http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing?hl=en
rec.bicycles.racing@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Context for TdS debacle - 7 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/9ed72fd9cc6036a9?hl=en
* What crime has LA been INDICTED for - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5fa68f29710dcb4e?hl=en
* Is Contador's Giro performance credible? - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/f9c7e7e1ea18f17b?hl=en
* Race of Truth - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/754acf442d045584?hl=en
* Twelve Posties Have Testified - 7 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/27cf3fd4a0fa1390?hl=en
* Giro d'Italia, stage 20 summary - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/3617b8aad66f2f6d?hl=en
* Old guys, Classic races - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5673eacc51ffc414?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Context for TdS debacle
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/9ed72fd9cc6036a9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, May 27 2011 10:40 pm
From: "Mike Jacoubowsky"
"DirtRoadie" <DirtRoadie@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e382aeda-72df-4567-b38c-da25bcff3ff1@28g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
On May 27, 10:33 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 12:24 am, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 27, 6:38 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > That was, what, 2007? Are you suggesting we're no better off now
> > > than we
> > > were then?
>
> > Two words (and a link) - "Festina
> > Affair"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festina_affair
>
> > That was what, 1998?
> > As an aside, geez - wouldn't you love to have been a sponsor and
> > have
> > your name immortalized as an inextricable link to cheating in
> > sports?
>
> Hmmm. That reminds me - I need a new watch.
======
Evidence that there must some basis for the aphorism "any publicity is
good publicity."
DR
======
Evidently. While Festina dropped team sponsorship, they have remained a
sponsor of the TdF itself in the years since.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 28 2011 2:41 am
From: Simply Fred
DirtRoadie wrote:
>> As an aside, geez - wouldn't you love to have been a sponsor and have
>> your name immortalized as an inextricable link to cheating in sports?
RicodJour wrote:
> Hmmm. That reminds me - I need a new watch.
Get a new Swiss hearing aid while you're about it.
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 28 2011 5:48 am
From: RicodJour
On May 28, 5:41 am, Simply Fred <n...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> DirtRoadie wrote:
> >> As an aside, geez - wouldn't you love to have been a sponsor and have
> >> your name immortalized as an inextricable link to cheating in sports?
> RicodJour wrote:
> > Hmmm. That reminds me - I need a new watch.
>
> Get a new Swiss hearing aid while you're about it.
I certainly will not! The pain still lingers from my letdown after
Froydo's whiskey fueled ride and subsequent banishment from the
pantheon of skinny guys wearing tight clothes.
But give it a couple of years - maybe I won't have a choice. ;)
R
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 28 2011 1:29 pm
From: Phil H
On May 27, 6:04 pm, ilan <ilan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 2:38 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > That was then, this is now. Today we have a number of different ways to
> > > look
> > > at whether someone is excessively doping or not. And that's what it is...
> > > we're testing, realistically, for "excessive" doping. We're putting up
> > > limits that allow someone to dope to a certain level and tacitly saying
> > > that's OK, because there's probably no other way to run things without the
> > > likelihood of innocent people getting caught. People getting caught now
> > > have
> > > simply screwed up or are just plain stupid. We see unbelievable rides and,
> > > in the back of our minds, wonder if that's really possible without being
> > > doped to the gills... and a few days later, we discover that it's not. It
> > > doesn't mean everyone else is clean though. Just much-better managed. Some
> > > are clean, perhaps many are clean, could even be most, as the doping
> > > controls become a bit tighter over time, lowering the advantage of, dare I
> > > say, "legal" doping over someone who's racing clean.
>
> > > --Mike Jacoubowsky
> > > Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> > > Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> > =====
> > When two labs decide that Iban Mayo's sample is inconclusive and one
> > that it indicates doping, I call that subjective. When only the doping
> > lab's opinion is taken into account, I call that injustice. That all
> > happened long after the supposed Tour de Suisse affair.
>
> > -ilan
> > =====
>
> > What happened to Mayo was absurd. You had the Spanish federation doing their
> > usual thing (protecting their own) and then a comedy of screw-ups and
> > mis-steps that boggled the mind. I think the UCI & WADA have learned a lot
> > from that. It remains surprising to me that CAS found in favor of the UCI
> > and suspended Mayo, but in the end I think they did catch a doper.
>
> > That was, what, 2007? Are you suggesting we're no better off now than we
> > were then? I think the biological passport has helped significantly lower
> > the allowable doping bar. I suspect that, had we had that tool back then,
> > there would have been no question that Mayo was doping. But I also suspect
> > that, had the biological passport been in use then, Mayo would have been
> > more cautious.
>
> > --Mike Jacoubowsky
> > Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> > Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA"ilan" <ilan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:6ac4708a-fae1-4dda-8a94-be44743d84d5@b1g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 27, 10:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > "ilan" <ilan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:d7503843-fbb7-4394-a0ff-7331c304b824@x1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > > On May 27, 9:48 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Good reading
> > > > here-http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swiss-lab-director-confirms-meeting-b...
>
> > > > So here's what we know-
>
> > > > #1: There was never a "positive" test to cover up in the first place. It
> > > > was
> > > > a "suspicious" test with a reading of between 70-80% (percent of what
> > > > I'm
> > > > not sure). To be "positive" it would have had to have been 85%. At that
> > > > time, the EPO testing was not solid enough to rule out natural means of
> > > > producing a positive result, thus the high threshold.
>
> > > > #2: There was no "special" meeting, according to Saugy, the person
> > > > involved
> > > > who now happens to be the head of the lab in Lausanne. "And it also
> > > > wasn't
> > > > about discussing a particular result or to cover up anything. I
> > > > explained
> > > > how the EPO test worked and why there were suspect samples as well as
> > > > positive ones. This information was part of a lecture that I had been
> > > > giving
> > > > in various locations." Saugy apparently had many meetings with many
> > > > teams/riders letting people know what the process was, how the testing
> > > > worked, etc. Yes, we can ascribe evil motivations to that, but
> > > > seriously,
> > > > if
> > > > your career was on the line based upon some new test, wouldn't you want
> > > > to
> > > > know something about it, especially since there would be some concern
> > > > regarding false positives?
>
> > > > Within this context, it is entirely reasonable that Lance was not
> > > > concerned
> > > > about the tests, whether he was doping or not. He had no reason to be
> > > > concerned. He had a suspicious test that was below the level of a
> > > > positive,
> > > > and the process had been explained not just to Lance but other people as
> > > > well.
>
> > > > Of course, the 60 minutes interview put huge weight on Tyler's inference
> > > > that Lance made a positive test go away.
>
> > > > If you accept that Saugy is telling the truth, you come away not with
> > > > the
> > > > idea that Tyler is lying, but that he completely misunderstood. He made
> > > > assumptions that were reasonable within his own framework, but that's
> > > > all.
> > > > Assumptions that turn out to be falso.
>
> > > > --Mike Jacoubowsky
> > > > Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> > > > Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> > > ======
> > > It also confirms what I was saying, that the EPO test has a subjective
> > > element.
>
> > > -ilan
> > > ======
>
> > > That was then, this is now. Today we have a number of different ways to
> > > look
> > > at whether someone is excessively doping or not. And that's what it is...
> > > we're testing, realistically, for "excessive" doping. We're putting up
> > > limits that allow someone to dope to a certain level and tacitly saying
> > > that's OK, because there's probably no other way to run things without the
> > > likelihood of innocent people getting caught. People getting caught now
> > > have
> > > simply screwed up or are just plain stupid. We see unbelievable rides and,
> > > in the back of our minds, wonder if that's really possible without being
> > > doped to the gills... and a few days later, we discover that it's not. It
> > > doesn't mean everyone else is clean though. Just much-better managed. Some
> > > are clean, perhaps many are clean, could even be most, as the doping
> > > controls become a bit tighter over time, lowering the advantage of, dare I
> > > say, "legal" doping over someone who's racing clean.
>
> > > --Mike Jacoubowsky
> > > Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> > > Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> > When two labs decide that Iban Mayo's sample is inconclusive and one
> > that it indicates doping, I call that subjective. When only the doping
> > lab's opinion is taken into account, I call that injustice. That all
> > happened long after the supposed Tour de Suisse affair.
>
> > -ilan
>
> I agree with your assessment of the handling of the Mayo case.
> However, I disagree with you that WADA has learnt anything from that,
> they seem even worse, if anything. In any case, that recent case
> indicates that the anti-doping system itself doesn't work correctly.
> If there are going to be investigations of 10 year old doping cases,
> one should also review the doping cases which were mishandled. That
> includes Mayo, and Landis as well, where the original AFLD test was
> shown to be incompetent.
>
> If the Armstrong 1999 AFLD samples ever come to a US trial, the
> defense is going to have a field day destroying the lab's
> credibility.
>
> -ilan
That's an understatement; I believe some of us would like that to
happen so we can see the testing system
ripped apart......from a scientific perspective that is.
Phil H
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 28 2011 1:36 pm
From: Phil H
On May 27, 9:24 pm, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 6:38 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> wrote:
>
> > That was, what, 2007? Are you suggesting we're no better off now than we
> > were then?
>
> Two words (and a link) - "Festina Affair"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festina_affair
>
> That was what, 1998?
> As an aside, geez - wouldn't you love to have been a sponsor and have
> your name immortalized as an inextricable link to cheating in sports?
>
> DR
I have some Festina shoe covers that were really cheap. I wear them
with the Festina logo on the inner side
so as not to draw too much attention.
Phil H
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 28 2011 1:58 pm
From: Simply Fred
DirtRoadie<DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
>> That was what, 1998?
>> As an aside, geez - wouldn't you love to have been a sponsor and have
>> your name immortalized as an inextricable link to cheating in sports?
Phil H wrote:
> I have some Festina shoe covers that were really cheap. I wear them
> with the Festina logo on the inner side
> so as not to draw too much attention.
I like wearing Festina bib shorts and a Phonak jersey, Don't tell
Schwartz though, he'll probably have some gay complaint about the colour
combination.
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 28 2011 4:55 pm
From: ilan
On May 28, 10:29 pm, Phil H <pholma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 6:04 pm, ilan <ilan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 2:38 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > That was then, this is now. Today we have a number of different ways to
> > > > look
> > > > at whether someone is excessively doping or not. And that's what it is...
> > > > we're testing, realistically, for "excessive" doping. We're putting up
> > > > limits that allow someone to dope to a certain level and tacitly saying
> > > > that's OK, because there's probably no other way to run things without the
> > > > likelihood of innocent people getting caught. People getting caught now
> > > > have
> > > > simply screwed up or are just plain stupid. We see unbelievable rides and,
> > > > in the back of our minds, wonder if that's really possible without being
> > > > doped to the gills... and a few days later, we discover that it's not. It
> > > > doesn't mean everyone else is clean though. Just much-better managed. Some
> > > > are clean, perhaps many are clean, could even be most, as the doping
> > > > controls become a bit tighter over time, lowering the advantage of, dare I
> > > > say, "legal" doping over someone who's racing clean.
>
> > > > --Mike Jacoubowsky
> > > > Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> > > > Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> > > =====
> > > When two labs decide that Iban Mayo's sample is inconclusive and one
> > > that it indicates doping, I call that subjective. When only the doping
> > > lab's opinion is taken into account, I call that injustice. That all
> > > happened long after the supposed Tour de Suisse affair.
>
> > > -ilan
> > > =====
>
> > > What happened to Mayo was absurd. You had the Spanish federation doing their
> > > usual thing (protecting their own) and then a comedy of screw-ups and
> > > mis-steps that boggled the mind. I think the UCI & WADA have learned a lot
> > > from that. It remains surprising to me that CAS found in favor of the UCI
> > > and suspended Mayo, but in the end I think they did catch a doper.
>
> > > That was, what, 2007? Are you suggesting we're no better off now than we
> > > were then? I think the biological passport has helped significantly lower
> > > the allowable doping bar. I suspect that, had we had that tool back then,
> > > there would have been no question that Mayo was doping. But I also suspect
> > > that, had the biological passport been in use then, Mayo would have been
> > > more cautious.
>
> > > --Mike Jacoubowsky
> > > Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> > > Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA"ilan" <ilan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:6ac4708a-fae1-4dda-8a94-be44743d84d5@b1g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> > > On May 27, 10:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > "ilan" <ilan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:d7503843-fbb7-4394-a0ff-7331c304b824@x1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On May 27, 9:48 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Good reading
> > > > > here-http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swiss-lab-director-confirms-meeting-b...
>
> > > > > So here's what we know-
>
> > > > > #1: There was never a "positive" test to cover up in the first place. It
> > > > > was
> > > > > a "suspicious" test with a reading of between 70-80% (percent of what
> > > > > I'm
> > > > > not sure). To be "positive" it would have had to have been 85%. At that
> > > > > time, the EPO testing was not solid enough to rule out natural means of
> > > > > producing a positive result, thus the high threshold.
>
> > > > > #2: There was no "special" meeting, according to Saugy, the person
> > > > > involved
> > > > > who now happens to be the head of the lab in Lausanne. "And it also
> > > > > wasn't
> > > > > about discussing a particular result or to cover up anything. I
> > > > > explained
> > > > > how the EPO test worked and why there were suspect samples as well as
> > > > > positive ones. This information was part of a lecture that I had been
> > > > > giving
> > > > > in various locations." Saugy apparently had many meetings with many
> > > > > teams/riders letting people know what the process was, how the testing
> > > > > worked, etc. Yes, we can ascribe evil motivations to that, but
> > > > > seriously,
> > > > > if
> > > > > your career was on the line based upon some new test, wouldn't you want
> > > > > to
> > > > > know something about it, especially since there would be some concern
> > > > > regarding false positives?
>
> > > > > Within this context, it is entirely reasonable that Lance was not
> > > > > concerned
> > > > > about the tests, whether he was doping or not. He had no reason to be
> > > > > concerned. He had a suspicious test that was below the level of a
> > > > > positive,
> > > > > and the process had been explained not just to Lance but other people as
> > > > > well.
>
> > > > > Of course, the 60 minutes interview put huge weight on Tyler's inference
> > > > > that Lance made a positive test go away.
>
> > > > > If you accept that Saugy is telling the truth, you come away not with
> > > > > the
> > > > > idea that Tyler is lying, but that he completely misunderstood. He made
> > > > > assumptions that were reasonable within his own framework, but that's
> > > > > all.
> > > > > Assumptions that turn out to be falso.
>
> > > > > --Mike Jacoubowsky
> > > > > Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> > > > > Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> > > > ======
> > > > It also confirms what I was saying, that the EPO test has a subjective
> > > > element.
>
> > > > -ilan
> > > > ======
>
> > > > That was then, this is now. Today we have a number of different ways to
> > > > look
> > > > at whether someone is excessively doping or not. And that's what it is...
> > > > we're testing, realistically, for "excessive" doping. We're putting up
> > > > limits that allow someone to dope to a certain level and tacitly saying
> > > > that's OK, because there's probably no other way to run things without the
> > > > likelihood of innocent people getting caught. People getting caught now
> > > > have
> > > > simply screwed up or are just plain stupid. We see unbelievable rides and,
> > > > in the back of our minds, wonder if that's really possible without being
> > > > doped to the gills... and a few days later, we discover that it's not. It
> > > > doesn't mean everyone else is clean though. Just much-better managed. Some
> > > > are clean, perhaps many are clean, could even be most, as the doping
> > > > controls become a bit tighter over time, lowering the advantage of, dare I
> > > > say, "legal" doping over someone who's racing clean.
>
> > > > --Mike Jacoubowsky
> > > > Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> > > > Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> > > When two labs decide that Iban Mayo's sample is inconclusive and one
> > > that it indicates doping, I call that subjective. When only the doping
> > > lab's opinion is taken into account, I call that injustice. That all
> > > happened long after the supposed Tour de Suisse affair.
>
> > > -ilan
>
> > I agree with your assessment of the handling of the Mayo case.
> > However, I disagree with you that WADA has learnt anything from that,
> > they seem even worse, if anything. In any case, that recent case
> > indicates that the anti-doping system itself doesn't work correctly.
> > If there are going to be investigations of 10 year old doping cases,
> > one should also review the doping cases which were mishandled. That
> > includes Mayo, and Landis as well, where the original AFLD test was
> > shown to be incompetent.
>
> > If the Armstrong 1999 AFLD samples ever come to a US trial, the
> > defense is going to have a field day destroying the lab's
> > credibility.
>
> > -ilan
>
> That's an understatement; I believe some of us would like that to
> happen so we can see the testing system
> ripped apart......from a scientific perspective that is.
> Phil H
There is already the independent legal report which found that the
AFLD has completely mishandled the L'Equipe investigators and
recommended that the lab be sanctioned.
-ilan
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What crime has LA been INDICTED for
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5fa68f29710dcb4e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, May 28 2011 12:47 am
From: Frederick the Great
In article <eio4b8-r4r.ln1@donald.homeip.net>,
Simply Fred <none@mailinator.com> wrote:
> Jimmy July wrote:
> >>>>> He hasn't been indicted for anything. There is rampant speculation
> >>>>> that he will soon be indicted for genocide, shoplifting and
> >>>>> impersonating an officer.
>
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>>> Your forgot the Olson twins.
>
> Fred Flintstein wrote:
> >>> And hacking the French lab's computer.
>
> Simply Fred wrote:
> >> And uploading state secrets to wikileaks.
>
> Scott wrote:
> > Let's not forget climate change.
>
> Climate change is not a crime in the US. Quite the contrary.
It's the law.
--
Old Fritz
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is Contador's Giro performance credible?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/f9c7e7e1ea18f17b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, May 28 2011 1:10 am
From: Michael Press
In article <LsKdnQg17Ndq2H3QnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
> Am I the only one watching the Giro?
See my other comment.
--
Michael Press
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, May 28 2011 2:45 am
From: Simply Fred
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> - and have to say that it just doesn't seem true. At this year's Giro, I
> think he'd win entirely on his own. With ease.
>
> Is AC really that much better than everyone else? Is AC doping and
> everyone else clean? Does it seem likely that AC would be doping with
> everybody watching him so closely? Does it seem intelligent for AC to
> just blow everyone away and draw so much attention to himself?
>
> The guy doesn't even look like he's trying that hard. If he takes that
> level of riding to France, what happens then? Could this be the first
> year of the Giro/TdF/Vuelta triad?
>
> Am I the only one watching the Giro?
Luckily for Tiralongo he didn't do a Simeoni on Contador before the giro.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, May 28 2011 8:13 am
From: BL
On 5/27/2011 8:46 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> I saw this quote from Lance-
>
> "Seeing these comments from AC [Alberto Contador]. If I were him I'd
> drop this drivel and start thanking his team. w/o them, he doesn't win."
> Twitter post 27 July 2009
>
> - and have to say that it just doesn't seem true. At this year's Giro, I
> think he'd win entirely on his own. With ease.
>
> Is AC really that much better than everyone else? Is AC doping and
> everyone else clean? Does it seem likely that AC would be doping with
> everybody watching him so closely? Does it seem intelligent for AC to
> just blow everyone away and draw so much attention to himself?
>
> The guy doesn't even look like he's trying that hard. If he takes that
> level of riding to France, what happens then? Could this be the first
> year of the Giro/TdF/Vuelta triad?
>
> Am I the only one watching the Giro?
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
There are two Giros. Contador is in one; the less efficient dopers and
clean riders in the other.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, May 28 2011 11:24 pm
From: yirgster
I've been watching.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Race of Truth
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/754acf442d045584?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, May 28 2011 2:35 am
From: Simply Fred
Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> Doping cases should be adjudicated by the legendary
> RBR 7 hour trainer ride once advocated (as a training ride,
> not as an instrument of justice) by Sahan Amarasekera.
As an alternative to StateMurder no doubt..
> If the accused can complete a 7 hour trainer ride without
> developing saddle sores, then he shall be deemed innocent
> and pure in the eyes of both God and Anton. If he cannot
> then shall he be cast into the outer darkness.
They will need to test for cortisone based saddle sore remedies.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, May 28 2011 5:33 am
From: NoDannyNo
On May 27, 11:01 pm, Fredmaster of Brainerd <bjwei...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On May 27, 5:12 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thursday, 26 May 2011 10:23:49 UTC-7, NoDannyNo wrote:
> > > Instead of wasting time trying to to parse the truth out of all the
> > > nonsense being spewed by professional cheaters, liars, and
> > > obfuscators, I propose the following: Put Armstrong, Landis, and
> > > Hamilton into isolated cells at a maximum security prison for 4
> > > months. They will each be given 2 hours a day to train on an
> > > ergometer under close surveillance and will be provided identical
> > > meals, drinks, etc. No drugs of any kind-- not even caffeine. They
> > > will not be allowed to have any contact with anyone other than prison
> > > staff. At the end of the 4 months, they will race a 40K ITT on
> > > identically equipped machines. The winner will be declared to be
> > > "believable". The losers will be officially labeled as "liars" and
> > > will suffer all consequences thereof. (Any and all previously agreed
> > > upon "immunity deals" would be moot, of course).
>
> > I heartily support the revival of Trial By Ordeal for evidence-based reasons:
>
> >http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/01/31/justice_m...
>
> Doping cases should be adjudicated by the legendary
> RBR 7 hour trainer ride once advocated (as a training ride,
> not as an instrument of justice) by Sahan Amarasekera.
>
> If the accused can complete a 7 hour trainer ride without
> developing saddle sores, then he shall be deemed innocent
> and pure in the eyes of both God and Anton. If he cannot
> then shall he be cast into the outer darkness.
>
> Fredmaster Ben
> If the accused can complete a 7 hour trainer ride without
> developing saddle sores
Additional stipulation: The accused must complete the trainer session
is a pair of denim cut-offs worn commando-style.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Twelve Posties Have Testified
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/27cf3fd4a0fa1390?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 28 2011 2:38 am
From: Simply Fred
Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> When are you going to answer my question about why
> you keep saying Ochowicz is in legal danger and will rat out
> Armstrong, given that Ochowicz was never involved with
> Tailwind Sports? Not that I care about Ochowicz's skin.
> I'm just trying to assess the credibility of the witness here.
You probably don't have to worry about ever being selected for a jury.
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 28 2011 8:07 am
From: BL
On 5/27/2011 6:52 PM, Scott wrote:
> On May 27, 2:58 pm, BL<b...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 5/27/2011 3:20 PM, dave a wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 5/27/2011 11:55 AM, BL wrote:
>>>> On 5/27/2011 2:02 PM, ilan wrote:
>>>>> On May 27, 5:47 pm, BL<b...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/27/2011 10:04 AM, Phil H wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On May 27, 6:16 am, BL<b...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Let's see what evidence this fellow has to support the allegation
>>>>>>>> illegal leaking investigation information. It's difficult to believe
>>>>>>>> Novitsky would be that dumb after what he went through with BALCO.
>>>>>>>> Where's the beef, Gunderson? Better put up or shut up.
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> Keker on Thursday criticized leaks of testimony to the media in the
>>>>>>>> Armstrong case and called the investigation a waste of money.
>>
>>>>>>>> We know Novitzky and plan to prove that these are his repeated,
>>>>>>>> illegal
>>>>>>>> leaks aimed solely at destroying a true hero, not just in sports
>>>>>>>> but in
>>>>>>>> the fight against cancer, he
>>>>>>>> said.http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=ap-armstrong-doping
>>
>>>>>>> Something isn't right here. If Hincapie did testify in the manner he
>>>>>>> was reported then the game is pretty much up. However, if this was
>>>>>>> just a plant of false information then nothing much has changed except
>>>>>>> to whip up negative public opinion and maybe shake loose any other
>>>>>>> condemning testimonies, if there are any. There apparently is also
>>>>>>> leaked information on transactions due to doping......good game yes.
>>>>>>> Judging by the pace of the total investigations against LA, the fat
>>>>>>> lady hasn't even been born yet. There's also the well known phenomena
>>>>>>> at play, the further we get from the so-called deeds, the more
>>>>>>> distorted they become. As for attacking Novitzky or whoever planted
>>>>>>> information that is found to be false, sit tight, you ain't seen
>>>>>>> nothing yet.
>>>>>>> Phil H
>>>>>>> official rbr "under the bottom" poster
>>
>>>>>> I just read a report that thus far 12 postal riders have given
>>>>>> testimony
>>>>>> to the Grand Jury. Per Scott Pelly on Late Night with Letterman. No
>>>>>> word
>>>>>> on who said what except for Hamilton and probably Hincapie.
>>
>>>>> 12 angry men. If I recall correctly, there was no women's USPS team.
>>
>>>>> -ilan
>>>> Twelve men under gran jury subpoena. Twelve men suddenly considering
>>>> whether to tell the truth or lie for a guy who employed them and might
>>>> still be able to make life miserable for them if they cross him. I'm
>>>> told that actually walking into a grand jury room as a witness is an
>>>> extremely sobering experience. Hamilton alluded to this in his
>>>> interview. Any idea of outright lying or shading the facts to help the
>>>> former boss man are likely to go right out the window the moment the
>>>> questioning in the GJ room starts.
>>
>>> It's only sobering if you have something to hide, but you knew that.
>>
>> I wouldn't think so. It's a very intense and sobering experience from
>> what I've been told by two people I know who have appeared, neither of
>> whom had anything to hide.
>
> Wait, hold on... you're the r.b.r. resident legal guru (self-
> appointed) and now you're telling us that what you know about grand
> juries is from second hand anecdotes?
I don't recall appointing myself to any legal positions here. I simply
bring what I know and what I've experienced to the table. It is true
that I've never been called as a witness to give testimony to a Grand
Jury. Not many people have. I do have to friends who have been and
their comments contradict your assertion above.
>
> Hell, I'd have assumed you've spent the better part of your adult life
> in a grand jury setting, based on your posts.
You assumption would be illogical at best, more likely disingenuous
hyperbole.
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 28 2011 8:08 am
From: BL
On 5/27/2011 6:11 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
> On 5/27/2011 4:01 PM, BL wrote:
>> On 5/27/2011 4:21 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
>>>
>>> If you lie about something that isn't illegal, is that perjury?
>>
>> Moron, if you lie under oath, by definition, you have committed
>> perjury. Whether or not what you lied about involves a crime or not is
>> irrelevant.
>>
>
> Have you checked with a lawyer about that?
>
> F
Have you. Call one and pay for an opinion letter, moron.
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 28 2011 8:12 am
From: BL
On 5/27/2011 11:07 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> On May 27, 4:01 pm, BL<b...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 5/27/2011 4:21 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 5/27/2011 3:03 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
>>>> On 5/27/2011 11:55 AM, BL wrote:
>>
>>>>> Twelve men under gran jury subpoena. Twelve men suddenly considering
>>>>> whether to tell the truth or lie for a guy who employed them and might
>>>>> still be able to make life miserable for them if they cross him. I'm
>>>>> told that actually walking into a grand jury room as a witness is an
>>>>> extremely sobering experience. Hamilton alluded to this in his
>>>>> interview. Any idea of outright lying or shading the facts to help the
>>>>> former boss man are likely to go right out the window the moment the
>>>>> questioning in the GJ room starts.
>>
>>>> So people don't lie to Grand Juries in your fantasy world. Great.
>>
>>> If you lie about something that isn't illegal, is that perjury?
>>
>> Moron, if you lie under oath, by definition, you have committed perjury.
>> Whether or not what you lied about involves a crime or not is irrelevant.
>
> The statement has to be material. What is material
> is open to interpretation by prosecutors, judge, jury.
>
> I doubt that I would get indicted for saying I had a
> turkey sandwich for lunch when it was really pork,
> unless the trial was about sandwiches.
Most questions asked of Grand Jury witnesses are material. But, you are
correct that is has to be a material misstatement of fact, also
knowingly made.
>
> When are you going to answer my question about why
> you keep saying Ochowicz is in legal danger and will rat out
> Armstrong, given that Ochowicz was never involved with
> Tailwind Sports? Not that I care about Ochowicz's skin.
> I'm just trying to assess the credibility of the witness here.
I suggest that you do a search of Ochawitz relationship to Weisel and
Weisel's involvement in professional cycling. And that's all I'm going
to tell you pre-indictment.
>
> Fredmaster Ben
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 28 2011 10:15 am
From: Jimmy July
On 5/27/2011 8:07 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> I doubt that I would get indicted for saying I had a
> turkey sandwich for lunch when it was really pork,
> unless the trial was about sandwiches.
It's not illegal to eat a pork sandwich for lunch but, if you conspire
to conceal that you ate said sandwich, then you're providing Brian with
a new obsession for after this LA thing blows over.
Don't do it. For the love of GOD, admit you had pork! Confess!
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 28 2011 11:08 pm
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd
On May 28, 10:15 am, Jimmy July <F...@Burger.com> wrote:
> On 5/27/2011 8:07 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>
> > I doubt that I would get indicted for saying I had a
> > turkey sandwich for lunch when it was really pork,
> > unless the trial was about sandwiches.
>
> It's not illegal to eat a pork sandwich for lunch but, if you conspire
> to conceal that you ate said sandwich, then you're providing Brian with
> a new obsession for after this LA thing blows over.
>
> Don't do it. For the love of GOD, admit you had pork! Confess!
The FDA has tested me hundreds of times and I
never tested porksitive.
Now if the governing body was the Union of Orthodox
Rabbis then things might be different, but that's my
story and my lawyer will repeat it as often as necessary.
Fredmaster Ben
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 28 2011 11:29 pm
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd
On May 28, 8:12 am, BL <b...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 5/27/2011 11:07 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>
> > The statement has to be material. What is material
> > is open to interpretation by prosecutors, judge, jury.
>
> > I doubt that I would get indicted for saying I had a
> > turkey sandwich for lunch when it was really pork,
> > unless the trial was about sandwiches.
>
> Most questions asked of Grand Jury witnesses are material. But, you are
> correct that is has to be a material misstatement of fact, also
> knowingly made.
If Armstrong is caught in a lie to the grand jury
then he is up shit creek without a pedal. However,
I imagine that he got extensive legal advice about
what he could say, and it was obvious that his former
teammates would be called to testify. If he really
is in danger of a perjury charged based on his grand
jury testimony then his legal counsel is as incompetent
as you have been wishing.
A more likely issue is whether he is exposed to a perjury
charge based on his deposition in the SCA insurance case.
There, I believe Flintstein's position is that since ultimately
that case had nothing to do with doping (the case went
against SCA regardless since there was no anti-doping
clause in the contract), Armstrong's testimony about doping
would be immaterial.
I suppose one could go either way on this. It turned out to
be irrelevant, but was it immaterial? Does it matter that the
determination of irrelevancy came afterwards? I don't know
enough law or precedent to say. I also don't even remember
exactly what Armstrong said (or really care).
My recollection is that lawyers have extremely wide latitude
in questions they can ask in depositions, and although
objections are allowed, most questions still have to be answered
(even if the deposed answers are disallowed later).
For an extreme example, suppose the SCA lawyers had asked
Armstrong some embarrassing question, like "Have you
stopped beating your wife?" or "Have you ever dated a
woman who doesn't look like your mom?" He might have
had to answer (unless he asserted a privilege against
incrimination, although dating women who look like your
mom isn't criminal unless they are underage). But if he said
"Yes" and the answer is "No," it's unlikely he'd ever get brought
up on a perjury charge over it.
> > When are you going to answer my question about why
> > you keep saying Ochowicz is in legal danger and will rat out
> > Armstrong, given that Ochowicz was never involved with
> > Tailwind Sports? Not that I care about Ochowicz's skin.
> > I'm just trying to assess the credibility of the witness here.
>
> I suggest that you do a search of Ochawitz relationship to Weisel and
> Weisel's involvement in professional cycling. And that's all I'm going
> to tell you pre-indictment.
Oh, I know Ochowicz worked for Weisel and that Weisel's
tentacles are all over US pro cycling. I just have never seen
any shred of evidence that Ochowicz had an involvement
with Tailwind or US Postal. During that timeframe he was
involved with Phonak and BMC, IIRC. So I doubt he's gonna
have any exposure in the USPS fraud investigation.
If you won't say anything pre-indictment, and Och never gets
indicted or called to testify, what are you going to say and
when will you justify your assertions? Or will those statements
simply be no longer operative?
Fredmaster Ben
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Giro d'Italia, stage 20 summary
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/3617b8aad66f2f6d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, May 28 2011 11:52 am
From: Bob Martin
Stage 20 : May 28, Verbania - Sestriere, 242 km
1 Vasili Kiryienka (Blr) Movistar Team 6.17.03
2 Jose Rujano Guillen (Ven) Androni Giocattoli 4.43
3 Joaquim Rodriguez Oliver (Spa) Katusha Team 4.50
4 Carlos Alberto Betancourt Gomez (Col) Acqua & Sapone 5.31
5 John Gadret (Fra) AG2R La Mondiale 5.54
6 Michele Scarponi (Ita) Lampre - ISD 5.58
7 Steven Kruijswijk (Ned) Rabobank Cycling Team
8 Alberto Contador Velasco (Spa) Saxo Bank Sungard
9 Denis Menchov (Rus) Geox-TMC
10 Roman Kreuziger (Cze) Pro Team Astana 6.16
Changes in GC, stage 20 compared to stage 19 :
Biggest gainers by position :
+20 Leonardo Giordani
+20 Gianluca Brambilla
+19 Betancur Gomez Carlos Alberto
+17 Simone Stortoni
+17 Miguel Minguez Ayala
+16 Thomas Peterson
+15 Josep Jufre Pou
+14 Sylvester Szmyd
+14 David Blanco Rodriguez
+12 Rinaldo Nocentini
Biggest losers by position :
-14 Dario David Cioni
-11 Ivan Rovny
-10 Eros Capecchi
-10 Przemyslaw Niemiec
-9 Cayetano Jose Sarmiento Tunarrosa
-9 Giovanni Visconti
-9 Matteo Montaguti
-8 Federico Canuti
-8 Gorazd Stangelj
-8 Peter Kennaugh
-8 Valerio Agnoli
Biggest gainers by time :
+6:18 Vasili Kiryienka
+1:27 Jose Rujano Guillen
+1:16 JoaquAm RodrAguez Oliver
+0:27 Betancur Gomez Carlos Alberto
+0:04 John Gadret
Biggest losers by time :
-41:37 Jos van Emden
-40:22 Elia Favilli
-37:00 Sergey Lagutin
-36:40 Addy Engels
-36:40 Alan Marangoni
-36:40 Alberto Ongarato
-36:40 Alessandro De Marchi
-36:40 Alex Rasmussen
-36:40 Alexander Kristoff
-36:40 Alexsandr Dyachenko
-36:40 Aliaksandr Kuchynski
Favourites by position :
+4 Richie Porte
+3 Carlos Sastre Candil
+2 Daniel Moreno Fernandez
+1 Denis Menchov
-1 Thomas Lovkvist
-2 David Arroyo Duran
-3 Lars Ytting Bak
-5 Danilo Di Luca
-6 Stefano Garzelli
Favourites by time :
-0:18 Roman Kreuziger
-0:22 Vincenzo Nibali
-2:49 Carlos Sastre Candil
-3:32 Daniel Moreno Fernandez
-7:59 Thomas Lovkvist
-10:32 David Arroyo Duran
-20:53 Richie Porte
-26:52 Stefano Garzelli
-26:52 Danilo Di Luca
-36:40 Lars Ytting Bak
Top 10 and favourites GC standings (previous stage in parens) :
1 Alberto Contador Velasco 83:34:25 (unchanged)
2 Michele Scarponi 5:18 (unchanged)
3 Vincenzo Nibali 6:14 (was 3rd at 5:52)
4 John Gadret 7:49 (was 4th at 7:53)
5 JoaquAm RodrAguez Oliver 9:27 (was 8th at 10:43)
6 Jose Rujano Guillen 10:23 (was 10th at 11:50)
7 Roman Kreuziger 10:38 (was 7th at 10:20)
8 Denis Menchov 10:51 (was 9th at 10:51)
9 Steven Kruijswijk 12:56 (was 11th at 12:56)
10 Mikel Nieve Ituralde 12:57 (was 6th at 10:08)
.....
14 David Arroyo Duran 23:56 (was 12th at 13:24)
.....
21 Thomas Lovkvist 41:42 (was 20th at 33:43)
.....
27 Stefano Garzelli 1:02:00 (was 21st at 35:08)
.....
29 Daniel Moreno Fernandez 1:04:11 (was 31st at 1:00:39)
30 Carlos Sastre Candil 1:05:26 (was 33rd at 1:02:37)
.....
68 Danilo Di Luca 2:27:23 (was 63rd at 2:00:31)
.....
83 Richie Porte 2:46:50 (was 87th at 2:25:57)
.....
127 Lars Ytting Bak 3:46:43 (was 124th at 3:10:03)
Top 10 on Points table with previous in parens:
1 Jan Bakelants 26 (was 0 points)
2 Pablo Lastras Garcia 13 (unchanged)
3 Sebastian Lang 10 (was 9th with 5 points)
4 Stefano Garzelli 8 (was 3rd with 8 points)
5 Bram Tankink 8 (was 4th with 8 points)
6 Lars Ytting Bak 8 (was 5th with 8 points)
7 Frederik Veuchelen 6 (was 42nd with 2 points)
8 Daniel Moreno Fernandez 5 (was 6th with 5 points)
9 Giovanni Visconti 5 (was 7th with 5 points)
10 Fumiyuki Beppu 5 (was 8th with 5 points)
Top 10 on Mountains table with previous in parens:
1 Stefano Garzelli 67 (unchanged)
2 Alberto Contador Velasco 58 (was 2nd with 56 points)
3 Jose Rujano Guillen 43 (was 4th with 29 points)
4 Mikel Nieve Ituralde 39 (was 3rd with 39 points)
5 Gianluca Brambilla 29 (unchanged)
6 Vasili Kiryienka 24 (was 0 points)
7 Emanuele Sella 23 (was 6th with 23 points)
8 Michele Scarponi 23 (was 7th with 23 points)
9 Vincenzo Nibali 22 (was 8th with 22 points)
10 Johnny Hoogerland 21 (was 9th with 21 points)
Retirements to date : Stage
Craig Lewis (USA) HTC-Highroad 19
Filippo Savini (Ita) Colnago - CSF Inox 19
Marco Pinotti (Ita) HTC-Highroad 19
Francesco Masciarelli (Ita) Pro Team Astana 17
Matthew Wilson (Aus) Team Garmin-Cervelo 17
Murilo Antonio Fischer (Bra) Team Garmin-Cervelo 17
Michal Golas (Pol) Vacansoleil-DCM Pro Cycling Team 16
Brett Lancaster (Aus) Team Garmin-Cervelo 15
Domenico Pozzovivo (Ita) Colnago - CSF Inox 15
Frantisek Rabon (Cze) HTC-Highroad 15
Juan Jose Oroz Ugalde (Spa) Euskaltel-Euskadi 15
Manuel Antonio Leal Cardoso (Por) Team RadioShack 15
Marco Marzano (Ita) Lampre - ISD 15
Robert Hunter (RSA) Team RadioShack 15
Andrea Noe' (Ita) Farnese Vini - Neri Sottoli 14
Francesco Chicchi (Ita) Quickstep Cycling Team 14
Rafael Valls Ferri (Spa) Geox-TMC 14
Alessandro Petacchi (Ita) Lampre - ISD 13
Danilo Hondo (Ger) Lampre - ISD 13
Davide Appollonio (Ukn) Sky Procycling 13
Francisco Jose Ventoso Alberdi (Spa) Movistar Team 13
Gerald Ciolek (Ger) Quickstep Cycling Team 13
Manuel Belletti (Ita) Colnago - CSF Inox 13
Mark Cavendish (GBr) HTC-Highroad 13
Mark Renshaw (Aus) HTC-Highroad 13
Martin Kohler (Swi) BMC Racing Team 13
Sacha Modolo (Ukn) Colnago - CSF Inox 13
Borut Bozic (Slo) Vacansoleil-DCM Pro Cycling Team 11
Danilo Napolitano (Ita) Acqua & Sapone 11
Adam Blyth (GBr) Omega Pharma-Lotto 10
Chris Butler (USA) BMC Racing Team 9
Graeme Brown (Aus) Rabobank Cycling Team 9
Jackson Rodriguez (Ven) Androni Giocattoli 9
Robbie McEwen (Aus) Team RadioShack 9
Fabio Andres Duarte Arevalo (Col) Geox-TMC 8
Brice Feillu (Fra) Leopard Trek 5
Bruno Pires (Por) Leopard Trek 5
Chris Barton (USA) BMC Racing Team 5
Davide ViganA² (Ita) Leopard Trek 5
Dominic Klemme (Ger) Leopard Trek 5
Fabian Wegmann (Ger) Leopard Trek 5
Francesco Failli (Ita) Farnese Vini - Neri Sottoli 5
Oliver Zaugg (Swi) Leopard Trek 5
Thomas Rohregger (Aut) Leopard Trek 5
Tom Slagter (Ned) Rabobank Cycling Team 5
Tom Stamsnijder (Ned) Leopard Trek 5
Tyler Farrar (USA) Team Garmin-Cervelo 5
Wouter Weylandt (Bel) Leopard Trek 3
Total retirements : 48
(This report can also be seen at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rvmartin2)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Old guys, Classic races
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5673eacc51ffc414?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, May 28 2011 8:23 pm
From: DirtRoadie
Alexi Grewal won the Iron Horse Bicycle Classic back in the late 70's
or early 80's.
As part of his present comeback he was supposed to be riding it again
this year.
But what are the chances of a guy Alexi's age being competitive?
Oh.
DR
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, May 28 2011 9:05 pm
From: Jimmy July
On 5/28/2011 8:23 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
> Alexi Grewal won the Iron Horse Bicycle Classic back in the late 70's
> or early 80's.
> As part of his present comeback he was supposed to be riding it again
> this year.
> But what are the chances of a guy Alexi's age being competitive?
>
> http://bit.ly/lxbfbM
>
> Oh.
>
> DR
In all our endless, repetitive talk about doping in cycling we have
overlooked the reality that some riders have skipped right over doping
and made deals directly with The Devil.
Ned Overend is Ultimate Evil!
==============================================================================
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
