Friday, February 25, 2011
rec.bicycles.racing - 25 new messages in 7 topics - digest
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing?hl=en
rec.bicycles.racing@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Letters Rogatory Issue - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/0378cc8c8cbe13ae?hl=en
* Black is the new RED, or something...SRAMnannigans. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/997326caf4b42b45?hl=en
* What's next for LA now that he's retired - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/b92c0def5059f438?hl=en
* Armstrong's urine samples requested by US authorities - 15 messages, 8
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/e74e86a733c12701?hl=en
* Questions about Seeing thre Tour in Paris - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/28d76208a6639cf9?hl=en
* The company you keep - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/f3f7520db2b79b89?hl=en
* Omloop Het Nieuwsblad - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/bea6d61f57aa2583?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Letters Rogatory Issue
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/0378cc8c8cbe13ae?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 24 2011 7:27 pm
From: Theodore Heise
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 14:17:41 -0800 (PST),
Brad Anders <pbanders@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2. Some/all of LA's samples test positive for EPO, and they
> exactly mirror the AFLD's previous results. LA's lawyers
> challenge the results on 12-year-old urine as being invalid on
> the grounds of intentional/ unintentional contamination, loss of
> chain of custody, or a dozen other reasons they will dredge up.
Absence of data supporting 12 years of sample stability?
--
Theodore (Ted) Heise <theo@heise.nu> Bloomington, IN, USA
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 6:39 am
From: BLafferty
On 2/24/2011 9:44 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> "BLafferty" <b@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:d6qdnSEYP63O-vvQnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On 2/24/2011 1:44 AM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> "BLafferty" <b@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:GM6dnZezgPSBzvjQnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> On 2/23/2011 1:00 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>>> "BLafferty"<b@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:uaCdnYtuCPPP2vjQnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>> On 2/23/2011 11:55 AM, TheCoz wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 10:12 am, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The process has officially started to obtain Armstrong's 1999 urine
>>>>>>>> samples for testing by the Feds here in the US.
>>>>>>>> Not a good omen for
>>>>>>>> Armstrong.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought the '99 samples were tainted, mishandled and contaminated?
>>>>>>> Hasn't thousands of dollars been spent analyzing the '99 samples
>>>>>>> allready?
>>>>>>> What about the years after '99? I think the 02, 03 and 04 samples
>>>>>>> should be put under extensive tests.
>>>>>>> Coz
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Armstrong has alleged that the chain of custody was broken.
>>>>>> Apparently not (surprise, surprise) as evidenced by the Letters
>>>>>> Rogatory request. Yes, other samples from the postal days from all
>>>>>> teammates who rode can be requested--probable have been, too. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Speaking as someone with no background in such things, could you
>>>>> explain
>>>>> in what way a "Letters Rogatory" guarantees immunity from "chain of
>>>>> custody" issues?
>>>>
>>>> The Letters Rogatory request has nothing to do with proving at trial a
>>>> valid chain of custody. My point is that the feds would not start the
>>>> Rogatory process if they were not convinced there were not chain of
>>>> custody problems on the French side.
>>>
>>> Can't say that I go along with that conclusion. If I were the prosecutor
>>> and thought there might be something interesting, even as background
>>> information, I'd go for it regardless of validity in court. What can it
>>> hurt? It gets the French thinking you're taking them seriously, so
>>> they're going to cooperate. And the downside? None that I can see. It's
>>> still good PR if you can slander the defendent without introducing it as
>>> evidence isn't it?
>>
>> That's why you're not a prosecutor. We know they met with French
>> officials who have said they found EPO in Armstrong's urine from 1999.
>> The feds undoubtedly looked at the chain of custody documentation/logs
>> and concluded there were no chain problems. Thus, they decided to
>> issue Letters Rogatory to obtain the samples for testing in their own
>> facility to confirm the French lab's findings.
>>
>> The US government does not just issue Letters Rogatory to see what
>> might turn up. That is to say, they don't involve foreign
>> governments/judicial systems in a criminal matter absent a very good
>> reason--more than what you suggest.
>
> Brian: If Novitsky has half a brain (and there's evidence he's got at
> least that), he knows that the French authorities have as little love
> for Lance as he does. "Involving" a foreign government would be
> most-welcome by the French, and help to provide a framework for further
> cooperation down the road.
Most investigators and prosecutors, regardless of nationality, don't
like criminals. That doesn't generally result in not guilty verdicts.
>
> Or so I would think. But, as you said, I'm not a prosecutor.
>
>> I wonder whether the US Attorney will subpoena Armstrong to testify
>> before the grand jury before or after they have the samples and test
>> them. Fabio is already rehearsing Armstrong asserting his 5th
>> Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
>>
>> Can't wait for the AP hacks next article with his inside the Justice
>> Dept. "insights."
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 10:59 am
From: Fred Fredburger
On 2/25/2011 6:39 AM, BLafferty wrote:
> On 2/24/2011 9:44 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> Brian: If Novitsky has half a brain (and there's evidence he's got at
>> least that), he knows that the French authorities have as little love
>> for Lance as he does. "Involving" a foreign government would be
>> most-welcome by the French, and help to provide a framework for further
>> cooperation down the road.
>
> Most investigators and prosecutors, regardless of nationality, don't
> like criminals. That doesn't generally result in not guilty verdicts.
You candy-assed that statement so badly it lost all meaning. You're
saying that there are no "not guilty" statements, or else that you don't
understand the cause of them, or else that the cause for them is a
closely held secret that you are not at liberty to reveal, or...
You are an RBR treasure, Brian!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Black is the new RED, or something...SRAMnannigans.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/997326caf4b42b45?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 1:25 am
From: Simply Fred
Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>> Wake me up when they have something
>> truly innovative, like an elliptical chainring.
Scott wrote:
> As Black is the new Red, oblong is the new elliptical.
<http://kasmana.people.cofc.edu/MATHFICT/mfview.php?callnumber=mf613>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What's next for LA now that he's retired
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/b92c0def5059f438?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 2:33 am
From: ilan
This seems to be the trend: first Lauritzen http://www.kjendis.no/2007/11/17/518536.html
then Rasmussen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMKJU3wPU9k And
refusing is not an option: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBEq-_EXNIg
-ilan
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Armstrong's urine samples requested by US authorities
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/e74e86a733c12701?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 2:41 am
From: ilan
On Feb 23, 11:32 pm, "hargo...@yahoo.com" <hargo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Armstrong's urine samples requested by US authorities
> (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by-
> us-authorities )
>
> My guess is that this evidence will fail the chain of evidence
> requirement if Lance goes to court. This could increase the possiblity
> that Lance could be indicted since the defense probably cannot object
> in a grand jury investigation.
The samples can't be used, in particular, any test on them has no
scientific value.
-ilan
== 2 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 3:24 am
From: Simply Fred
ilan wrote:
> The samples can't be used, in particular, any test on them has no
> scientific value.
Tell that to Lafferty.
== 3 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 6:38 am
From: BLafferty
On 2/25/2011 5:41 AM, ilan wrote:
> On Feb 23, 11:32 pm, "hargo...@yahoo.com"<hargo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Armstrong's urine samples requested by US authorities
>> (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by-
>> us-authorities )
>>
>> My guess is that this evidence will fail the chain of evidence
>> requirement if Lance goes to court. This could increase the possiblity
>> that Lance could be indicted since the defense probably cannot object
>> in a grand jury investigation.
>
> The samples can't be used, in particular, any test on them has no
> scientific value.
>
> -ilan
If the chain of custody is intact and there is enough to test, the
Justice Department can test them and introduce the results in court with
a proper evidential foundation--complete chain of custody and testimony
as to testing procedure, all of which is open to challenge by the defense.
== 4 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 10:58 am
From: ilan
On Feb 25, 3:38 pm, BLafferty <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 2/25/2011 5:41 AM, ilan wrote:> On Feb 23, 11:32 pm, "hargo...@yahoo.com"<hargo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Armstrong's urine samples requested by US authorities
> >> (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by-
> >> us-authorities )
>
> >> My guess is that this evidence will fail the chain of evidence
> >> requirement if Lance goes to court. This could increase the possiblity
> >> that Lance could be indicted since the defense probably cannot object
> >> in a grand jury investigation.
>
> > The samples can't be used, in particular, any test on them has no
> > scientific value.
>
> > -ilan
>
> If the chain of custody is intact and there is enough to test, the
> Justice Department can test them and introduce the results in court with
> a proper evidential foundation--complete chain of custody and testimony
> as to testing procedure, all of which is open to challenge by the defense.
It's the A sample. It doesn't matter if its positive, since the B
sample was destroyed. Of course, that leaves open the possibility that
in the US justice system, scientific evidence doesn't have to be held
up to scientific standards..
-ilan
== 5 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 11:32 am
From: "A. Dumas"
ilan wrote:
> It's the A sample. It doesn't matter if its positive, since the B
> sample was destroyed. Of course, that leaves open the possibility that
> in the US justice system, scientific evidence doesn't have to be held
> up to scientific standards..
Single samples may be split into A and B samples, right? In fact, that
is how it is done when the rider pees into the cup. He doesn't come back
the next day for a second donation.
== 6 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 11:53 am
From: Phil H
On Feb 25, 12:32 pm, "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:
> ilan wrote:
> > It's the A sample. It doesn't matter if its positive, since the B
> > sample was destroyed. Of course, that leaves open the possibility that
> > in the US justice system, scientific evidence doesn't have to be held
> > up to scientific standards..
>
> Single samples may be split into A and B samples, right? In fact, that
> is how it is done when the rider pees into the cup. He doesn't come back
> the next day for a second donation.
No, the whole point of A and B samples is to minimize the possibility
of a false positive due to an anomoly occurring to the A sample that
would likely not occur to the B sample. If such a thing happened to
the A sample, example a contamination, then splitting the A sample is
worthless. The check has gone and the outcome of the test on the A
sample will not meet the required confidence level for statistical
significance on its own.....in my opinion.
Phil H
== 7 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 12:19 pm
From: "A. Dumas"
Phil H wrote:
> On Feb 25, 12:32 pm, "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:
>> ilan wrote:
>>> It's the A sample. It doesn't matter if its positive, since the B
>>> sample was destroyed. Of course, that leaves open the possibility that
>>> in the US justice system, scientific evidence doesn't have to be held
>>> up to scientific standards..
>> Single samples may be split into A and B samples, right? In fact, that
>> is how it is done when the rider pees into the cup. He doesn't come back
>> the next day for a second donation.
>
> No [...]
Then how? Rider pees into cup, half of it goes into another cup, both
are sealed, that's it. It's a single split sample from the outset. When
splitting it later doesn't change a thing (for the population).
== 8 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 12:20 pm
From: "A. Dumas"
A. Dumas wrote:
> When splitting it later doesn't change a thing (for the population).
-when-
== 9 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 1:49 pm
From: "Fred on a stick"
A. Dumas wrote:
> Phil H wrote:
>> On Feb 25, 12:32 pm, "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:
>>> ilan wrote:
>>>> It's the A sample. It doesn't matter if its positive, since the B
>>>> sample was destroyed. Of course, that leaves open the possibility
>>>> that in the US justice system, scientific evidence doesn't have to
>>>> be held up to scientific standards..
>>> Single samples may be split into A and B samples, right? In fact,
>>> that is how it is done when the rider pees into the cup. He doesn't
>>> come back the next day for a second donation.
>>
>> No [...]
>
> Then how? Rider pees into cup, half of it goes into another cup, both
> are sealed, that's it. It's a single split sample from the outset.
> When splitting it later doesn't change a thing (for the population).
I don't have any experience with drug testing so I have no idea how relevant
this is but last year I participated in a research project where I had to
give both blood and urine samples. They needed two samples of urine and
three of blood. I pee'd into one cup, then I pee'd into another. They didn't
split the sample. Same with the blood: they didn't take one draw and then
split it.
== 10 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 2:13 pm
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd
On Feb 25, 1:19 pm, "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:
> Phil H wrote:
> > On Feb 25, 12:32 pm, "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:
> >> ilan wrote:
> >>> It's the A sample. It doesn't matter if its positive, since the B
> >>> sample was destroyed. Of course, that leaves open the possibility that
> >>> in the US justice system, scientific evidence doesn't have to be held
> >>> up to scientific standards..
> >> Single samples may be split into A and B samples, right? In fact, that
> >> is how it is done when the rider pees into the cup. He doesn't come back
> >> the next day for a second donation.
>
> > No [...]
>
> Then how? Rider pees into cup, half of it goes into another cup, both
> are sealed, that's it. It's a single split sample from the outset. When
> splitting it later doesn't change a thing (for the population).
Dumas,
Averaged over the population, it doesn't change
anything. But we don't have dope charges and
criminal trials for entire populations. Not yet anyway.
In an individual case it might change something,
and that's what individuals tend to care about.
The difference between peeing into two cups and
splitting one vial into A and B after the fact is
controlling for whatever unknown things might have
happened to one vial and its sample between the
dope control trailer and the courtroom.
Remember when the doping-war official suggested
splitting the sample to make a "new B sample" and
Lafferty posted a thread of similar title here? Even
the professional dope cops didn't take that idea
seriously.
However, I don't know if US criminal law and practice
says a damn thing about A and B samples. That's a
doping-authority rule. Remember, this is a fraud trial,
not a doping trial, so it's irrelevant. They need to get
a jury to believe that the B sample test proves fraud,
not that it secures a doping conviction, so doping-offense
rules are at best advisory.
Fredmaster B
== 11 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 3:14 pm
From: BLafferty
On 2/25/2011 2:32 PM, A. Dumas wrote:
> ilan wrote:
>> It's the A sample. It doesn't matter if its positive, since the B
>> sample was destroyed. Of course, that leaves open the possibility that
>> in the US justice system, scientific evidence doesn't have to be held
>> up to scientific standards..
>
> Single samples may be split into A and B samples, right? In fact, that
> is how it is done when the rider pees into the cup. He doesn't come back
> the next day for a second donation.
In criminal law, you do not need the B sample. What is left over from
the prior French testing may be used for analysis if the chain of
custody is still intact (apparently it is) and there is enough to test.
The AUSA may offer to allow Armstrong's counsel to have an expert
observe the testing, or if there is enough urine, they may allow a
defense expert to test that portion with a government expert observer.
== 12 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 3:40 pm
From: Brad Anders
On Feb 25, 4:14 pm, BLafferty <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> What is left over from
> the prior French testing may be used for analysis if the chain of
> custody is still intact (apparently it is)
Chain of custody is only one of many requirements for any testing on
these samples to have validity. There also has to be proof that the
samples were never intentionally or unintentionally contaminated, that
the samples were maintained in a controlled condition for the past 11
years (e.g. temperature), etc. Should the samples show EPO present,
I'm pretty sure LA's laywers would ( as they have in the past with
these samples ) be able to produce all manner of explanations as to
why the results have no significance.
== 13 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 6:51 pm
From: BLafferty
On 2/25/2011 6:40 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
> On Feb 25, 4:14 pm, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> What is left over from
>> the prior French testing may be used for analysis if the chain of
>> custody is still intact (apparently it is)
>
> Chain of custody is only one of many requirements for any testing on
> these samples to have validity. There also has to be proof that the
> samples were never intentionally or unintentionally contaminated, that
> the samples were maintained in a controlled condition for the past 11
> years (e.g. temperature), etc.
That is all part of the chain of custody.
> Should the samples show EPO present,
> I'm pretty sure LA's laywers would ( as they have in the past with
> these samples ) be able to produce all manner of explanations as to
> why the results have no significance.
They would blow a lot of smoke, but in court that smoke gets cleared
very quickly. This isn't some UCI hack letting Lance off the hook.
== 14 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 7:59 pm
From: Phil H
On Feb 25, 1:19 pm, "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:
> Phil H wrote:
> > On Feb 25, 12:32 pm, "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:
> >> ilan wrote:
> >>> It's the A sample. It doesn't matter if its positive, since the B
> >>> sample was destroyed. Of course, that leaves open the possibility that
> >>> in the US justice system, scientific evidence doesn't have to be held
> >>> up to scientific standards..
> >> Single samples may be split into A and B samples, right? In fact, that
> >> is how it is done when the rider pees into the cup. He doesn't come back
> >> the next day for a second donation.
>
> > No [...]
>
> Then how? Rider pees into cup, half of it goes into another cup, both
> are sealed, that's it. It's a single split sample from the outset. When
> splitting it later doesn't change a thing (for the population).
Several things can compromise the test. The A sample gets mixed up
later with someone elses, wrong ID number or whatever, did you read
the report on FL's test sample? I also assume these A samples were
already tested introducing more opportunity for reducing reliability.
Anyway, the B sample is a safeguard for screwups like these so if it
the A sample does get mixed up or messed up and is later split into
two, well, you get the picture. The samples need to be split at the
time they are collected; done at a much later time reduces the
itegrity ot the test. Otherwise, why bother?
Phil H
== 15 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 8:14 pm
From: Phil H
On Feb 25, 7:51 pm, BLafferty <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 2/25/2011 6:40 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
>
> > On Feb 25, 4:14 pm, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> What is left over from
> >> the prior French testing may be used for analysis if the chain of
> >> custody is still intact (apparently it is)
>
> > Chain of custody is only one of many requirements for any testing on
> > these samples to have validity. There also has to be proof that the
> > samples were never intentionally or unintentionally contaminated, that
> > the samples were maintained in a controlled condition for the past 11
> > years (e.g. temperature), etc.
>
> That is all part of the chain of custody.
>
> > Should the samples show EPO present,
> > I'm pretty sure LA's laywers would ( as they have in the past with
> > these samples ) be able to produce all manner of explanations as to
> > why the results have no significance.
>
> They would blow a lot of smoke, but in court that smoke gets cleared
> very quickly. This isn't some UCI hack letting Lance off the hook.
No, its some bullshit lawyer with a preconceived notion more intent on
"winning" than truth seeking. For every expert witness that testifies
to the validity of the test you'll find 10 that'll say it's BS and
they'll say it's BS before the result is known and whatever the
outcome. Given the apparent motivation of people like yourself who
have been able to identify samples and whatever else, well, the whole
thing doth stink m'lud.
Phil H
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Questions about Seeing thre Tour in Paris
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/28d76208a6639cf9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 2:42 am
From: ilan
On Feb 25, 2:58 am, Dumbass <tadams...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I was looking at a tour package for the Tour de France in Paris. I
> was wondering if I could do all the good stuff that the tour package
> offered on my own.
>
> 1. Can you just rent a bike and ride around the Champs Elysee in the
> morning before the racers arrive? Or do you have to make special
> arrangements?
>
> 2. Can you purchase tickets for seats with a good view? How do you
> get a good view?
>
> Thanks
I rode around the Champs-Elysee on a rental bike a couple of months
ago, but I'd rather ride almost anywhere else, given a choice.
-ilan
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 5:54 am
From: "Mike Jacoubowsky"
"Dumbass" <tadamsmar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a6d1ea76-7eb0-4fa8-b39d-2e42ff16acf0@u12g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>I was looking at a tour package for the Tour de France in Paris. I
> was wondering if I could do all the good stuff that the tour package
> offered on my own.
>
> 1. Can you just rent a bike and ride around the Champs Elysee in the
> morning before the racers arrive? Or do you have to make special
> arrangements?
>
> 2. Can you purchase tickets for seats with a good view? How do you
> get a good view?
>
> Thanks
There are special packages that allow you to sit in the grandstands, but at
a cost of about $350/person. You can rent a bike in Paris, but you probably
won't be able to ride on the Champs Elysees except at a ridiculously-early
hour, since it will be closed to traffic (and besides, it's not that much
fun).
The final day of the TdF is probably best viewed on TV. It's an insane
madhouse, to say the least. Much better would be to see it a few days
earlier in the Alps, or the day before on the final time trial around
Grenoble.
As for doing things on your own vs a tour company, if this is your first
time to France, I'd go for the tour company.
You can find more info here-
http://www.chainreaction.com/tdfwatching.htm
http://www.chainreaction.com/france03racephotos.htm
http://www.chainreaction.com/diaryfrance.htm
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 3:58 pm
From: DirtRoadie
On Feb 25, 6:54 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
wrote:
> The final day of the TdF is probably best viewed on TV. It's an insane
> madhouse, to say the least.
What he said. BTDT.
>Much better would be to see it a few days
> earlier in the Alps, or the day before on the final time trial around
> Grenoble.
Climbs are great places to take in the whole spectacle.
DR
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The company you keep
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/f3f7520db2b79b89?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 7:22 am
From: "Steve Freides"
Fred Flintstein wrote:
> There is a link to this from the LANCE wikipedia
> article. It struck me as funny, in a 'hater' sort
> of way.
>
> The Associated Press Athlete of the Year
>
> 1997 Tiger Woods
> 1998 Mark McGuire
> 1999 Tiger Woods
> 2000 Tiger Woods
> 2001 Barry Bonds
> 2002 LANCE Armstrong
> 2003 LANCE Armstrong
> 2004 LANCE Armstrong
> 2005 LANCE Armstrong
> 2006 Tiger Woods
>
> Ten years of athletes to look up to, eh?
>
> Fred Flintstein
A couple of points worth making, IMHO.
Good athlete does not equal good person. Indeed, world-class athlete at
one sport isn't a reliable predictor of similar performance at another,
similar sport, let alone a dissimilar sport, let alone any career not
sports-related, let alone matters of character. To expect our athletes
to also be heroes is to invite disappointment, and for no good reason.
If we want our athletes to act like model citizens, put that into their
contracts. In the meantime, we should stop oogling their off-the-field
antics and each worry about our own character - that would be time well
spent.
They say power corrupts, but it seems to me that fame corrupts more.
Lance Armstrong is an athlete I look up to, and expect to continue to
look up to, both for his athletic performance and for his off-field
achievements in the realm of cancer support.
-S-
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Omloop Het Nieuwsblad
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/bea6d61f57aa2583?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 8:31 pm
From: TheCoz
Filippo Pozzato takes the win.
Tom Boonen sweep up in 4th.
Coz
==============================================================================
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
selected
DEPT MICROSOFT AVENUE
STAMFORD BRIDGE LONDON.
SW1V 3DW UNITED KINGDOM
Attention Winner
This email is to notify you that your email address was
randomly selected and entered into our free Third Category
draws.You have subsequently emerged a winner and therefore
entitled to a substantial amount of 1,000,000.00 Great British
Pounds.kindly confirm receipt of this email, by forwarding
Your Details to the claims department by (click reply to).
IMPORTANT FILL OUT THIS WINNERS VERIFICATION FORM BELOW:
FULL NAMES----------
DATE OF BIRTH---------
SEX.----------------
CONTACT ADDRESS----------
COUNTRY--------------------
MOBILE NUMBER--------------
OCCUPATION----------
E-MAIL ID--------------
THANKS AND GOD BLESS.
FOR SALE IN GOA, CREC Meadows Complex, Paithona , Porvorim
| ESTATES, PROPERTIES - APARTMENTS | |
| A new listing with title LUXURY APARTMENT FOR SALE IN GOA, CREC Meadows Complex, Paithona , Porvorim has just been submitted. =================================================== http://beaches.magicingoa.com/index.php?list=advertisement&method=showdetails&rollid=20086&eid=microvinitster@GMAIL.COM =================================================== Additional message: Unsubscribe from our newsletters http://beaches.magicingoa.com/unsubscribe.php |  |
Medarticles Request for article
I need this article. May I request you to kindly upload the same
here...
European Journal of Cancer
Volume 29, Issue 3, 1993, Pages 395-399
doi:10.1016/0959-8049(93)90394-U
A comparison of clonogenic, microtetrazolium and sulforhodamine B
assays for determination of cisplatin cytotoxicity in human ovarian
carcinoma cell lines
sincere thanks in advance
best wishes and regards
parijat
--
You can edit your Group Email settings by visiting the following link.
http://groups.google.com/group/medarticles/subscribe
You can choose abridged email or digest email so that you will receive only one email per day.
Medarticles The Best Dissection for Medic Students Video
MOV | svq1 934 kbps | English | 640x480 | 15fps | qcip 128kbps | 3.22 GB
Genre: eLearning
[img]http://www.ebook3000.com/upimg/201102/23/12502776.jpeg[/img]
Tutorials for the preparation of anatomical specimens. This material is intended for medical students.
Content:
01 - Skin And Subcutaneous Tissue of Trunk and Upper Thing
02 - Intrinisic Muscles Of The Back
03 - The Anterior Body Wall
04 - Lungs And Pleural Sacs
05 - Posterior Thoracic Wall
06 - Peritoneal Cavity
07 - Gastrointestinal Tract
08 - Abdominal Autonomics
09 - Split Pelvis
10 - The Pelvic Outlet-Perineum
11 - Superficial Face
12 - Infratemporal Fossa
13 - Superficial Neck
14 - Deep Neck
15 - Cranial Contents
16 - The Orbit
17 - The Ear
18 - Cervial Joints, Mouth & Pharynx
19 - Nasal Cavity & Sinuses
20 - Superficial Dissection of the Limbs
21 - Axillary Fossa
22 - Shoulder and Arm Muscles
23 - Forearm and Hand
24 - Joints of the Upper Extremity
25 - Muscles, Vessels and Nerves of the Hip and Thigh
26 - Leg and Foot
27 - Joints of the Lower Extremity
D/L:
http://www.filesonic.com/file/110727591/Dissection for Medic.part01.rar
http://www.filesonic.com/file/110727701/Dissection for Medic.part02.rar
http://www.filesonic.com/file/110728811/Dissection for Medic.part03.rar
http://www.filesonic.com/file/110731931/Dissection for Medic.part04.rar
http://www.filesonic.com/file/110733441/Dissection for Medic.part05.rar
http://www.filesonic.com/file/110733801/Dissection for Medic.part06.rar
http://www.filesonic.com/file/110733611/Dissection for Medic.part07.rar
http://www.filesonic.com/file/110735501/Dissection for Medic.part08.rar
http://www.filesonic.com/file/110736371/Dissection for Medic.part09.rar
http://www.filesonic.com/file/110744281/Dissection for Medic.part10.rar
http://www.filesonic.com/file/110742621/Dissection for Medic.part11.rar
http://www.filesonic.com/file/110745001/Dissection for Medic.part12.rar
http://www.filesonic.com/file/110744601/Dissection for Medic.part13.rar
http://www.filesonic.com/file/110744561/Dissection for Medic.part14.rar
--
You can edit your Group Email settings by visiting the following link.
http://groups.google.com/group/medarticles/subscribe
You can choose abridged email or digest email so that you will receive only one email per day.
RegNow Quarterly Affiliate Newsletter - First Quarter 2011
| To ensure you receive future emails, please add regnow@reply.digitalriver.com to your address book. To no longer receive email offers from RegNow, unsubscribe here | View this online |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[socialactionfoundationforequity:13488 HIV ATLAS Daily Digest - February 25th, 2011
gsk
Posts
![http://www.ebook3000.com/upimg/201102/23/12502776.jpeg[/img]](http://www.ebook3000.com/upimg/201102/23/12502776.jpeg[/img]){kind=link}