How you like Them Apples?

[Davey Crockett]

Bettini!!
--
Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply

[Ewoud Dronkert]

Davey Crockett schreef:
> Bettini!!

Good. The right winner, sportive and politically, after an exciting race.

Too bad that Boogie couldn't close the gap with his ultimate effort, but
6th or 12th, I don't think he'll lose sleep over it.


--
E. Dronkert

[dustoyevsky@mac.com]

On Sep 30, 10:16 am, Davey Crockett <r...@azurservers.com> wrote:
> Bettini!!
> --
> Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply

http://www.recipeland.com/recipe/47281/

With the right apples, somewhat tart but a sweet finish, and better
than stewed crow any day. Even PMcQ seems to agree:

(yahoo sports)

<UCI president Pat McQuaid started the week firmly reprimanding
Bettini for his refusal to sign [doping loyalty oath] but on Sunday he
had warm praise for the Italian's achievement.

"There's a famous saying from Italy: Veni, vidi, vici and Paolo
Bettini came, saw and conquered," McQuaid told reporters.

"A rider who can win a race under the pressure he's been under is a
classic, special rider. I've nothing but the highest praise for him.
He won a classic race today, with the best five riders of the race at
the front, and he came through and won.

"We can only give him all the praise and support he needs." >

Yum yum, is there more?

--D-y

[cyclintom@gmail.com]

On Sep 30, 8:16 am, Davey Crockett <r...@azurservers.com> wrote:
> Bettini!!

How long before McQuaid and Pound make simultaneous announcements that
Bettini's win automatically convicted him of doping?

[Alex Beascoechea]

Bettini is really great!

O.K. So the spanish team screwded up. But can anybody explain what the 3
Dutchmen in the final group were thinking about? It seems that Boogerd could
not get the other two to move their asses to help him.

"Ewoud Dronkert" <firstname@lastname.net.invalid> escribió en el mensaje
news:46ffc59c$0$230$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> Davey Crockett schreef:
>> Bettini!!
>
> Good. The right winner, sportive and politically, after an exciting race.
>
> Too bad that Boogie couldn't close the gap with his ultimate effort, but
> 6th or 12th, I don't think he'll lose sleep over it.
>
>
> --
> E. Dronkert

[Stu Fleming]

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:

> Too bad that Boogie couldn't close the gap with his ultimate effort, but
> 6th or 12th, I don't think he'll lose sleep over it.

This statement is almost timeless.

[davidnwelton@gmail.com]

Bellissima! Stupenda! As a sort of "adopted" Italian (my wife is
Italian, and I have lived there on and off for a while) I've never
been happier to hear their national anthem, and it was great to watch
Bettini afterwards. Definitely in the list of "most deserved
victories".

[Ewoud Dronkert]

Alex Beascoechea schreef:
> O.K. So the spanish team screwded up. But can anybody explain what the 3
> Dutchmen in the final group were thinking about? It seems that Boogerd could
> not get the other two to move their asses to help him.

I think they were spent. Kroon was hanging back already after some great
showing a few laps before. It was said he had stomach troubles the last
few days. Dekker, well he has his moments but I don't believe he can be
an explosive classics rider. I also think 250+ km might be pushing it
for him, at his age. [Wishful thinking:] Too bad Langeveld and Ten Dam
had to work in 2 chases earlier and that Gesink was in all sorts of
breaks. They might have been up there as well.

Ah yes, Kroon just on tv, very disappointed, almost in tears. He
focussed on this race for the past 2 years and he was super, had great
legs, didn't feel them but he missed some energy in the final after a
few days of being sick.


--
E. Dronkert

[sergio]

On 30 Set, 18:04, "davidnwel...@gmail.com" <davidnwel...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Bellissima! Stupenda! As a sort of "adopted" Italian ...

Try to imagine how elated I feel, so proud of such a great neighbor of
mine.


Sergio
Pisa

[Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com]

On Sep 30, 10:15 am, Ewoud Dronkert <firstn...@lastname.net.invalid>
wrote:
> Alex Beascoechea schreef:
>
> > O.K. So the spanish team screwded up. But can anybody explain what the 3
> > Dutchmen in the final group were thinking about? It seems that Boogerd could
> > not get the other two to move their asses to help him.
>
> I think they were spent. Kroon was hanging back already after some great
> showing a few laps before. It was said he had stomach troubles the last
> few days. Dekker, well he has his moments but I don't believe he can be
> an explosive classics rider. I also think 250+ km might be pushing it
> for him, at his age. [Wishful thinking:] Too bad Langeveld and Ten Dam
> had to work in 2 chases earlier and that Gesink was in all sorts of
> breaks. They might have been up there as well.
>
> Ah yes, Kroon just on tv, very disappointed, almost in tears.

This was on TV!! C'mon, I looked..all I found was bullriding and a
variety of gigantic uniformed guys slamming into one another,
seemingly arguing over this oval looking, pointy ball.....

But Cleveland are in the playoffs(allright, allright, I admit it, I
like baseball..........)


He
> focussed on this race for the past 2 years and he was super, had great
> legs, didn't feel them but he missed some energy in the final after a
> few days of being sick.
>
> --
> E. Dronkert

[ilanpsi@gmail.com]

On Sep 30, 9:23 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Sep 30, 10:16 am, Davey Crockett <r...@azurservers.com> wrote:
>
> > Bettini!!
> > --
> > Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply
>
> http://www.recipeland.com/recipe/47281/
>
> With the right apples, somewhat tart but a sweet finish, and better
> than stewed crow any day. Even PMcQ seems to agree:
>
> (yahoo sports)
>
> <UCI president Pat McQuaid started the week firmly reprimanding
> Bettini for his refusal to sign [doping loyalty oath] but on Sunday he
> had warm praise for the Italian's achievement.
>
> "There's a famous saying from Italy: Veni, vidi, vici and Paolo
> Bettini came, saw and conquered," McQuaid told reporters.
>
> "A rider who can win a race under the pressure he's been under is a
> classic, special rider. I've nothing but the highest praise for him.
> He won a classic race today, with the best five riders of the race at
> the front, and he came through and won.
>
> "We can only give him all the praise and support he needs." >
>
> Yum yum, is there more?
>
> --D-y

Well that's better from McQuaid. I found his anger at Bettini very
inappropriate as he should show the current world champion some
respect regarding his personal choices, even if he disagrees with
them. Even worse, his behavior might have encouraged the later actions
of the German authorities trying to ban him from the race.

-ilan

[Bill C]

On Sep 30, 3:23 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Sep 30, 10:16 am, Davey Crockett <r...@azurservers.com> wrote:
>
> > Bettini!!
> > --
> > Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply
>
> http://www.recipeland.com/recipe/47281/
>
> With the right apples, somewhat tart but a sweet finish, and better
> than stewed crow any day. Even PMcQ seems to agree:
>
> (yahoo sports)
>
> <UCI president Pat McQuaid started the week firmly reprimanding
> Bettini for his refusal to sign [doping loyalty oath] but on Sunday he
> had warm praise for the Italian's achievement.
>
> "There's a famous saying from Italy: Veni, vidi, vici and Paolo
> Bettini came, saw and conquered," McQuaid told reporters.
>
> "A rider who can win a race under the pressure he's been under is a
> classic, special rider. I've nothing but the highest praise for him.
> He won a classic race today, with the best five riders of the race at
> the front, and he came through and won.
>
> "We can only give him all the praise and support he needs." >
>
> Yum yum, is there more?
>
> --D-y

FANTASTIC! Bettini makes some justice for himself, and McBoggie proves
what a sleazebag hypoicrite he is. I'd love to think that this might
inspire the rest of the riders to stand up for themselves. Not goonna
happen though.
You can count me a member of the Bettini fan club after all this BS.
Best revenge he could have had that didn't involve stakes and
bonfires.
Bill C

[amit.ghosh@gmail.com]

On Sep 30, 4:54 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:

> McBoggie proves
> what a sleazebag hypoicrite he is.


Can you explain this statement ?

Until this year the UCI has not been able to or willing to do anything
to catch cheaters. If a cheater got busted it was because they ****ed
up or they were caught by the police or some other body.

Valverde and Bettini are my favorite riders, and the mtn. duels
between Rasmussen and Contador in this year's tour were awesome -- I
don't want to see the punished -- but the longterm health of the sport
requires that there has to be some belief that the sport is fair.

The widespread perception is that the UCI is not in control and the
ASO, WADA, ADAs, Guardia Civil, French cops, Italian cops, CONI, the
Worlds organizers are all going over the head of the UCI and after the
riders themselves.

Sinkewitz says Bettini gave him testosterone. I don't take this to
mean that Bettini is guilty based on Sinkewitz's word -- but logically
it doesn't make sense that Sinkewitz would make that up -- so the UCI
HAS to address it somehow.

If you're willing to believe that Aubut took 16 yr old Jeanson to
Duquette for EPO and dragged her into the desert and hit her you have
to believe Sinkewitz's statement just as much.

There is no reason to favour one statement over the other, other than
the fact that Bettini is likable and Aubut is not.

When McQuaid makes a statement about the "men in black" or singles out
Valverde or Bettini I don't think it is off the cuff like everyone
imagines. As the head of the UCI he is obviously more in tune with
what is happening than what is reported on cyclingnews.

The UCI knows that the post-race dope tests will only catch the most
amateurish dopers and knows that out-of-competition tests are more
effective but the top dopers will never test positive because they are
far ahead of the testing protocols.

Almost ten years after the Festina affair there still isn't a way to
deal with a scandal unless a rider is lame enough to actually fail a
dope control.

The details of the Rasmussen and Dynepo are still fuzzy, but what
happened was basically what I thought would happen. Rasmussen would be
implicated in a doping scandal, but not actually be found positive --
he's too good for that (Though I expected it would be more along the
lines of being connected to a shady lab in Italy).

Maybe the ASO is trying to make it look like it was the right call to
have Rasmussen leave the Tour, or maybe they knew Rasmussen was dirty
and there was the danger that he would be the next Floyd.

Since you think McQuaid is such a hypocrite what you would do as the
head of cycling ?

[Bill C]

On Sep 30, 6:42 pm, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
<pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:


>
> But Cleveland are in the playoffs(allright, allright, I admit it, I
> like baseball..........)
>
Sorry Pete
Hope you enjoy it, while it lasts. The Red Sox are going to take out
the Angels, while Cleveland sends the Skankees home. Then we beat we
Cleveland on the way to another World Series win.!!
Bill C

[Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com]

On Sep 30, 4:31 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Sep 30, 6:42 pm, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
>
> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
> > But Cleveland are in the playoffs(allright, allright, I admit it, I
> > like baseball..........)
>
> Sorry Pete
> Hope you enjoy it, while it lasts. The Red Sox are going to take out
> the Angels, while Cleveland sends the Skankees home. Then we beat we
> Cleveland on the way to another World Series win.!!
> Bill C

Even tho I live in a National league town(Rockies), I do love American
league baseball...Boston, Yankees, WhiteSox always make it
interesting...with the tribe in the mix!

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> The UCI knows that the post-race dope tests will only catch the most
> amateurish dopers and knows that out-of-competition tests are more
> effective but the top dopers will never test positive because they are
> far ahead of the testing protocols.

The only chance is to come up with a strong (bullet-proof almost beyond
question) manner of storing samples for later analysis, when there *is* a
way to detect whatever advanced methods are being used, and retroactively
apply sanctions. Even if this caught only 10% of the cheaters, it would
still introduce enough FUD (Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt) to have a chilling
effect on those considering doping.

But you certainly couldn't accomplish this with the amateurish manner in
which at least one of the major drug testing labs operates today. That one
lab, in my opinion, is doing an incredible job of undermining the chances
that we'll see a clean sport anytime soon. We need procedures so
squeaky-clean that all parties can (eventually) get behind it. What's so
bass-ackward about the ASO is that they don't understand that they're
undermining their own cause by accepting standards of proof that are far too
low.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


<amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191195386.273412.41630@y42g2000hsy.googlegro ups.com...
> On Sep 30, 4:54 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> McBoggie proves
>> what a sleazebag hypoicrite he is.
>
>
> Can you explain this statement ?
>
> Until this year the UCI has not been able to or willing to do anything
> to catch cheaters. If a cheater got busted it was because they ****ed
> up or they were caught by the police or some other body.
>
> Valverde and Bettini are my favorite riders, and the mtn. duels
> between Rasmussen and Contador in this year's tour were awesome -- I
> don't want to see the punished -- but the longterm health of the sport
> requires that there has to be some belief that the sport is fair.
>
> The widespread perception is that the UCI is not in control and the
> ASO, WADA, ADAs, Guardia Civil, French cops, Italian cops, CONI, the
> Worlds organizers are all going over the head of the UCI and after the
> riders themselves.
>
> Sinkewitz says Bettini gave him testosterone. I don't take this to
> mean that Bettini is guilty based on Sinkewitz's word -- but logically
> it doesn't make sense that Sinkewitz would make that up -- so the UCI
> HAS to address it somehow.
>
> If you're willing to believe that Aubut took 16 yr old Jeanson to
> Duquette for EPO and dragged her into the desert and hit her you have
> to believe Sinkewitz's statement just as much.
>
> There is no reason to favour one statement over the other, other than
> the fact that Bettini is likable and Aubut is not.
>
> When McQuaid makes a statement about the "men in black" or singles out
> Valverde or Bettini I don't think it is off the cuff like everyone
> imagines. As the head of the UCI he is obviously more in tune with
> what is happening than what is reported on cyclingnews.
>
> The UCI knows that the post-race dope tests will only catch the most
> amateurish dopers and knows that out-of-competition tests are more
> effective but the top dopers will never test positive because they are
> far ahead of the testing protocols.
>
> Almost ten years after the Festina affair there still isn't a way to
> deal with a scandal unless a rider is lame enough to actually fail a
> dope control.
>
> The details of the Rasmussen and Dynepo are still fuzzy, but what
> happened was basically what I thought would happen. Rasmussen would be
> implicated in a doping scandal, but not actually be found positive --
> he's too good for that (Though I expected it would be more along the
> lines of being connected to a shady lab in Italy).
>
> Maybe the ASO is trying to make it look like it was the right call to
> have Rasmussen leave the Tour, or maybe they knew Rasmussen was dirty
> and there was the danger that he would be the next Floyd.
>
> Since you think McQuaid is such a hypocrite what you would do as the
> head of cycling ?
>

[Ron Ruff]

On Sep 30, 5:36 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Since you think McQuaid is such a hypocrite what you would do as the
> head of cycling ?

Well... not this BS for sure. Improve test methods... or forget about
it. Somebody says that somebody gave them testosterone?! WTF! If they
pass testing then they are defacto "clean". Nothing else should be
allowed to matter.

Yes I know this will not eliminate doping... but neither will anything
else.

[amit.ghosh@gmail.com]

On Sep 30, 9:01 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > The UCI knows that the post-race dope tests will only catch the most
> > amateurish dopers and knows that out-of-competition tests are more
> > effective but the top dopers will never test positive because they are
> > far ahead of the testing protocols.
>
> The only chance is to come up with a strong (bullet-proof almost beyond
> question) manner of storing samples for later analysis, when there *is* a
> way to detect whatever advanced methods are being used, and retroactively
> apply sanctions. Even if this caught only 10% of the cheaters, it would
> still introduce enough FUD (Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt) to have a chilling
> effect on those considering doping.

what you're proposing is retroactive testing, which is something the
sports bodies didn't agree to in the initial version of the WADA
code.

> But you certainly couldn't accomplish this with the amateurish manner in
> which at least one of the major drug testing labs operates today. That one
> lab, in my opinion, is doing an incredible job of undermining the chances
> that we'll see a clean sport anytime soon. We need procedures so
> squeaky-clean that all parties can (eventually) get behind it.

the leaks from the LNDD are inexcusable, but i don't agree that the
LNDD is as incompetent as floyd's lawyer's tried to show.

you can't ever have a testing procedure that all parties will support,
because attacking the testing protocol will always be a defensive
tactic for guilty riders.

[amit.ghosh@gmail.com]

On Sep 30, 10:10 pm, Ron Ruff <rruffrr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Well... not this BS for sure. Improve test methods... or forget about
> it. Somebody says that somebody gave them testosterone?! WTF!

I don't disagree, but some people here think that aubut should be
punished or banned from the sport for hitting jeanson. if her
statement merits further inquiry then so does sinkewitz's claim.

i'm just pointing out the double standard. athletes command a lot more
sympathy than non-athletes (dope hunters, coaches, docs).

> If they
> pass testing then they are defacto "clean". Nothing else should be
> allowed to matter.

ideally, but within the top tier of riders in-competition tests will
only catch reckless or desperate dopers.

ramping up the out-of-competion tests was a smart move and it catches
dopers before they win something big and you have the PR fiasco of
having to re-adjust the results.

but what about the riders implicated in festina, puerto, oil for
drugs, millar, etc. that have never tested positive ?

ullrich had the bizarre misfortune of being investigated by the german
cops, the rest (basso, scarponi, millar etc.) were only punished
because they admitted to some involvement (though basso didn't even
admit to doping).

[Bill C]

On Oct 1, 3:17 pm, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
<pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:

>
> Even tho I live in a National league town(Rockies), I do love American
> league baseball...Boston, Yankees, WhiteSox always make it
> interesting...with the tribe in the mix!

In particular, I like it when Cleveland is good. Let's face it, their
fans have stayed with them through generations of terrible management
and decisions. Once upon a time I was a Dallas Cowboys fan because of
how they did things as a team. That lasted right up until Tom Landry
had to find out from a reporter that he'd been fired. I stuck with the
Patriots in the AFC through all the garbage when they were a joke for
30 years or so. My favorite Sox teams are still some combination of
the 70s teams who got crushed by the Reds and Yankees. I gave up on
the Celtics because I don't like how the game is being played in the
NBA today. The Showtime Lakers vs. the Bird Celtics were the top of
how I think the game should be played. No look passes, great defense,
massive versatility on both teams. No selfishness, just great
teamwork. That was good stuff.
Here in NE we're in heaven now. The new ownerships of the Sox,
Patriots, and Celtics are fantastic. They're putting up their own
money for stadium/building stuff, really trying to please the fans,
other than ticket cost, and doing what it takes to win games and bring
in good people too.
For those of us who are NOT part of "Red Sox Nation" just real fans
that crap gets old quick, and I was convinced they were going to choke
it away including the wild card for the last few weeks.
Papelbon is a harmless idiot, but he can sure pitch. We've got a few
others, but then we've got guys like Mike Lowell, Varitek, Wakefield,
etc...who are just rock steady, good people.
I'm betting they don't bring Lowell back because they want to sign A-
rod, both parts of that reek IMO. I don't want A-rod, no matter what,
and I love Lowell.
It's been a hell of a fun year. I just hope it goes a while longer
but I'm not real confident.
Best
Bill C

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> > But Cleveland are in the playoffs(allright, allright, I admit it, I
>> > like baseball..........)
>>
>> Sorry Pete
>> Hope you enjoy it, while it lasts. The Red Sox are going to take out
>> the Angels, while Cleveland sends the Skankees home. Then we beat we
>> Cleveland on the way to another World Series win.!!
>> Bill C
>
> Even tho I live in a National league town(Rockies), I do love American
> league baseball...Boston, Yankees, WhiteSox always make it
> interesting...with the tribe in the mix!

American League fan? I hope you like Barry Bonds then, 'cuz it's almost
certain that's where he's going to end up.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote in
message news:1191266238.694304.80910@22g2000hsm.googlegrou ps.com...
> On Sep 30, 4:31 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 30, 6:42 pm, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
>>
>> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>>
>> > But Cleveland are in the playoffs(allright, allright, I admit it, I
>> > like baseball..........)
>>
>> Sorry Pete
>> Hope you enjoy it, while it lasts. The Red Sox are going to take out
>> the Angels, while Cleveland sends the Skankees home. Then we beat we
>> Cleveland on the way to another World Series win.!!
>> Bill C
>
> Even tho I live in a National league town(Rockies), I do love American
> league baseball...Boston, Yankees, WhiteSox always make it
> interesting...with the tribe in the mix!
>

[Bret]

On Oct 1, 1:17 pm, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
<pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
> On Sep 30, 4:31 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 30, 6:42 pm, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
>
> > <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
> > > But Cleveland are in the playoffs(allright, allright, I admit it, I
> > > like baseball..........)
>
> > Sorry Pete
> > Hope you enjoy it, while it lasts. The Red Sox are going to take out
> > the Angels, while Cleveland sends the Skankees home. Then we beat we
> > Cleveland on the way to another World Series win.!!
> > Bill C
>
> Even tho I live in a National league town(Rockies), I do love American
> league baseball...Boston, Yankees, WhiteSox always make it
> interesting...with the tribe in the mix!

What a time to be turning your back on the Rockies. I'm a Red Sox fan
too, but The Rockies have my attention right now.

So tonight, Matt Holliday, score the winning run to send the Rockies
to the playoffs, wins the batting title, wins the RBI title, and
probably sews up the MVP. How much does it suck to be him right now? I
hope he's not hurt too badly.

Bret

[Michael Press]

In article
<1191273100.697527.287300@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups. com>
,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:

> I gave up on
> the Celtics because I don't like how the game is being played in the
> NBA today. The Showtime Lakers vs. the Bird Celtics were the top of
> how I think the game should be played. No look passes, great defense,
> massive versatility on both teams. No selfishness, just great
> teamwork. That was good stuff.

This is how I feel about it. You can include the
1989-1990 Detroit Pistons. Bill Lambeer was so funny;
choirboy face, brutal defense, and an ouside shot(!).
David Stern wanted it this way, and it pays. Business
decision. Aesthetics? No, that is not an NBA franchise.

--
Michael Press

[RicodJour]

To whom it may concern:

Prohibited Acronyms

It has come to management's attention that prohibited acronyms are
appearing in posts on this newsgroup. Acronyms such as MVP, RBI, MLB,
RBI, and all non-cycling acronyms are strictly prohibited due to the
fact that those do not refer to a real sport. There are too many
dopers in that sport.

Examples of allowed acronyms are as follows: UCI, WADA, EPO, ASO,
DPIAFA*

Please do not continue to post the offending acronyms or your posting
privileges will be suspended for two years.

Thank you.


* **** Pound Is A ****ing *******

[Howard Kveck]

In article <1191331299.726184.57550@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.co m>,
RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote:

> To whom it may concern:
>
> Prohibited Acronyms
>
> It has come to management's attention that prohibited acronyms are
> appearing in posts on this newsgroup. Acronyms such as MVP, RBI, MLB,
> RBI, and all non-cycling acronyms are strictly prohibited due to the
> fact that those do not refer to a real sport. There are too many
> dopers in that sport.
>
> Examples of allowed acronyms are as follows: UCI, WADA, EPO, ASO,
> DPIAFA*
>
> Please do not continue to post the offending acronyms or your posting
> privileges will be suspended for two years.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> * **** Pound Is A ****ing *******

Not DPIANA? (**** Pound Is A Nifong *******)?

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Bret]

On Oct 2, 7:21 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> To whom it may concern:
>
> Prohibited Acronyms
>
> It has come to management's attention that prohibited acronyms are
> appearing in posts on this newsgroup. Acronyms such as MVP, RBI, MLB,
> RBI, and all non-cycling acronyms are strictly prohibited due to the
> fact that those do not refer to a real sport. There are too many
> dopers in that sport.
>
> Examples of allowed acronyms are as follows: UCI, WADA, EPO, ASO,
> DPIAFA*
>
> Please do not continue to post the offending acronyms or your posting
> privileges will be suspended for two years.
>
> Thank you.
>
> * **** Pound Is A ****ing *******

The way the Rockies are quieting the Philly crowd, they deserve an
honorable on-topic designation in rbr.

Bret

[Hobbes@spnb&s.com]

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 04:47:12 -0000, "amit.ghosh@gmail.com"
<amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sep 30, 9:01 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > The UCI knows that the post-race dope tests will only catch the most
>> > amateurish dopers and knows that out-of-competition tests are more
>> > effective but the top dopers will never test positive because they are
>> > far ahead of the testing protocols.
>>
>> The only chance is to come up with a strong (bullet-proof almost beyond
>> question) manner of storing samples for later analysis, when there *is* a
>> way to detect whatever advanced methods are being used, and retroactively
>> apply sanctions. Even if this caught only 10% of the cheaters, it would
>> still introduce enough FUD (Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt) to have a chilling
>> effect on those considering doping.
>
>what you're proposing is retroactive testing, which is something the
>sports bodies didn't agree to in the initial version of the WADA
>code.
>
>> But you certainly couldn't accomplish this with the amateurish manner in
>> which at least one of the major drug testing labs operates today. That one
>> lab, in my opinion, is doing an incredible job of undermining the chances
>> that we'll see a clean sport anytime soon. We need procedures so
>> squeaky-clean that all parties can (eventually) get behind it.
>
>the leaks from the LNDD are inexcusable, but i don't agree that the
>LNDD is as incompetent as floyd's lawyer's tried to show.

The LNDD record keeping was too sloppy for anyone to have a qualified opinion of
that.

>you can't ever have a testing procedure that all parties will support,
>because attacking the testing protocol will always be a defensive
>tactic for guilty riders.

Crossing the Ts and dotting the little Is would sure take a lot of the piss out
of that strategy. LNDD failed in its mission to present itself as credible. From
the blithering moron of a director who announced that "with IRMS testing, no
error is possible" to the dimwits who couldn't read a number printed atop a jar
and accurately transcribe it onto a piece of paper, there is no justification
for any presumption of competence at that lab. A lab that took care with simple
things, that made reasonable and prudent public statements and actually owned
the manuals for the equipment they used would not have been subject to anything
like the Floyd. I mean come on, they used white-out. The lab techs shouldn't
even know the stuff exists in the building.

While the defense might always want to attack the testing labs and protocol the
labs can deny them ammunition by simply being reasonably competent and honest
enough to not leak information.

[Ron Ruff]

On Oct 2, 11:03 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> ideally, but within the top tier of riders in-competition tests will
> only catch reckless or desperate dopers.

Oh well... a good reason to reduce penalties.

> ramping up the out-of-competion tests was a smart move and it catches
> dopers before they win something big and you have the PR fiasco of
> having to re-adjust the results.

This will certainly help but I have no illusions about eliminating
doping from cycling or any other sport. The harder you make it the
greater the benefit of getting away with it.

> but what about the riders implicated in festina, puerto, oil for
> drugs, millar, etc. that have never tested positive ?

The only thing that makes sense to me is to forget about it. As far as
the UCI is concerned only failed tests should be admissable as
evidence of doping. In other words they should write their rules
accordingly, while improving and increasing the frequency of testing.
If a rider has broken a law, then *those* authorities may prosecute if
they wish. This is the only reasonable way to end the circus IMO (or
at least take some of the steam out of it).

[RicodJour]

On Oct 3, 2:35 am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
> > To whom it may concern:
>
> > Prohibited Acronyms
>
> > It has come to management's attention that prohibited acronyms are
> > appearing in posts on this newsgroup. Acronyms such as MVP, RBI, MLB,
> > RBI, and all non-cycling acronyms are strictly prohibited due to the
> > fact that those do not refer to a real sport. There are too many
> > dopers in that sport.
>
> > Examples of allowed acronyms are as follows: UCI, WADA, EPO, ASO,
> > DPIAFA*
>
> > Please do not continue to post the offending acronyms or your posting
> > privileges will be suspended for two years.
>
> > Thank you.
>
> > * **** Pound Is A ****ing *******
>
> Not DPIANA? (**** Pound Is A Nifong *******)?

An oversight. Thank you for the correction.

R

[Ewoud Dronkert]

Howard Kveck wrote:
> Not DPIANA? (**** Pound Is A Nifong *******)?

Aw, now that poor girl has to live with that.
http://pertama.netdns.net/maid_detail.cgi?MAID_ID=5065


--
E. Dronkert

[amit.ghosh@gmail.com]

On Oct 3, 8:57 am, Ron Ruff <rruffrr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 2, 11:03 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > ideally, but within the top tier of riders in-competition tests will
> > only catch reckless or desperate dopers.
>
> Oh well... a good reason to reduce penalties.
>
I'm also not in favour of harsh penanlties, but that's the price of
playing along with WADA.

> > ramping up the out-of-competion tests was a smart move and it catches
> > dopers before they win something big and you have the PR fiasco of
> > having to re-adjust the results.
>
> This will certainly help but I have no illusions about eliminating
> doping from cycling or any other sport. The harder you make it the
> greater the benefit of getting away with it.

The way I posed the question was : "what would you do as the head of
the UCI ?". i also don't have illusions about eliminating doping, but
I wouldnt actually say that.

cycling's biggest problem is not the doping itself, but the PR
fallout.

> > but what about the riders implicated in festina, puerto, oil for
> > drugs, millar, etc. that have never tested positive ?
>
> The only thing that makes sense to me is to forget about it. As far as
> the UCI is concerned only failed tests should be admissable as
> evidence of doping. In other words they should write their rules
> accordingly, while improving and increasing the frequency of testing.

but that is very lousy PR, though that is exactly what the gov. bodies
tried to do.

at the beginning of this season all the puerto riders, incl. ullrich
were cleared to race, but other bodies (most notably CONI)
intervened.

this just sends the message that the UCI can't control cycling and has
a laissez-faire attitude to doping. other doped-up leagues like the
NFL have done a better job of convincing the public they have a handle
on things.

[Donald Munro]

Ron Ruff wrote:
> This will certainly help but I have no illusions about eliminating
> doping from cycling or any other sport. The harder you make it the
> greater the benefit of getting away with it.

You could even argue that it makes the playing field less "fair"
because only the really well heeled can afford to dope with the
newest undetectable stuff as opposed to when everyone is doing
it. A bit like only the rich being able to get a good lawyer to
defend them.

[Kyle Legate]

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
>> Not DPIANA? (**** Pound Is A Nifong *******)?
>
> Aw, now that poor girl has to live with that.
> http://pertama.netdns.net/maid_detail.cgi?MAID_ID=5065
>
>
I find your web surfing habits disquieting at times.

Shucks, she's married.

[Donald Munro]

amit.ghosh@gmail.com wrote:
> The way I posed the question was : "what would you do as the head of
> the UCI ?". i also don't have illusions about eliminating doping, but
> I wouldnt actually say that.

An interesting question on how to play devils (or, from the dope
crusaders point of view, angels) advocate. How about:

Reduce the number of banned drugs to stuff that really works eg EPO
and stuff that is really harmful. Get rid of that dumb WADA unified
code where you can get banned for a performance degrading drug (like
marijuana)

Allow "recovery" orientated drugs up to some given blood concentration
level eg testosterone or Jack Daniels or even low concentrations
of some steroids.

Legislate cross testing by different labs for positive tests, perhaps
split both A and B samples into two lots to be sent to different labs
and if the labs results don't agree then its considered negative.

Only use peer reviewed tests (where has Mayo's test gone ?)

Insert suggestion here.

[Howard Kveck]

In article <4703bdfe$0$24895$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:

> amit.ghosh@gmail.com wrote:
> > The way I posed the question was : "what would you do as the head of
> > the UCI ?". i also don't have illusions about eliminating doping, but
> > I wouldnt actually say that.
>
> An interesting question on how to play devils (or, from the dope
> crusaders point of view, angels) advocate. How about:
>
> Reduce the number of banned drugs to stuff that really works eg EPO
> and stuff that is really harmful. Get rid of that dumb WADA unified
> code where you can get banned for a performance degrading drug (like
> marijuana)
>
> Allow "recovery" orientated drugs up to some given blood concentration
> level eg testosterone or Jack Daniels or even low concentrations
> of some steroids.
>
> Legislate cross testing by different labs for positive tests, perhaps
> split both A and B samples into two lots to be sent to different labs
> and if the labs results don't agree then its considered negative.
>
> Only use peer reviewed tests (where has Mayo's test gone ?)
>
> Insert suggestion here.

I still think it'd be a good idea if teams or riders held onto a (third) sample of
their own, as a means to discourage lab manipulation.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?