilana Bandh, Pilana Shuru"

--
Truth resides in every human heart, and one has to search for it there, and to be guided by truth as one sees it. But no one has a right to coerce others to act according to his own view of truth. - Mohandas Gandhi
 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "SAFE - Social Action Foundation for Equity" group.
To post to this group, send email to
socialactionfoundationforequity@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
socialactionfoundationforequity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.co.in/group/socialactionfoundationforequity?hl=en?hl=en-GB

gsk

https://secure.shareit.com/shareit/checkout.html?PRODUCT[300429992]=1&languageid=1&stylefrom=300429992&backlink=http%3A%2F%2Fforexguide.blogspot.com&cookies=1¤cies=USD&pts=VISA,MASTERCARD,AMEX,DC