rec.bicycles.racing
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing?hl=enrec.bicycles.racing@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Deep Thoughts from Liz Hatch - 6 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/2e1ee98b735e1776?hl=en
* Religioustard Jour prayed for Japan after those little earthquakes last week.
- 11 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/4046655609e22cb2?hl=en
* Who's the Monkey? - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/82ac2aada2a8cea9?hl=en
* Paris Nice, stage 7 summary - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/81ae39a190074e0b?hl=en
* Paris Nice, stage 8 summary - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/d2b13270a6b98bcd?hl=en
* OT: Some hot T&A action - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/0a452745a1ef516b?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Deep Thoughts from Liz Hatch
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/2e1ee98b735e1776?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 12 2011 9:31 pm
From: TheCoz
On Mar 12, 9:59 pm, Jute Andre <jutean...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Nature's power to undo decades of human progress in an instant is
> astonishing. Makes me feel we are like ants with unjustified
> egos..."
>
> Source:http://twitter.com/#!/Liz_Hatch/status/46198958950854656
Well done Grasshopper.
Coz
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 13 2011 9:14 am
From: Anton Berlin
On Mar 13, 12:31 am, TheCoz <cycled...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 9:59 pm, Jute Andre <jutean...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Nature's power to undo decades of human progress in an instant is
> > astonishing. Makes me feel we are like ants with unjustified
> > egos..."
>
> > Source:http://twitter.com/#!/Liz_Hatch/status/46198958950854656
>
> Well done Grasshopper.
> Coz
Liz might have deeper thoughts if there wasn't so much blood flow
dedicated to vibrator use.
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 13 2011 9:29 am
From: Fred
On Mar 12, 9:59 pm, Jute Andre <jutean...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Nature's power to undo decades of human progress in an instant is
> astonishing. Makes me feel we are like ants with unjustified
> egos..."
>
> Source:http://twitter.com/#!/Liz_Hatch/status/46198958950854656
If there's anyone who should know about unjustified egos, it's LH.
Fred
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 13 2011 9:32 am
From: William Fred
Anton Berlin <truth_88888@yahoo.com> wrote in news:8bf26f15-226c-4148-
846b-1db64dbfcc4c@d12g2000prj.googlegroups.com:
> On Mar 13, 12:31�am, TheCoz <cycled...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 9:59�pm, Jute Andre <jutean...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "Nature's power to undo decades of human progress in an instant is
>> > astonishing. �Makes me feel we are like ants with unjustified
>> > egos..."
>>
>> > Source:http://twitter.com/#!/Liz_Hatch/status/46198958950854656
>>
>> Well done Grasshopper.
>> Coz
>
> Liz might have deeper thoughts if there wasn't so much blood flow
> dedicated to vibrator use.
I know. It's weird how Hatch sees the images and video from Japan and
says something publically about how it makes her think that maybe humans
should take a step back and consider their place in the universe while
most of the guys following her tweets are mainly concerned whether or not
the disaster will affect the hentai output of Japan.
--
Bill Fred
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 13 2011 1:33 pm
From: Simply Fred
Jute Andre wrote:
> "Nature's power to undo decades of human progress in an instant is
> astonishing. Makes me feel we are like ants with unjustified
> egos..."
>
> Source: http://twitter.com/#!/Liz_Hatch/status/46198958950854656
<http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/03/13/japan-earthquake-shifted-the-earth-s-axis-by-10cm-experts-say-91466-28326468/>
I thought the earth moving was due to Liz and Magilla finally making out.
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 13 2011 3:08 pm
From: Anton Berlin
> I thought the earth moving was due to Liz and Magilla finally making out.
Massive earthquake - it also caused all of my clocks to be off by an
hour
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Religioustard Jour prayed for Japan after those little earthquakes last
week.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/4046655609e22cb2?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 13 2011 1:30 am
From: Simply Fred
A. Dumas wrote:
>> Johan Fucking Cruijff. Agnostic is the only valid position?
>
RicodJour wrote:
> Is Agnostic the only valid position? Sure, if you expect to prove
> something it is. I can pretty much conclusively prove that anyone
> that summarily accepts or rejects a singular higher entity is making
> dumbass-umptions.
So prove it. Most rational commentators from Laplace to Hawking have
concluded a god is an unnecessary hypothesis:
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html>
> * God, if you're reading this, please remember it's RBR I'm posting
> to and this stuff shouldn't prevent me from getting into Heaven.
Are you sure you weren't brought up in a god fearing American family and
find it hard to shake off your brainwashing ? If so the berliner's
clinic may be able to help you out.
== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 13 2011 9:13 am
From: Anton Berlin
On Mar 13, 4:30 am, Simply Fred <n...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> A. Dumas wrote:
> >> Johan Fucking Cruijff. Agnostic is the only valid position?
>
> RicodJour wrote:
> > Is Agnostic the only valid position? Sure, if you expect to prove
> > something it is. I can pretty much conclusively prove that anyone
> > that summarily accepts or rejects a singular higher entity is making
> > dumbass-umptions.
>
> So prove it. Most rational commentators from Laplace to Hawking have
> concluded a god is an unnecessary hypothesis:
> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawki...>
>
> > * God, if you're reading this, please remember it's RBR I'm posting
> > to and this stuff shouldn't prevent me from getting into Heaven.
>
> Are you sure you weren't brought up in a god fearing American family and
> find it hard to shake off your brainwashing ? If so the berliner's
> clinic may be able to help you out.
The only entrance criteria is that one must have intellectual
curiosity. It is the death of all religions.
== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 13 2011 10:07 am
From: RicodJour
On Mar 13, 5:30 am, Simply Fred <n...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
>
> > Is Agnostic the only valid position? Sure, if you expect to prove
> > something it is. I can pretty much conclusively prove that anyone
> > that summarily accepts or rejects a singular higher entity is making
> > dumbass-umptions.
>
> So prove it. Most rational commentators from Laplace to Hawking have
> concluded a god is an unnecessary hypothesis:
> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawki...>
And silly, non-rational people like Thomas Jefferson believed
otherwise. Are we supposed to trade poster boys/girls ad infinitum?
That's Gulliver's Travels Dumbassian. BTW, Thomas Jefferson was far
smarter than Hawking in nearly all areas.
Why do you find it difficult to believe that something is currently
impossible to prove one way or the other? I'll give you an example -
is there life on other planets? The correct answer, as I'm sure you
are aware, is, "I don't know."
> > * God, if you're reading this, please remember it's RBR I'm posting
> > to and this stuff shouldn't prevent me from getting into Heaven.
>
> Are you sure you weren't brought up in a god fearing American family and
> find it hard to shake off your brainwashing ? If so the berliner's
> clinic may be able to help you out.
Truncating to remove context is rarely effective, but as long as you
enjoy it I'm okay with it.
R
== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 13 2011 10:19 am
From: RicodJour
On Mar 13, 12:13 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The only entrance criteria is that one must have intellectual
> curiosity. It is the death of all religions.
In two sentences you have written the obituary for your own
intellectual death.
Intellectual curiosity without intellectual openness to the outcome is
not intellectual. As soon as someone takes sides and feels vested in
the outcome it's ego driven. The fact that 'scientific minds' _feel_
a need to have someone take sides is very odd.
Why are some people having issues with me saying, "I don't have a dog
in the fight?" Here's my side - it's pointless to debate the
existence of God. I just like pointing out why Anton - even while
he's claiming to be playing on RBR because his life/job sucks - is
still being serious, and on this topic, by claiming certitude without
any verifiable proof, is seriously wrong. I consider it a public
service to point out such errors and there's really no need to thank
me.
R
== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 13 2011 10:40 am
From: RicodJour
On Mar 13, 5:30 am, Simply Fred <n...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> Most rational commentators from Laplace to Hawking have
> concluded a god is an unnecessary hypothesis:
> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawki...>
Sigh. It's not a hypothesis as there would be little to observe
unless you believe in mundane (daily) miracles (which there are) and
in that case there's little need for a hypothesis as there would be
abundant proof (which there is and isn't depending on how you define
proof). See how neatly I can come down on both sides of the question
without waffling?
If you meant it's a scientific theory, most present day scientific
theory starts with the assumption that there is no God/god/dog.
Religion fights science because science attempts to destroy religion.
Science fights religion because religion cannot fit into a scientific
world (that by present day definitions precludes the supernatural).
Anytime you communicate in this way you are no different than some
political pundit blowhard talking about Red and Blue states. You are
simply trying to engage an emotional fight/flight response. What is
not clear is why you feel it is necessary to do this.
Let's try this another way. I like Jens. Every time he goes up the
road, I want him to stay away. I cheer for him. He doesn't stay
away. Next time he goes up the road, my previous experience with his
breaks has no bearing - I still want him to stay away and I still
cheer him. Scientifically my hope and cheering make no sense at all.
Are you going to convince me or try to persuade me that I shouldn't
cheer Jens on? What's it to you, motherfucker? Religion is like
that. What's it to you, motherfucker, if someone does or does not
believe? Is it some assault on your mental health if they do
believe? Are you #winning, Charlie Sheen, if they agree with you?
Both of those stances are not #winning in any way you look at it.
More like #loosing.
R
== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 13 2011 12:30 pm
From: Anton Berlin
On Mar 13, 12:40 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 5:30 am, Simply Fred <n...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Most rational commentators from Laplace to Hawking have
> > concluded a god is an unnecessary hypothesis:
> > <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawki...>
>
> Sigh. It's not a hypothesis as there would be little to observe
> unless you believe in mundane (daily) miracles (which there are) and
> in that case there's little need for a hypothesis as there would be
> abundant proof (which there is and isn't depending on how you define
> proof). See how neatly I can come down on both sides of the question
> without waffling?
>
> If you meant it's a scientific theory, most present day scientific
> theory starts with the assumption that there is no God/god/dog.
> Religion fights science because science attempts to destroy religion.
> Science fights religion because religion cannot fit into a scientific
> world (that by present day definitions precludes the supernatural).
>
> Anytime you communicate in this way you are no different than some
> political pundit blowhard talking about Red and Blue states. You are
> simply trying to engage an emotional fight/flight response. What is
> not clear is why you feel it is necessary to do this.
>
> Let's try this another way. I like Jens. Every time he goes up the
> road, I want him to stay away. I cheer for him. He doesn't stay
> away. Next time he goes up the road, my previous experience with his
> breaks has no bearing - I still want him to stay away and I still
> cheer him. Scientifically my hope and cheering make no sense at all.
>
> Are you going to convince me or try to persuade me that I shouldn't
> cheer Jens on? What's it to you, motherfucker? Religion is like
> that. What's it to you, motherfucker, if someone does or does not
> believe? Is it some assault on your mental health if they do
> believe? Are you #winning, Charlie Sheen, if they agree with you?
> Both of those stances are not #winning in any way you look at it.
> More like #loosing.
>
> R
You're mainly right except that people aren't content believing what
they choose to believe. They aren't content until you believe what
they believe and you do or don't do what they want you to.
And if Jens wins someone else's favorite loses - so they think 'fuck
Jens" - 'fuck Jesus' 'fuck Allah' etc and soon we're all in the
middle of it.
== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 13 2011 1:04 pm
From: Simply Fred
RicodJour wrote:
> Let's try this another way. I like Jens. Every time he goes up the
> road, I want him to stay away. I cheer for him. He doesn't stay
> away. Next time he goes up the road, my previous experience with his
> breaks has no bearing - I still want him to stay away and I still
> cheer him. Scientifically my hope and cheering make no sense at all.
>
> Are you going to convince me or try to persuade me that I shouldn't
> cheer Jens on? What's it to you, motherfucker? Religion is like
> that. What's it to you, motherfucker, if someone does or does not
> believe? Is it some assault on your mental health if they do
> believe? Are you #winning, Charlie Sheen, if they agree with you?
> Both of those stances are not #winning in any way you look at it.
> More like #loosing.
Do you attempt to convert, forcibly if necessary, other cycling fans to
Believe in Jens ?
Do you think it your duty to brainwash any offspring you may bestow unto
the world to also Believe in Jens ?
== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 13 2011 1:27 pm
From: Simply Fred
RicodJour wrote:
>>> Is Agnostic the only valid position? Sure, if you expect to prove
>>> something it is. I can pretty much conclusively prove that anyone
>>> that summarily accepts or rejects a singular higher entity is making
Simply Fred wrote:
>> So prove it. Most rational commentators from Laplace to Hawking have
>> concluded a god is an unnecessary hypothesis:
>> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawki...>
RicodJour wrote:
> Why do you find it difficult to believe that something is currently
> impossible to prove one way or the other? I'll give you an example -
> is there life on other planets? The correct answer, as I'm sure you
> are aware, is, "I don't know."
A more accurate analogy would be the hypothesis by Aristotle which
persisted through Newtons time up to the early 20th century that light
travels through "aether" in space. However there is no need for ether
for light waves (or particles if you're feeling corpuscular like any
good FM) so ether is an unnecessary hypothesis just like god.
And as to life on other planets, you may not be able to say for sure (as
yet) but given the seeming abundance of planets including earthlike
rocky planets and the occurrence of carbon based amino acids even on
meteorites (oddly it seems mostly left-handed amino acids) you could
provide a probability for the existence of such life. You can't provide
any such probability for the existence of a god.
== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 13 2011 3:11 pm
From: Anton Berlin
On Mar 13, 12:19 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 12:13 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The only entrance criteria is that one must have intellectual
> > curiosity. It is the death of all religions.
>
> In two sentences you have written the obituary for your own
> intellectual death.
>
> Intellectual curiosity without intellectual openness to the outcome is
> not intellectual. As soon as someone takes sides and feels vested in
> the outcome it's ego driven. The fact that 'scientific minds' _feel_
> a need to have someone take sides is very odd.
>
> Why are some people having issues with me saying, "I don't have a dog
> in the fight?" Here's my side - it's pointless to debate the
> existence of God. I just like pointing out why Anton - even while
> he's claiming to be playing on RBR because his life/job sucks - is
> still being serious, and on this topic, by claiming certitude without
> any verifiable proof, is seriously wrong. I consider it a public
> service to point out such errors and there's really no need to thank
> me.
>
> R
I am certain all of the worlds religions have it wrong. I am an
agnostic non-theist that also believes that the world is better off
with religion due to what's known as Skycake.
== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 13 2011 4:22 pm
From: Fred Fredburger
On 3/13/2011 10:40 AM, RicodJour wrote:
> If you meant it's a scientific theory, most present day scientific
> theory starts with the assumption that there is no God/god/dog.
> Religion fights science because science attempts to destroy religion.
I can stop here. If you've never even heard of Galileo, it's going to be
tough to explain how backward you've got that.
== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 13 2011 4:32 pm
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd
On Mar 13, 10:40 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
> If you meant it's a scientific theory, most present day scientific
> theory starts with the assumption that there is no God/god/dog.
> Religion fights science because science attempts to destroy religion.
> Science fights religion because religion cannot fit into a scientific
> world (that by present day definitions precludes the supernatural).
You keep talking about these things:
- human religious belief and its expression
- the existence of powerful beings (not necessarily
omniscient or all-powerful - the Greek gods were neither)
- the occurrence of supernatural phenomena or those
lacking a mechanistic explanation
as if they were the same thing. They're not the
same thing. Of course some of them are connected,
but as long as you assume equivalences, it's just
going to be pointless talking about it.
Fredmaster Ben
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Who's the Monkey?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/82ac2aada2a8cea9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 13 2011 1:34 am
From: Simply Fred
BLafferty wrote:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/30/jack-kingston-evolution_n_815909.html
If the other 48% formed their own party they would sound a lot more
rational.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 13 2011 7:55 am
From: Phil H
On Mar 13, 2:34 am, Simply Fred <n...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> BLafferty wrote:
> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/30/jack-kingston-evolution_n_81...
>
> If the other 48% formed their own party they would sound a lot more
> rational.
But more importantly, what would be their position on Lance? And how
about the "ball gargling evolutionist party" for a name.
Phil H
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 13 2011 10:21 am
From: RicodJour
On Mar 13, 10:55 am, Phil H <pholma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2:34 am, Simply Fred <n...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> > If the other 48% formed their own party they would sound a lot more
> > rational.
>
> But more importantly, what would be their position on Lance? And how
> about the "ball gargling evolutionist party" for a name.
Can we make the acronym spell a word? Those are always the best.
R
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 13 2011 4:42 pm
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd
On Mar 12, 5:36 pm, BLafferty <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 3/12/2011 5:59 PM, BLafferty wrote:
>
> >> "Margaret Hamburg, commissioner of the FDA, said her
> >> agency is looking into Novitzky's investigation and
> >> would provide information on how much the probe is costing."
>
> >> What you are saying is that the commissioner of the FDA
> >> does not know that the FDA is not spending money on
> >> this investigation, and you do.
>
> > Try to follow this FuckTard. It's an inter-agency investigation. What
> > started as primarily Novitsky has gone far beyond just him. The FDA
> > isn't paying the freight for for the DoJ's part of the investigation.
>
> > If you look at most high profile investigations/prosecutions, they are
> > money losers. That's because, as a society, we have criminal laws that
> > we conduct investigations under that don't usually have a monetary
> > payback after a conviction. That said, in this case, that remains to be
> > seen given the deep pockets of some of the probable perps.
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/30/jack-kingston-evolution_n_81...
UniTard,
Of course the honorable gentleman from Georgia
is a moran. That's his job. I don't think law enforcement
officials should stop investigations because some
congressman questioned the cost. If that happened,
no investigation of financial wrong doing would ever
get results since there is always a congressman who
can be found to defend the interests of the moneyed.
As we know, that's not the case, since all possible
causes of the financial meltdown and wrongdoing in
the mortgage biz were investigated, and the perpetrators
are now safely in jail, I trust.
I don't think any serious person questions the Novitsky
investigation on the ground that it's a money loser. Of course
it is, nobody should think of law enforcement as a profit center
(except for sheriffs abusing the drug-related property confiscation
laws). It is legitimate, however, to question how much resources
FDA or DoJ should be devoting to this case given all the other
shit that goes on in their purview (food safety, mortgage fraud
etc). Maybe I'm wrong and the Novitsky investigation is a
trivial cost compared to the vast expense of, say, shutting
down a corrupt meatpacker. But it's a lot easier to conclude
that it's driven by the high headline value of the targets.
Fredmaster Ben
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Paris Nice, stage 7 summary
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/81ae39a190074e0b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 13 2011 10:31 am
From: Bob Martin
Stage 7 : Mar 12, Brignoles - Biot - Sophia Antipolis, 215 km
1 Remy Di Gregorio (Fra) Pro Team Astana 5.46.23
2 Samuel Sanchez Gonzalez (Spa) Euskaltel-Euskadi 0.05
3 Rigoberto Uran Uran (Col) Sky Procycling
4 Andreas Kloden (Ger) Team RadioShack 0.07
5 Tony Martin (Ger) HTC-Highroad
6 Rein Taaramae (Est) Cofidis, Le Credit En Ligne
7 Janez Brajkovic (Slo) Team RadioShack 0.09
8 Bradley Wiggins (GBr) Sky Procycling
9 Xavier Tondo Volpini (Spa) Movistar Team
10 Maxime Monfort (Bel) Leopard Trek 0.11
Changes in GC, stage 7 compared to stage 6 :
Biggest gainers by position :
+42 Oscar Pujol Munoz
+38 Pablo Lastras Garcia
+38 Jussi Veikkanen
+37 Romain Hardy
+37 Jose Vicente Garcia Acosta
+35 Kristijan Koren
+34 Jurgen Roelandts
+34 Florian Vachon
+34 David Lopez Garcia
+34 Arnold Jeannesson
Biggest losers by position :
-27 Tejay Van Garderen
-25 Brent Bookwalter
-24 Johan Van Summeren
-22 Bruno Pires
-22 Jeremy Roy
-22 Pieter Weening
-21 Amael Moinard
-21 Dominik Nerz
-21 Laurent Didier
-20 Maarten Tjallingii
-17 Luis Leon Sanchez Gil
Biggest gainers by time :
+0:17 Remy Di Gregorio
+0:08 Samuel Sanchez Gonzalez
+0:06 Rigoberto Uran Uran
Biggest losers by time :
-21:14 Jos Van Emden
-20:23 Jeremy Roy
-20:16 Mickael Buffaz
-20:14 Alessandro Spezialetti
-20:14 Amael Moinard
-20:14 Andreas Stauff
-20:14 Benjamin Noval Gonzalez
-20:14 Brent Bookwalter
-20:14 Bruno Pires
-20:14 Christophe Riblon
-20:14 Damien Gaudin
Favourites by position :
+29 Lars Ytting Bak
+9 Jens Voigt
+8 Linus Gerdemann
+5 Roman Kreuziger
+2 Samuel Sanchez Gonzalez
+1 Michael Rogers
-2 Levi Leipheimer
-17 Luis Leon Sanchez Gil
Favourites by time :
+0:08 Samuel Sanchez Gonzalez
-0:02 Xavier Tondo Volpini
-0:02 Janez Brajkovic
-0:02 Bradley Wiggins
-0:07 Levi Leipheimer
-0:11 Roman Kreuziger
-0:22 Michael Rogers
-0:30 Linus Gerdemann
-2:52 Lars Ytting Bak
-4:51 Jens Voigt
-5:50 Luis Leon Sanchez Gil
Top 10 and favourites GC standings (previous stage in parens) :
1 Tony Martin 30:46:17 (unchanged)
2 Andreas Kloden 0:36 (unchanged)
3 Bradley Wiggins 0:41 (was 3rd at 0:39)
4 Rein Taaramae 1:10 (unchanged)
5 Jean-Christophe Peraud 1:21 (was 5th at 1:14)
6 Samuel Sanchez Gonzalez 1:29 (was 8th at 1:37)
7 Janez Brajkovic 1:34 (was 7th at 1:32)
8 Levi Leipheimer 1:36 (was 6th at 1:29)
9 Xavier Tondo Volpini 1:53 (was 9th at 1:51)
10 Bauke Mollema 2:04 (was 10th at 1:57)
.....
12 Michael Rogers 2:39 (was 13th at 2:17)
.....
15 Roman Kreuziger 3:20 (was 20th at 3:09)
.....
17 Linus Gerdemann 4:21 (was 25th at 3:51)
.....
28 Luis Leon Sanchez Gil 7:48 (was 11th at 1:58)
.....
58 Jens Voigt 24:05 (was 67th at 19:14)
.....
96 Lars Ytting Bak 41:35 (was 125th at 38:43)
Top 10 on Points table with previous in parens:
1 Heinrich Haussler 82 (was 1st with 79 points)
2 Andreas Kloden 62 (was 7th with 44 points)
3 Thomas De Gendt 61 (was 2nd with 61 points)
4 Tony Martin 59 (was 9th with 43 points)
5 Matthew Harley Goss 55 (unchanged)
6 Samuel Sanchez Gonzalez 49 (was 16th with 27 points)
7 Rein Taaramae 44 (was 14th with 29 points)
8 Danilo Wyss 44 (unchanged)
9 Remy Di Gregorio 43 (was 27th with 18 points)
10 Bradley Wiggins 42 (was 13th with 29 points)
Top 10 on Mountains table with previous in parens:
1 Remi Pauriol 49 (was 1st with 39 points)
2 Lieuwe Westra 34 (was 2nd with 25 points)
3 Eric Berthou 27 (was 0 points)
4 Remy Di Gregorio 21 (was 3rd with 19 points)
5 Karsten Kroon 21 (was 0 points)
6 Hubert Dupont 18 (was 4th with 18 points)
7 Thomas De Gendt 15 (was 5th with 15 points)
8 Arnold Jeannesson 15 (was 9th with 8 points)
9 David Lopez Garcia 14 (was 6th with 12 points)
10 Rein Taaramae 10 (was 7th with 10 points)
Retirements to date : Stage
Daniele Righi (Ita) Lampre - ISD 7 <<<
Eros Capecchi (Ita) Liquigas-Cannondale 7 <<<
Francesco Gavazzi (Ita) Lampre - ISD 7 <<<
Francis De Greef (Bel) Omega Pharma-Lotto 7 <<<
Frank Schleck (Lux) Leopard Trek 7 <<<
Fredrik Kessiakoff (Swe) Pro Team Astana 7 <<<
Geoffroy Lequatre (Fra) Team RadioShack 7 <<<
Greg Henderson (NZl) Sky Procycling 7 <<<
Jakob Fuglsang (Den) Leopard Trek 7 <<<
Jurgen Van De Walle (Bel) Omega Pharma-Lotto 7 <<<
Martijn Maaskant (Ned) Team Garmin-Cervelo 7 <<<
Nicolas Roche (Irl) AG2R La Mondiale 7 <<<
Nikolay Trusov (Rus) Katusha Team 7 <<<
Peter Sagan (Svk) Liquigas-Cannondale 7 <<<
Romain Feillu (Fra) Vacansoleil-DCM Pro Cycling Team 7 <<<
Sandy Casar (Fra) FDJ 7 <<<
Sebastien Turgot (Fra) Team Europcar 7 <<<
Serguei Ivanov (Rus) Katusha Team 7 <<<
Sylvain Chavanel (Fra) Quickstep Cycling Team 7 <<<
Tony Gallopin (Fra) Cofidis, Le Credit En Ligne 7 <<<
Valerio Agnoli (Ita) Liquigas-Cannondale 7 <<<
Yannick Eijssen (Bel) BMC Racing Team 7 <<<
Steve Morabito (Swi) BMC Racing Team 6
Arthur Vichot (Fra) FDJ 5
Brian Vandborg (Den) Saxo Bank Sungard 5
Kevin De Weert (Bel) Quickstep Cycling Team 5
Leif Hoste (Bel) Katusha Team 5
Yoann Offredo (Fra) FDJ 5
Denis Galimzyanov (Rus) Katusha Team 4
Gert Steegmans (Bel) Quickstep Cycling Team 4
Nikolas Maes (Bel) Quickstep Cycling Team 4
Romain Sicard (Fra) Euskaltel-Euskadi 3
Simone Ponzi (Ita) Liquigas-Cannondale 3
David Moncoutie (Fra) Cofidis, Le Credit En Ligne 2
Lucas Sebastian Haedo (Arg) Saxo Bank Sungard 2
Martin Velits (Svk) HTC-Highroad 2
Total retirements : 36
(This report can also be seen at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rvmartin2)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Paris Nice, stage 8 summary
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/d2b13270a6b98bcd?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 13 2011 10:35 am
From: Bob Martin
Stage 8 : Mar 13, Nice - Nice, 124 km
1 Thomas Voeckler (Fra) Team Europcar 3.15.58
2 Diego Ulissi (Ita) Lampre - ISD 0.23
3 Julien El Fares (Fra) Cofidis, Le Credit En Ligne 1.06
4 Samuel Sanchez Gonzalez (Spa) Euskaltel-Euskadi
5 David Lopez Garcia (Spa) Movistar Team
6 Matteo Carrara (Ita) Vacansoleil-DCM Pro Cycling Team 1.08
7 Gorka Izagirre Insausti (Spa) Euskaltel-Euskadi 1.12
8 Jose Joaquin Rojas Gil (Spa) Movistar Team 1.22
9 Simon Spilak (Slo) Lampre - ISD
10 Tomas Vaitkus (Ltu) Pro Team Astana
Changes in GC, stage 8 compared to stage 7 :
Biggest gainers by position :
+40 Geraint Thomas
+40 Christophe Riblon
+38 Maciej Paterski
+35 Pierre Cazaux
+34 Tomas Vaitkus
+32 Ivan Santaromita
+32 Grischa Niermann
+31 Jussi Veikkanen
+30 Sebastien Minard
+30 Pablo Lastras Garcia
Biggest losers by position :
-16 Kanstantsin Sivtsov
-14 Ryder Hesjedal
-8 Christophe Le Mevel
-7 Heinrich Haussler
-7 Sergey Lagutin
-7 Sergio Pardilla Belllon
-6 Eduard Vorganov
-5 Xavier Tondo Volpini
-3 Brent Bookwalter
-2 Luis Pasamontes
-2 Roman Kreuziger
Biggest gainers by time :
+1:34 Thomas Voeckler
+1:08 Diego Ulissi
+0:20 Julien El Fares
+0:16 Samuel Sanchez Gonzalez
+0:16 David Lopez Garcia
+0:15 Matteo Carrara
+0:10 Gorka Izagirre Insausti
Biggest losers by time :
-16:40 Anthony Ravard
-16:40 Bart De Clercq
-16:40 Brent Bookwalter
-16:40 Christophe Le Mevel
-16:40 Grischa Niermann
-16:40 Kanstantsin Sivtsov
-16:40 Karsten Kroon
-16:40 Maciej Paterski
-16:40 Ryder Hesjedal
-16:40 Sergey Lagutin
-16:40 Sergio Pardilla Belllon
Favourites by position :
+18 Lars Ytting Bak
+14 Jens Voigt
+1 Samuel Sanchez Gonzalez
-1 Linus Gerdemann
-2 Roman Kreuziger
-5 Xavier Tondo Volpini
Favourites by time :
+0:16 Samuel Sanchez Gonzalez
-0:03 Michael Rogers
-3:50 Xavier Tondo Volpini
-3:50 Roman Kreuziger
-3:50 Linus Gerdemann
-3:50 Jens Voigt
-8:10 Luis Leon Sanchez Gil
-11:48 Lars Ytting Bak
Top 10 and favourites GC standings (previous stage in parens) :
1 Tony Martin 34:03:37 (unchanged)
2 Andreas Kloden 0:36 (unchanged)
3 Bradley Wiggins 0:41 (unchanged)
4 Rein Taaramae 1:10 (unchanged)
5 Samuel Sanchez Gonzalez 1:13 (was 6th at 1:29)
6 Jean-Christophe Peraud 1:24 (was 5th at 1:21)
7 Janez Brajkovic 1:34 (unchanged)
8 Levi Leipheimer 1:36 (unchanged)
9 Bauke Mollema 2:04 (was 10th at 2:04)
10 Maxime Monfort 2:26 (was 11th at 2:26)
.....
12 Michael Rogers 2:42 (was 12th at 2:39)
.....
14 Xavier Tondo Volpini 5:43 (was 9th at 1:53)
.....
17 Roman Kreuziger 7:10 (was 15th at 3:20)
18 Linus Gerdemann 8:11 (was 17th at 4:21)
.....
28 Luis Leon Sanchez Gil 15:58 (was 28th at 7:48)
.....
44 Jens Voigt 27:55 (was 58th at 24:05)
.....
78 Lars Ytting Bak 53:23 (was 96th at 41:35)
Top 10 on Points table with previous in parens:
1 Heinrich Haussler 84 (was 1st with 82 points)
2 Andreas Kloden 70 (was 2nd with 62 points)
3 Samuel Sanchez Gonzalez 67 (was 6th with 49 points)
4 Tony Martin 64 (was 4th with 59 points)
5 Thomas De Gendt 61 (was 3rd with 61 points)
6 Thomas Voeckler 56 (was 14th with 29 points)
7 Matthew Harley Goss 55 (was 5th with 55 points)
8 Jose Joaquin Rojas Gil 54 (was 11th with 41 points)
9 Rein Taaramae 47 (was 7th with 44 points)
10 Bradley Wiggins 46 (was 10th with 42 points)
Top 10 on Mountains table with previous in parens:
1 Remi Pauriol 56 (was 1st with 49 points)
2 Thomas Voeckler 29 (was 16th with 6 points)
3 David Lopez Garcia 28 (was 9th with 14 points)
4 Eric Berthou 27 (was 3rd with 27 points)
5 Diego Ulissi 21 (was 0 points)
6 Remy Di Gregorio 21 (was 4th with 21 points)
7 Karsten Kroon 21 (was 5th with 21 points)
8 Hubert Dupont 18 (was 6th with 18 points)
9 Matteo Carrara 17 (was 15th with 6 points)
10 Thomas De Gendt 15 (was 7th with 15 points)
Retirements to date : Stage
Alessandro Spezialetti (Ita) Lampre - ISD 8 <<<
Alex Rasmussen (Den) HTC-Highroad 8 <<<
Alexandre Vinokourov (Kaz) Pro Team Astana 8 <<<
Amael Moinard (Fra) BMC Racing Team 8 <<<
Andreas Stauff (Ger) Quickstep Cycling Team 8 <<<
Benjamin Noval Gonzalez (Spa) Saxo Bank Sungard 8 <<<
Brice Feillu (Fra) Leopard Trek 8 <<<
Bruno Pires (Por) Leopard Trek 8 <<<
Cedric Pineau (Fra) FDJ 8 <<<
Cyril Gautier (Fra) Team Europcar 8 <<<
Damien Gaudin (Fra) Team Europcar 8 <<<
Daniel Lloyd (GBr) Team Garmin-Cervelo 8 <<<
Danilo Wyss (Swi) BMC Racing Team 8 <<<
Danny Pate (USA) HTC-Highroad 8 <<<
Dominik Nerz (Ger) Liquigas-Cannondale 8 <<<
Florian Guillou (Fra) Bretagne - Schuller 8 <<<
Florian Vachon (Fra) Bretagne - Schuller 8 <<<
Francesco Reda (Ita) Quickstep Cycling Team 8 <<<
Gabriel Rasch (Nor) Team Garmin-Cervelo 8 <<<
Gael Malacarne (Fra) Bretagne - Schuller 8 <<<
Grega Bole (Slo) Lampre - ISD 8 <<<
Jean-Luc Delpech (Fra) Bretagne - Schuller 8 <<<
Jeffry Louder (USA) BMC Racing Team 8 <<<
Jeremy Hunt (GBr) Sky Procycling 8 <<<
Jeremy Roy (Fra) FDJ 8 <<<
Jerome Pineau (Fra) Quickstep Cycling Team 8 <<<
Johan Van Summeren (Bel) Team Garmin-Cervelo 8 <<<
Jos Van Emden (Ned) Rabobank Cycling Team 8 <<<
Jose Ivan Gutierrez Palacios (Spa) Movistar Team 8 <<<
Jose Vicente Garcia Acosta (Spa) Movistar Team 8 <<<
Juan Manuel Garate (Spa) Rabobank Cycling Team 8 <<<
Jurgen Van Den Broeck (Bel) Omega Pharma-Lotto 8 <<<
Laurens Ten Dam (Ned) Rabobank Cycling Team 8 <<<
Lieuwe Westra (Ned) Vacansoleil-DCM Pro Cycling Team 8 <<<
Maarten Tjallingii (Ned) Rabobank Cycling Team 8 <<<
Mads Christensen (Den) Saxo Bank Sungard 8 <<<
Mickael Buffaz (Fra) Cofidis, Le Credit En Ligne 8 <<<
Oleksandr Kvachuk (Ukr) Lampre - ISD 8 <<<
Oscar Pujol Munoz (Spa) Omega Pharma-Lotto 8 <<<
Pavel Brutt (Rus) Katusha Team 8 <<<
Perrig Quemeneur (Fra) Team Europcar 8 <<<
Pierre Rolland (Fra) Team Europcar 8 <<<
Pierrick Fedrigo (Fra) FDJ 8 <<<
Renaud Dion (Fra) Bretagne - Schuller 8 <<<
Rob Ruijgh (Ned) Vacansoleil-DCM Pro Cycling Team 8 <<<
Robert Hunter (RSA) Team RadioShack 8 <<<
Robert Kiserlovski (Cro) Pro Team Astana 8 <<<
Romain Hardy (Fra) Bretagne - Schuller 8 <<<
Vincent Jerome (Fra) Team Europcar 8 <<<
Vladimir Gusev (Rus) Katusha Team 8 <<<
Wouter Weylandt (Bel) Leopard Trek 8 <<<
Daniele Righi (Ita) Lampre - ISD 7
Eros Capecchi (Ita) Liquigas-Cannondale 7
Francesco Gavazzi (Ita) Lampre - ISD 7
Francis De Greef (Bel) Omega Pharma-Lotto 7
Frank Schleck (Lux) Leopard Trek 7
Fredrik Kessiakoff (Swe) Pro Team Astana 7
Geoffroy Lequatre (Fra) Team RadioShack 7
Greg Henderson (NZl) Sky Procycling 7
Jakob Fuglsang (Den) Leopard Trek 7
Jurgen Van De Walle (Bel) Omega Pharma-Lotto 7
Martijn Maaskant (Ned) Team Garmin-Cervelo 7
Nicolas Roche (Irl) AG2R La Mondiale 7
Nikolay Trusov (Rus) Katusha Team 7
Peter Sagan (Svk) Liquigas-Cannondale 7
Romain Feillu (Fra) Vacansoleil-DCM Pro Cycling Team 7
Sandy Casar (Fra) FDJ 7
Sebastien Turgot (Fra) Team Europcar 7
Serguei Ivanov (Rus) Katusha Team 7
Sylvain Chavanel (Fra) Quickstep Cycling Team 7
Tony Gallopin (Fra) Cofidis, Le Credit En Ligne 7
Valerio Agnoli (Ita) Liquigas-Cannondale 7
Yannick Eijssen (Bel) BMC Racing Team 7
Steve Morabito (Swi) BMC Racing Team 6
Arthur Vichot (Fra) FDJ 5
Brian Vandborg (Den) Saxo Bank Sungard 5
Kevin De Weert (Bel) Quickstep Cycling Team 5
Leif Hoste (Bel) Katusha Team 5
Yoann Offredo (Fra) FDJ 5
Denis Galimzyanov (Rus) Katusha Team 4
Gert Steegmans (Bel) Quickstep Cycling Team 4
Nikolas Maes (Bel) Quickstep Cycling Team 4
Romain Sicard (Fra) Euskaltel-Euskadi 3
Simone Ponzi (Ita) Liquigas-Cannondale 3
David Moncoutie (Fra) Cofidis, Le Credit En Ligne 2
Lucas Sebastian Haedo (Arg) Saxo Bank Sungard 2
Martin Velits (Svk) HTC-Highroad 2
Total retirements : 87
(This report can also be seen at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rvmartin2)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: Some hot T&A action
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/0a452745a1ef516b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 13 2011 3:05 pm
From: Anton Berlin
Great finish at tirreno-adriatico today. Worth finding the video if
you didn't see it already.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 13 2011 3:06 pm
From: Anton Berlin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sWCGR8ZR50&feature=player_profilepage
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.bicycles.racing"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.bicycles.racing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
Posts
