rec.bicycles.racing
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing?hl=enrec.bicycles.racing@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Twelve Posties Have Testified - 6 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/27cf3fd4a0fa1390?hl=en
* Old guys, Classic races - 6 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5673eacc51ffc414?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
* Why would someone that tested clean 500 times need attorneys such as these? -
6 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/c30539db138ece33?hl=en
* Giro Review - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5229bc0beec82e09?hl=en
* Context for TdS debacle - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/9ed72fd9cc6036a9?hl=en
* Giro d'Italia, stage 21 summary - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/cea37f68aafcbbe2?hl=en
* Giro d'Italia, stage 19 summary - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/9299488aaba26377?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Twelve Posties Have Testified
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/27cf3fd4a0fa1390?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
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
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, May 29 2011 4:00 am
From: "A. Dumas"
Juan Gunderson wrote:
> You are a full metal retard.
Hi Floyd or one his 1000 chamois-sniffing Twitter followers.
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, May 29 2011 4:38 am
From: Simply Fred
Juan Gunderson wrote:
>> You are a full metal retard.
A. Dumas wrote:
> Hi Floyd or one his 1000 chamois-sniffing Twitter followers.
He's (Landis) has got a long way to go to catch up with Charlie Sheen.
Perhaps he needs more tutoring in how to sound completely nuts in public.
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, May 29 2011 7:22 am
From: BL
On 5/29/2011 2:29 AM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> 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.
If Armstrong has been or is called before the Grand Jury I expect he
will, or has, asserted his 5th Amendment privilege. I have never
expressed any hope that he hire incompetent counsel. Your comment is
pure hyperbole.
>
> 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).
Armstrong, under oath, testified in the SCA arbitration that he had
never used PEDs. He also disputed the Andreaus testimony as to the
hospital room incident. Those questions and answers are material and
relevant to the present investigation.
The arbitration panels determination that the arbitration decision would
go against SCA based on contract terms, really has no impact on the
relevance or materiality of what Armstrong testified to as to his
non-use of PEDs and how that testimony related to the present
investigation and a perjury charge and/or how that testimony is material
and relevant to other charges the government is considering.
>
> 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).
Armstrong testified at an arbitration hearing, not a deposition. The
rules of evidence in an arbitration can vary somewhat from those in a
judicial trial.
>
> 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.
You're typing nonsense.
>
>>> 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?
Do your own Internet research. I have no obligation to you to rehash
what's already been discussed here and elsewhere. Be patient. We'll
have lots to discuss post-indictment.
>
> Fredmaster Ben
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, May 29 2011 10:09 am
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd
On May 29, 7:22 am, BL <b...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> If Armstrong has been or is called before the Grand Jury I expect he
> will, or has, asserted his 5th Amendment privilege. I have never
> expressed any hope that he hire incompetent counsel. Your comment is
> pure hyperbole.
I meant your comments about what a clown Fabiani is,
questioning Herman's strategies, and so on.
Do you read "As the Toto Turns" e.g.
http://nyvelocity.com/content/toto/2011/toto-turns-229 ?
You have to read it for a while to get any of the jokes
(like, Lance is always calling Leipheimer "Bottle").
Anyway, Fabiani is represented as Foghorn Leghorn.
Thought you would like that.
> > 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).
>
> Armstrong, under oath, testified in the SCA arbitration that he had
> never used PEDs. He also disputed the Andreaus testimony as to the
> hospital room incident. Those questions and answers are material and
> relevant to the present investigation.
>
> The arbitration panels determination that the arbitration decision would
> go against SCA based on contract terms, really has no impact on the
> relevance or materiality of what Armstrong testified to as to his
> non-use of PEDs and how that testimony related to the present
> investigation and a perjury charge and/or how that testimony is material
> and relevant to other charges the government is considering.
>
>
>
> > 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).
>
> Armstrong testified at an arbitration hearing, not a deposition. The
> rules of evidence in an arbitration can vary somewhat from those in a
> judicial trial.
IIRC, Armstrong _was_ deposed, and his deposition was used
in the arbitration hearing. I don't think he actually testified in
person at the hearing. I don't know how the rules of evidence in
that state modify what could be asked at the deposition. It's unclear
to me why Armstrong's lawyers, who hopefully read the contract
and saw that it had no anti-doping clause, allowed the SCA
lawyers to go on a fishing expedition, but perhaps they had
no choice.
> > 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.
>
> You're typing nonsense.
It is a reductio ad absurdum. Obviously lawyers are not
supposed to go around asking irrelevant questions in
depositions just to embarrass the witness. But they can ask
questions in such a way as to fluster the witness.
I don't know how the line is drawn as to what questions
are considered permissible. In testimony in court there
is a more obvious mechanism to prevent irrelevancy.
> >>> 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?
>
> Do your own Internet research. I have no obligation to you to rehash
> what's already been discussed here and elsewhere. Be patient. We'll
> have lots to discuss post-indictment.
"Do your own Internet research" is something people say
when they can't quickly find support for their own position
on Wikipedia.
Fredmaster Ben
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, May 29 2011 1:47 pm
From: BL
On 5/29/2011 1:09 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> On May 29, 7:22 am, BL<b...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> If Armstrong has been or is called before the Grand Jury I expect he
>> will, or has, asserted his 5th Amendment privilege. I have never
>> expressed any hope that he hire incompetent counsel. Your comment is
>> pure hyperbole.
>
> I meant your comments about what a clown Fabiani is,
> questioning Herman's strategies, and so on.
No. Your statement, which you conveniently edit out, stated that I
wished Armstrong's counsel to be incompetent. I have never wished any
such thing. He has generally competent counsel. Fabiani is not one of
his trial lawyers. He's a politically connected PR hack who repeats the
party line decided on by Armstrong's other lawyers. Tim Herman is an
excellent commercial attorney. He is out of his depth as to what
Armstrong now faces. He's put his foot in his mouth on more than one
occasion. By all accounts, all of Armstrong's other counsel (criminal)
are tops in their fields as one would expect given that this is all
costing Armstrong between $3-400,000 per month.
>
> Do you read "As the Toto Turns" e.g.
> http://nyvelocity.com/content/toto/2011/toto-turns-229 ?
No.
>
> You have to read it for a while to get any of the jokes
> (like, Lance is always calling Leipheimer "Bottle").
> Anyway, Fabiani is represented as Foghorn Leghorn.
> Thought you would like that.
>
>>> 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).
>>
>> Armstrong, under oath, testified in the SCA arbitration that he had
>> never used PEDs. He also disputed the Andreaus testimony as to the
>> hospital room incident. Those questions and answers are material and
>> relevant to the present investigation.
>>
>> The arbitration panels determination that the arbitration decision would
>> go against SCA based on contract terms, really has no impact on the
>> relevance or materiality of what Armstrong testified to as to his
>> non-use of PEDs and how that testimony related to the present
>> investigation and a perjury charge and/or how that testimony is material
>> and relevant to other charges the government is considering.
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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).
>>
>> Armstrong testified at an arbitration hearing, not a deposition. The
>> rules of evidence in an arbitration can vary somewhat from those in a
>> judicial trial.
>
> IIRC, Armstrong _was_ deposed, and his deposition was used
> in the arbitration hearing. I don't think he actually testified in
> person at the hearing. I don't know how the rules of evidence in
> that state modify what could be asked at the deposition. It's unclear
> to me why Armstrong's lawyers, who hopefully read the contract
> and saw that it had no anti-doping clause, allowed the SCA
> lawyers to go on a fishing expedition, but perhaps they had
> no choice.
Armstrong was deposed, but also testified at the arbitration. I was
referencing what I recollect was that latter testimony.
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> You're typing nonsense.
>
> It is a reductio ad absurdum. Obviously lawyers are not
> supposed to go around asking irrelevant questions in
> depositions just to embarrass the witness. But they can ask
> questions in such a way as to fluster the witness.
> I don't know how the line is drawn as to what questions
> are considered permissible. In testimony in court there
> is a more obvious mechanism to prevent irrelevancy.
>
>>>>> 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?
>>
>> Do your own Internet research. I have no obligation to you to rehash
>> what's already been discussed here and elsewhere. Be patient. We'll
>> have lots to discuss post-indictment.
>
> "Do your own Internet research" is something people say
> when they can't quickly find support for their own position
> on Wikipedia.
>
> Fredmaster Ben
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Old guys, Classic races
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5673eacc51ffc414?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, May 29 2011 4:32 am
From: ilan
On May 29, 6:05 am, Jimmy July <F...@Burger.com> wrote:
> 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!
No, Longo!
-ilan
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, May 29 2011 4:41 am
From: Simply Fred
Jimmy July wrote:
>> Ned Overend is Ultimate Evil!
ilan wrote:
> No, Longo!
It would be Exorcist IV if they mated.
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, May 29 2011 6:32 am
From: DirtRoadie
On May 29, 5:41 am, Simply Fred <n...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> Jimmy July wrote:
> >> Ned Overend is Ultimate Evil!
> ilan wrote:
> > No, Longo!
>
> It would be Exorcist IV if they mated.
If that were going to happen, this could the weekend.
http://ironhorsebicycleclassic.com/sites/default/files/results_prelim/Women%20Pro-Cat%201-2-3.pdf
DR
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, May 29 2011 6:58 am
From: DirtRoadie
On May 29, 5:41 am, Simply Fred <n...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> Jimmy July wrote:
> >> Ned Overend is Ultimate Evil!
> ilan wrote:
> > No, Longo!
>
> It would be Exorcist IV if they mated.
[Edit]
If that were going to happen, this could [be] the weekend.
http://ironhorsebicycleclassic.com/sites/default/files/results_prelim/Women%20Pro-Cat%201-2-3.pdf
DR
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, May 29 2011 8:31 am
From: Fred Flintstein
On 5/28/2011 11:05 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
> 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!
I rode the Iron Horse Classic in 1983. Got 17th, I think, in
the Cat 3 race. Michael Carter won. He started racing in 1982
and was a pro by 1984. I remember when he turned around and
looked at the lead group before disappearing up the road on
the way to Coal Bank Pass.
Ned Overend had won the Cat 4 category the year before and
was racing in the Cat 1/2 race. He kicked everyone's ass to
Silverton.
That year it was a three stage race, the haul to Silverton
followed by a crit and another road race. Ned got turned
inside out in the crit by Jeff Pierce and several other top
riders and dropped down the overall. Pierce won.
It's a great ride by Overend. But like much of road racing
these days it's primarily a masters event, probably Grewal
is not the only delusional guy there. That makes it difficult
to take seriously.
F
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, May 29 2011 9:28 am
From: Scott
On May 29, 9:31 am, Fred Flintstein <bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net>
wrote:
> On 5/28/2011 11:05 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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!
>
> I rode the Iron Horse Classic in 1983. Got 17th, I think, in
> the Cat 3 race. Michael Carter won. He started racing in 1982
> and was a pro by 1984. I remember when he turned around and
> looked at the lead group before disappearing up the road on
> the way to Coal Bank Pass.
>
> Ned Overend had won the Cat 4 category the year before and
> was racing in the Cat 1/2 race. He kicked everyone's ass to
> Silverton.
>
> That year it was a three stage race, the haul to Silverton
> followed by a crit and another road race. Ned got turned
> inside out in the crit by Jeff Pierce and several other top
> riders and dropped down the overall. Pierce won.
>
> It's a great ride by Overend. But like much of road racing
> these days it's primarily a masters event, probably Grewal
> is not the only delusional guy there. That makes it difficult
> to take seriously.
>
> F
The results are up already. FWIW, most of the top CO racers aren't in
Durango this weekend, instead they're racing in Superior (crit
yesterday, Morgul Bismark loop today).
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What crime has LA been INDICTED for
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5fa68f29710dcb4e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, May 29 2011 6:12 am
From: "derFahrer@gmail.com"
On May 27, 10:20 am, Simply Fred <n...@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.
Of all of Lance's transgressions, the only one he should be punished
for is the Olsen twins. I take that back, for that he should be not
guilty by reason of insanity.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why would someone that tested clean 500 times need attorneys such as
these?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/c30539db138ece33?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, May 29 2011 7:50 am
From: Fred Flintstein
On 5/26/2011 1:32 PM, Choppy Warburton wrote:
> Hey Anton. Is this you?
>
> http://www.bikecircle.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-13123.html
>
He'll be back. Guys like him can't stay away.
Good work.
F
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, May 29 2011 9:42 am
From: Scott
On May 29, 8:50 am, Fred Flintstein <bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net>
wrote:
> On 5/26/2011 1:32 PM, Choppy Warburton wrote:
>
> > Hey Anton. Is this you?
>
> >http://www.bikecircle.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-13123.html
>
> He'll be back. Guys like him can't stay away.
>
> Good work.
>
> F
It was funny reading all those comments about the necessity to
specialize in the Kilo, and how important an explosive start is, then
think about how T Phinney rides a kilo. He is almost deliberately
slow out of the gate, then ramps it up like mad all the way to the
line. He's not a specialist, he's not a gym rat, and he doesn't
explode out of the gate. But, he is fast.
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, May 29 2011 10:18 am
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd
On May 29, 7:50 am, Fred Flintstein <bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net>
wrote:
> On 5/26/2011 1:32 PM, Choppy Warburton wrote:
>
> > Hey Anton. Is this you?
>
> >http://www.bikecircle.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-13123.html
>
> He'll be back. Guys like him can't stay away.
>
> Good work.
>
> F
That website is weird. It's a fragment of an rbr thread
and each posters' name has been replaced with
some sort of random handle. I would have guessed
an ineffective content-farming scheme, but they don't even
appear to be selling ads with it.
Here's the original:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/046db07a7b614d46/10fbc2effc6c1425
Fredmaster Ben
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, May 29 2011 10:27 am
From: Randall
There is a quite a few people alleging Lance doped and he is also the
subject of a grand jury investigation. There is a 90% indictment rate
in grand jury investigations as I stated earlier. So it makes good
sense to have a strong defense team.
On May 26, 3:43 pm, ilan <ilan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 6:24 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Seems strange..
>
> > John Keker and Elliot Peters of San Francisco represented Major League
> > Baseball players as they won a key appeals court case two years ago in
> > which a panel of federal judges ruled that agents had no right to
> > seize baseball's anonymous drug-testing results from 2003.
>
> > Read more:http://www.cbc.ca/sports/moresports/story/2011/05/26/sp-uci-armstrong...
>
> Of course, if he were innocent, he wouldn't need a lawyer since he
> wouldn't have anything to hide. Anyway, you can't trust what lawyers
> say in the courtroom, since they are being paid by the defendant.
>
> -ilan
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, May 29 2011 10:30 am
From: "A. Dumas"
Choppy Warburton wrote:
> Hey Anton. Is this you?
> http://www.bikecircle.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-13123.html
Who? Why? That is some sort of cyclingmorons.com fuck-up of this:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/46db07a7b614d46
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, May 29 2011 11:02 am
From: Fred Flintstein
On 5/29/2011 12:30 PM, A. Dumas wrote:
> Choppy Warburton wrote:
>> Hey Anton. Is this you?
>> http://www.bikecircle.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-13123.html
>
> Who? Why? That is some sort of cyclingmorons.com fuck-up of this: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/46db07a7b614d46
Interesting who got assigned the name 'tarty'.
F
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Giro Review
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5229bc0beec82e09?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, May 29 2011 9:47 am
From: RicodJour
Boring.
A few interesting tidbits, mainly the scenery.
R
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Context for TdS debacle
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/9ed72fd9cc6036a9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, May 29 2011 10:19 am
From: "A. Dumas"
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> =====
> =====
>> ======
>> ======
Please, for all our sanity, will you finally get fucking OEQuoteFix
plugin installed?
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, May 29 2011 10:58 am
From: Fred Flintstein
On 5/29/2011 12:19 PM, A. Dumas wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> =====
>> =====
>>> ======
>>> ======
>
> Please, for all our sanity, will you finally get fucking OEQuoteFix plugin installed?
Mike, Lafferty is your fault!
F
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Giro d'Italia, stage 21 summary
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/cea37f68aafcbbe2?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, May 29 2011 11:10 am
From: Bob Martin
Stage 21 : May 29, Milan, 31.5 km
1 David Millar (GBr) Team Garmin-Cervelo 0.30.13
2 Alex Rasmussen (Den) HTC-Highroad 0.07
3 Alberto Contador Velasco (Spa) Saxo Bank Sungard 0.36
4 Richie Porte (Aus) Saxo Bank Sungard 0.43
5 Yaroslav Popovych (Ukr) Team RadioShack 0.55
6 Jos Van Emden (Ned) Rabobank Cycling Team 1.02
7 Cameron Meyer (Aus) Team Garmin-Cervelo 1.04
8 Patrick Gretsch (Ger) HTC-Highroad 1.08
9 Tiago Machado (Por) Team RadioShack 1.12
10 Kanstantsin Sivtsov (Blr) HTC-Highroad 1.16
Changes in GC, stage 21 compared to stage 20 :
Biggest gainers by position :
+4 Rinaldo Nocentini
+4 Dennis van Winden
+4 David Millar
+3 Yuriy Krivtsov
+3 Sebastian Lang
+3 Alan Marangoni
+2 Richie Porte
+2 Mirko Selvaggi
+2 Matteo Montaguti
+2 Giairo Ermetti
Biggest losers by position :
-3 Alberto Ongarato
-3 Alexander Kristoff
-3 Luca Mazzanti
-2 Addy Engels
-2 Davide Malacarne
-2 Dmitry Kozontchouk
-2 Fabio Sabatini
-2 Jerome Pineau
-2 Jesus Hernandez Blazquez
-2 Julien Berard
-2 Laurent Didier
Biggest gainers by time :
+0:36 David Millar
+0:29 Alex Rasmussen
Biggest losers by time :
-5:04 Danilo Di Luca
-4:49 Simon Spilak
-4:45 Giampaolo Caruso
-4:40 Dmitry Kozontchouk
-4:26 Mauricio Alberto Ardila Cano
-4:23 Fabio Taborre
-4:22 Luca Mazzanti
-4:21 Cristiano Salerno
-4:18 Addy Engels
-4:18 Davide Malacarne
-4:14 Giampaolo Cheula
Favourites by position :
+2 Richie Porte
+1 Stefano Garzelli
+1 Roman Kreuziger
-1 Danilo Di Luca
Favourites by time :
-0:07 Richie Porte
-0:42 Vincenzo Nibali
-0:50 Roman Kreuziger
-0:52 Michele Scarponi
-1:27 Denis Menchov
-2:00 Stefano Garzelli
-2:07 Carlos Sastre Candil
-2:09 Thomas Lovkvist
-2:43 Lars Ytting Bak
-3:00 David Arroyo Duran
-3:20 Daniel Moreno Fernandez
-5:04 Danilo Di Luca
Top 10 and favourites GC standings (previous stage in parens) :
1 Alberto Contador Velasco 84:05:14 (unchanged)
2 Michele Scarponi 6:10 (was 2nd at 5:18)
3 Vincenzo Nibali 6:56 (was 3rd at 6:14)
4 John Gadret 10:04 (was 4th at 7:49)
5 JoaquAm RodrAguez Oliver 11:05 (was 5th at 9:27)
6 Roman Kreuziger 11:28 (was 7th at 10:38)
7 Jose Rujano Guillen 12:12 (was 6th at 10:23)
8 Denis Menchov 12:18 (was 8th at 10:51)
9 Steven Kruijswijk 13:51 (was 9th at 12:56)
10 Kanstantsin Siutsou 14:10 (was 11th at 13:30)
.....
14 David Arroyo Duran 26:56 (was 14th at 23:56)
.....
21 Thomas Lovkvist 43:51 (was 21st at 41:42)
.....
26 Stefano Garzelli 1:04:00 (was 27th at 1:02:00)
.....
29 Daniel Moreno Fernandez 1:07:31 (was 29th at 1:04:11)
30 Carlos Sastre Candil 1:07:33 (was 30th at 1:05:26)
.....
69 Danilo Di Luca 2:32:27 (was 68th at 2:27:23)
.....
81 Richie Porte 2:46:57 (was 83rd at 2:46:50)
.....
127 Lars Ytting Bak 3:49:26 (was 127th at 3:46:43)
Top 10 on Points table with previous in parens:
1 Jan Bakelants 26 (unchanged)
2 Pablo Lastras Garcia 13 (unchanged)
3 Sebastian Lang 10 (unchanged)
4 Stefano Garzelli 8 (unchanged)
5 Bram Tankink 8 (unchanged)
6 Lars Ytting Bak 8 (unchanged)
7 Frederik Veuchelen 6 (unchanged)
8 Daniel Moreno Fernandez 5 (unchanged)
9 Giovanni Visconti 5 (unchanged)
10 Fumiyuki Beppu 5 (unchanged)
Top 10 on Mountains table with previous in parens:
1 Stefano Garzelli 67 (unchanged)
2 Alberto Contador Velasco 58 (unchanged)
3 Jose Rujano Guillen 43 (unchanged)
4 Mikel Nieve Ituralde 39 (unchanged)
5 Gianluca Brambilla 29 (unchanged)
6 Vasili Kiryienka 24 (unchanged)
7 Emanuele Sella 23 (unchanged)
8 Michele Scarponi 23 (unchanged)
9 Vincenzo Nibali 22 (unchanged)
10 Johnny Hoogerland 21 (unchanged)
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)
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, May 29 2011 1:51 pm
From: sender
On 29/05/2011 19:10, Bob Martin wrote:
>
> Stage 21 : May 29, Milan, 31.5 km
>
> 1 David Millar (GBr) Team Garmin-Cervelo 0.30.13
At last a clean winner. ;)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Giro d'Italia, stage 19 summary
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/9299488aaba26377?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, May 29 2011 2:13 pm
From: Ryan Cousineau
I remember having this discussion before, but should a race leader's "time" be the gap to 2nd? Otherwise, it looks like a race leader is making no race progress between the time they take the lead and the time they lose it (or win).
For all other racers, leave the benchmark (relative to leader) as is, but for a current race leader, gain loss should be relative to their previous lead over 2nd, even if the second place rider changes. Similarly, a rider who newly attains 1st can be credited with their old time gap PLUS their new time gap to 2nd.
This reflects the idea that all riders chase the leader, but the leader tries to escape the runer-up.
==============================================================================
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
