rec.bicycles.racing
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing?hl=enrec.bicycles.racing@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Giro d'Italia, stage 19 summary - 7 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/9299488aaba26377?hl=en
* First of a VeloNews Series - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/a40bbb5fcd4c5cca?hl=en
* WADA & Contador: "strict liability" - 14 messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/683ee4e6dc23f8bc?hl=en
* "The Onion" nails it, again. - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/9a42609e948d70ae?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Giro d'Italia, stage 19 summary
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/9299488aaba26377?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, May 30 2011 11:18 pm
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd
On May 30, 8:53 pm, William Fred <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote innews:is1naj$2u8$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
> > Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >> I'll have to poke around, but I'm using Google Groups as my
> >> posting/reading interface. I assume that for some damned-ass reason
> >> GG is very casual about references headers, which probably goes
> >> nicely with it's default no-quoted-text-in-replies setting.
>
> > Works for other people. There were no line breaks either in your post.
>
> IAWTP. Ryan is the only one posting here whose text doesn't wrap.
Yes. And many use google groups. I speculate it has
something to do with the web browser. Ryan, your
User-Agent line says "G2/1.0", which is a little inscrutable.
It might mean Google Groups, but for most users of GG,
the User-Agent field is the web browser.
Are you posting to rbr from a phone or mobile device?
Could you be getting a mobile version of GGroups that behaves
differently than others? Or maybe it's just that your
browser handles wrapping in text boxes in some way that
mangles GGroups' attempted wrapping?
If you're using some funny web browser, try posting
to rbr from Firefox and see if it behaves the same way.
Freddebugger Ben
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, May 31 2011 12:31 am
From: Davey Crockett
William Fred a écrit profondement:
| IAWTP. Ryan is the only one posting here whose text doesn't wrap.
Does Xnews not have a "Reformat" utility?
Ryan's posts don't wrap here, but it just requires a simple "W w" to
make them behave. (gnus is in use here).
--
Davey Crockett
Flying the Flag of the English
The Flag of Hengest and Horsa
http://usera.imagecave.com/daveycrockett/englishdragon.jpg
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, May 31 2011 3:23 am
From: Simply Fred
RicodJour wrote:
> I'm having no trouble with Ryan's posts. Well, except for
> understanding what the hell he's talking about. ;)
Perhaps you're not using a threaded newsreader. If you do you'll find
each of his posts becomes a new subject.
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, May 31 2011 5:53 am
From: RicodJour
On May 31, 6:23 am, Simply Fred <n...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
>
> > I'm having no trouble with Ryan's posts. Well, except for
> > understanding what the hell he's talking about. ;)
>
> Perhaps you're not using a threaded newsreader. If you do you'll find
> each of his posts becomes a new subject.
I'm using Google Groups as well. Maybe Google's gibberish makes sense
to Google?
R
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, May 31 2011 1:14 pm
From: Frederick the Great
In article <is1naj$2u8$1@dont-email.me>,
"A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > I'll have to poke around, but I'm using Google Groups as my
> > posting/reading interface. I assume that for some damned-ass reason
> > GG is very casual about references headers, which probably goes
> > nicely with it's default no-quoted-text-in-replies setting.
>
> Works for other people. There were no line breaks either in your post.
Must be the slimmed down google for Canadians.
--
Old Fritz
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, May 31 2011 1:17 pm
From: Frederick the Great
In article <Xns9EF5D495DF6F9FkldeltaC@130.133.4.11>,
William Fred <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote in news:is1naj$2u8$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
> > Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >> I'll have to poke around, but I'm using Google Groups as my
> >> posting/reading interface. I assume that for some damned-ass reason
> >> GG is very casual about references headers, which probably goes
> >> nicely with it's default no-quoted-text-in-replies setting.
> >
> > Works for other people. There were no line breaks either in your post.
>
> IAWTP. Ryan is the only one posting here whose text doesn't wrap. I
> would upgrade my newsreader, which would likely solve he problem, but
> none of the goldarned newfangled programs with all their jimcracker
> fooforall nonsense run on kerosene like my current one, and I am not
> going to give up my kerosene-powered newsreader.
Kerosene! Luxury. I'm pedaling as fast as I can just to
keep up. Fortunately, my flywheel powered newsreader puts
out more power than I can.
--
Old Fritz
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, May 31 2011 1:27 pm
From: Simply Fred
Frederick the Great wrote:
> Must be the slimmed down google for Canadians.
<Meeow>Probably won't work for Ryan then</Meeow>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: First of a VeloNews Series
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/a40bbb5fcd4c5cca?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, May 31 2011 12:56 am
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd
On May 30, 11:38 am, BL <b...@verizon.net> wrote:
> http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/05/news/op-ed-series-1-on-heroes-...
Always classy writing about sports "heroes" on Memorial Day
goddamnit.
They're celebrity athletes, people. Not heroes.
If you make a person into a hero, and then the symbol
turns out to be a human being with failings, be
disappointed, sure, but don't make it into an epic poem
about how he let us all down. That goes for Lance or
Greg or Floyd, any of them.
We don't put up statues with people's names or put
their faces on stamps until they're safely dead. It's a
good policy.
Fredmaster Ben
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, May 31 2011 3:05 pm
From: Revtom
On May 31, 2:56 am, Fredmaster of Brainerd <bjwei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 11:38 am, BL <b...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/05/news/op-ed-series-1-on-heroes-...
>
> Always classy writing about sports "heroes" on Memorial Day
> goddamnit.
>
> They're celebrity athletes, people. Not heroes.
>
> If you make a person into a hero, and then the symbol
> turns out to be a human being with failings, be
> disappointed, sure, but don't make it into an epic poem
> about how he let us all down. That goes for Lance or
> Greg or Floyd, any of them.
>
> We don't put up statues with people's names or put
> their faces on stamps until they're safely dead. It's a
> good policy.
>
> Fredmaster Ben
Why don't all STFU until a jury hands in a verdict? So Lance, Greg,
Floyd, et al. have been elevated to hero status, then knocked off
their respective pedestals; some can climb right back up, others
can't. It's also common knowledge that Lance can be a real dick to
people he doesn't like. So can I. The constant yammering accomplishes
nothing. VeloNews then publishes this piece written by a Lemond
employee, indicating that, while heroes take occasional falls, Lance
will fall harder. Just because sport fans are saps for a great story.
We need more "up close and personal" like we need a collective sore
ass. If Novitsky (sp) has a case, make it. It's another waste of tax
dollars. We have war criminals walking around free; so-called
"sporting fraud" should be relegated to the civil courts.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: WADA & Contador: "strict liability"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/683ee4e6dc23f8bc?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, May 31 2011 1:05 am
From: DC
Randall said the following on 31/05/2011 12:20 PM:
> Personally I think a unilateral rule of "strict liablity" is too
> harsh to be applied in all cases. I think WADA should show intent to
> dope.
Good luck trying to prove intent. You would just make it a free for all.
== 2 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, May 31 2011 3:05 am
From: Randall
On May 31, 1:05 am, DC <u...@nospam.net> wrote:
> Randall said the following on 31/05/2011 12:20 PM:
>
> > Personally I think a unilateral rule of "strict liablity" is too
> > harsh to be applied in all cases. I think WADA should show intent to
> > dope.
>
> Good luck trying to prove intent. You would just make it a free for all.
I am not exactly certain what the solution is. But there needs to be
some middle ground in determining guilt. In Contadors case there is a
possibility that the meat was unknowingly contaminated.
== 3 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, May 31 2011 5:54 am
From: RicodJour
On May 31, 6:05 am, Randall <randall.shim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 1:05 am, DC <u...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > Randall said the following on 31/05/2011 12:20 PM:
>
> > > Personally I think a unilateral rule of "strict liablity" is too
> > > harsh to be applied in all cases. I think WADA should show intent to
> > > dope.
>
> > Good luck trying to prove intent. You would just make it a free for all.
>
> I am not exactly certain what the solution is. But there needs to be
> some middle ground in determining guilt. In Contadors case there is a
> possibility that the meat was unknowingly contaminated.
Or knowingly.
R
== 4 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, May 31 2011 6:07 am
From: Scott
On May 31, 4:05 am, Randall <randall.shim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 1:05 am, DC <u...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > Randall said the following on 31/05/2011 12:20 PM:
>
> > > Personally I think a unilateral rule of "strict liablity" is too
> > > harsh to be applied in all cases. I think WADA should show intent to
> > > dope.
>
> > Good luck trying to prove intent. You would just make it a free for all.
>
> I am not exactly certain what the solution is. But there needs to be
> some middle ground in determining guilt. In Contadors case there is a
> possibility that the meat was unknowingly contaminated.
You think there actually was some meat involved?
== 5 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, May 31 2011 6:26 am
From: ilan
On May 31, 6:20 am, Randall <randall.shim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Personally I think a unilateral rule of "strict liablity" is too
> harsh to be applied in all cases. I think WADA should show intent to
> dope.
>
> (http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/03/news/the-explainer-so-the-uci-
> is-appealing_165162 )
> "While the WADA Code and the UCI's anti-doping rules have evolved over
> the years, there is still a commitment to the principle of "strict
> liability" when it comes to doping violations. The reasoning is that
> if an athlete, even accidentally, ingests a banned substance, it gives
> him or her an unfair competitive advantage over those athletes who had
> not used the same substance.
>
> In other words, the most logical course for the UCI to pursue might be
> to concede the whole question of bovine contamination, agree with the
> Spanish federation's conclusion that no fault existed, but argue that
> even so, Contador must at least be penalized by having his 2010 Tour
> de France results negated."
This stuff is probably contrary to the European declaration of human
rights. Kasheshkin's Belgian lawyer already stated that he was going
to appeal current anti-doping rules to the European court of human
rights, but Kasheshkin gave up before he could do that. Too bad,
because I believe that there is already a good case that the current
system violates European employment laws, not to mention human rights.
-ilan
== 6 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, May 31 2011 6:34 am
From: ilan
On May 31, 3:26 pm, ilan <ilan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 6:20 am, Randall <randall.shim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Personally I think a unilateral rule of "strict liablity" is too
> > harsh to be applied in all cases. I think WADA should show intent to
> > dope.
>
> > (http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/03/news/the-explainer-so-the-uci-
> > is-appealing_165162 )
> > "While the WADA Code and the UCI's anti-doping rules have evolved over
> > the years, there is still a commitment to the principle of "strict
> > liability" when it comes to doping violations. The reasoning is that
> > if an athlete, even accidentally, ingests a banned substance, it gives
> > him or her an unfair competitive advantage over those athletes who had
> > not used the same substance.
>
> > In other words, the most logical course for the UCI to pursue might be
> > to concede the whole question of bovine contamination, agree with the
> > Spanish federation's conclusion that no fault existed, but argue that
> > even so, Contador must at least be penalized by having his 2010 Tour
> > de France results negated."
>
> This stuff is probably contrary to the European declaration of human
> rights. Kasheshkin's Belgian lawyer already stated that he was going
> to appeal current anti-doping rules to the European court of human
> rights, but Kasheshkin gave up before he could do that. Too bad,
> because I believe that there is already a good case that the current
> system violates European employment laws, not to mention human rights.
>
> -ilan
Actually, the argument is quite clear. Taking a blood sample is a form
of personal search and seizure which, for example in France, can only
be done when ordered by a prosecutor in a criminal investigation. In
the US, such a search requires probable cause, but just doing your job
cannot be legally regarded as such.
I suppose that the current justification is that riders have given the
anti-doping authorities the right to do this, however, the point is
that one cannot be forced to give up a fundamental right, and in this
case, it is a form of coercion since professional cyclists can't do
their job without giving it up.
-ilan
== 7 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, May 31 2011 6:41 am
From: Choppy Warburton
> I am not exactly certain what the solution is. But there needs to be
> some middle ground in determining guilt. In Contadors case there is a
> possibility that the meat was unknowingly contaminated.
Just like Lance's refrigerator and ball patches were unknowingly
contaminated. With only one testicle how's one to know there's
testosterone in that patch?
== 8 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, May 31 2011 6:43 am
From: Choppy Warburton
On May 31, 8:34 am, ilan <ilan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 3:26 pm, ilan <ilan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 31, 6:20 am, Randall <randall.shim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Personally I think a unilateral rule of "strict liablity" is too
> > > harsh to be applied in all cases. I think WADA should show intent to
> > > dope.
>
> > > (http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/03/news/the-explainer-so-the-uci-
> > > is-appealing_165162 )
> > > "While the WADA Code and the UCI's anti-doping rules have evolved over
> > > the years, there is still a commitment to the principle of "strict
> > > liability" when it comes to doping violations. The reasoning is that
> > > if an athlete, even accidentally, ingests a banned substance, it gives
> > > him or her an unfair competitive advantage over those athletes who had
> > > not used the same substance.
>
> > > In other words, the most logical course for the UCI to pursue might be
> > > to concede the whole question of bovine contamination, agree with the
> > > Spanish federation's conclusion that no fault existed, but argue that
> > > even so, Contador must at least be penalized by having his 2010 Tour
> > > de France results negated."
>
> > This stuff is probably contrary to the European declaration of human
> > rights. Kasheshkin's Belgian lawyer already stated that he was going
> > to appeal current anti-doping rules to the European court of human
> > rights, but Kasheshkin gave up before he could do that. Too bad,
> > because I believe that there is already a good case that the current
> > system violates European employment laws, not to mention human rights.
>
> > -ilan
>
> Actually, the argument is quite clear. Taking a blood sample is a form
> of personal search and seizure which, for example in France, can only
> be done when ordered by a prosecutor in a criminal investigation. In
> the US, such a search requires probable cause, but just doing your job
> cannot be legally regarded as such.
>
> I suppose that the current justification is that riders have given the
> anti-doping authorities the right to do this, however, the point is
> that one cannot be forced to give up a fundamental right, and in this
> case, it is a form of coercion since professional cyclists can't do
> their job without giving it up.
>
> -ilan
Dumbass, if you want to race bikes, fly planes and drive school buses
you give up those rights.
== 9 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, May 31 2011 7:02 am
From: ilan
On May 31, 3:43 pm, Choppy Warburton <choppywarbur...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On May 31, 8:34 am, ilan <ilan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 31, 3:26 pm, ilan <ilan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 31, 6:20 am, Randall <randall.shim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Personally I think a unilateral rule of "strict liablity" is too
> > > > harsh to be applied in all cases. I think WADA should show intent to
> > > > dope.
>
> > > > (http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/03/news/the-explainer-so-the-uci-
> > > > is-appealing_165162 )
> > > > "While the WADA Code and the UCI's anti-doping rules have evolved over
> > > > the years, there is still a commitment to the principle of "strict
> > > > liability" when it comes to doping violations. The reasoning is that
> > > > if an athlete, even accidentally, ingests a banned substance, it gives
> > > > him or her an unfair competitive advantage over those athletes who had
> > > > not used the same substance.
>
> > > > In other words, the most logical course for the UCI to pursue might be
> > > > to concede the whole question of bovine contamination, agree with the
> > > > Spanish federation's conclusion that no fault existed, but argue that
> > > > even so, Contador must at least be penalized by having his 2010 Tour
> > > > de France results negated."
>
> > > This stuff is probably contrary to the European declaration of human
> > > rights. Kasheshkin's Belgian lawyer already stated that he was going
> > > to appeal current anti-doping rules to the European court of human
> > > rights, but Kasheshkin gave up before he could do that. Too bad,
> > > because I believe that there is already a good case that the current
> > > system violates European employment laws, not to mention human rights.
>
> > > -ilan
>
> > Actually, the argument is quite clear. Taking a blood sample is a form
> > of personal search and seizure which, for example in France, can only
> > be done when ordered by a prosecutor in a criminal investigation. In
> > the US, such a search requires probable cause, but just doing your job
> > cannot be legally regarded as such.
>
> > I suppose that the current justification is that riders have given the
> > anti-doping authorities the right to do this, however, the point is
> > that one cannot be forced to give up a fundamental right, and in this
> > case, it is a form of coercion since professional cyclists can't do
> > their job without giving it up.
>
> > -ilan
>
> Dumbass, if you want to race bikes, fly planes and drive school buses
> you give up those rights.
As far as I know, airline pilots and school bus drivers are not
subject to forced blood tests.
-ilan
== 10 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, May 31 2011 8:53 am
From: Simply Fred
Scott wrote:
> You think there actually was some meat involved?
Spanish cucumbers seem to be quite potent too.
== 11 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, May 31 2011 1:29 pm
From: Frederick the Great
In article
<20175095-6611-4a5f-ac0d-e646b890473f@34g2000pru.googlegroups.com>,
Randall <randall.shimizu@gmail.com> wrote:
> Personally I think a unilateral rule of "strict liablity" is too
> harsh to be applied in all cases. I think WADA should show intent to
> dope.
>
> (http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/03/news/the-explainer-so-the-uci-
> is-appealing_165162 )
> "While the WADA Code and the UCI's anti-doping rules have evolved over
> the years, there is still a commitment to the principle of "strict
> liability" when it comes to doping violations. The reasoning is that
> if an athlete, even accidentally, ingests a banned substance, it gives
> him or her an unfair competitive advantage over those athletes who had
> not used the same substance.
>
> In other words, the most logical course for the UCI to pursue might be
> to concede the whole question of bovine contamination, agree with the
> Spanish federation's conclusion that no fault existed, but argue that
> even so, Contador must at least be penalized by having his 2010 Tour
> de France results negated."
First across the line wins.
--
Old Fritz
== 12 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, May 31 2011 1:32 pm
From: Frederick the Great
In article
<841a4a6c-f601-4ec8-8e27-71c84178b921@k15g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Randall <randall.shimizu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 1:05 am, DC <u...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > Randall said the following on 31/05/2011 12:20 PM:
> >
> > > Personally I think a unilateral rule of "strict liablity" is too
> > > harsh to be applied in all cases. I think WADA should show intent to
> > > dope.
> >
> > Good luck trying to prove intent. You would just make it a free for all.
>
> I am not exactly certain what the solution is.
There is no solution because there is no problem.
> But there needs to be
> some middle ground in determining guilt.
Due process.
Guards against unreasonable search and seizure.
A jury of one's peers.
--
Old Fritz
== 13 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, May 31 2011 1:35 pm
From: Randall
On May 31, 8:53 am, Simply Fred <n...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > You think there actually was some meat involved?
Yes there is the possiblity. Spanish meat has had clenbuterol.
"The UCI issued a statement reporting that the concentration was 50
picograms per millilitre, and that this was 400 times below the
minimum standards of detection capability required by WADA, and that
further scientific investigation would be required. Contador was
provisionally suspended from competition, although this had no short-
term effect as he had already finished his racing programme for the
2010 season.[96][97][98] Contador had been informed of the results
over a month earlier, on August 24.[99] Later the amount discovered
was clarified as 40 times below the minimum standards, rather than the
400 times originally reported by the UCI. Contador's scientific
adviser claimed that he would have needed 180 times the amount
detected to gain any benefit in his performance.[100]"
>
> Spanish cucumbers seem to be quite potent too.
== 14 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, May 31 2011 3:05 pm
From: Scott
On May 31, 2:35 pm, Randall <randall.shim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 8:53 am, Simply Fred <n...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> > Scott wrote:
> > > You think there actually was some meat involved?
>
> Yes there is the possiblity. Spanish meat has had clenbuterol.
>
> "The UCI issued a statement reporting that the concentration was 50
> picograms per millilitre, and that this was 400 times below the
> minimum standards of detection capability required by WADA, and that
> further scientific investigation would be required. Contador was
> provisionally suspended from competition, although this had no short-
> term effect as he had already finished his racing programme for the
> 2010 season.[96][97][98] Contador had been informed of the results
> over a month earlier, on August 24.[99] Later the amount discovered
> was clarified as 40 times below the minimum standards, rather than the
> 400 times originally reported by the UCI. Contador's scientific
> adviser claimed that he would have needed 180 times the amount
> detected to gain any benefit in his performance.[100]"
>
>
>
>
Really, you think there actually was some contaminated meat? Really??
==============================================================================
TOPIC: "The Onion" nails it, again.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/9a42609e948d70ae?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, May 31 2011 12:37 pm
From: Jimmy July
On 05/30/2011 11:01 AM, --D-y wrote:
> On May 30, 11:03 am, Jimmy July<F...@Burger.com> wrote:
>> http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/articles/lance-armstrong-i-never-fa...
>
> They sure did.
> "Never (well, almost never!) failed a test" is a truly damning
> indictment of the "system", and the anti-doping zealots.
>
> Don't make rules you can't enforce.
> --D-y
http://www.gocomics.com/badreporter/2011/05/25
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, May 31 2011 1:42 pm
From: Frederick the Great
In article <4de5439d@news.x-privat.org>, Jimmy July <Fred@Burger.com>
wrote:
> http://www.gocomics.com/badreporter/2011/05/25
Don Asmussen is a shill for a political dogma.
--
Old Fritz
==============================================================================
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
