Kashechkin suit

[MagillaGorilla]

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13734.0.html

It was funny listening to all these so-called legal experts in here like
Sandy talk about how Kashechkin's suit might actually prevail when in
fact it had no chance of winning.

Only a delusional jackass would think that such a pathetic legal
argument would have worked.

Don't worry, you are still free to assert the equally lame claim that
the French lab technicians also have a conspiracy to frame riders from
Kazakstan. That's just as plausible.

Happy Holidays to all you flatliners,

Magilla

P.S. Eddy Merckx sucked and you go faster on the straightaway on a
velodrome than you do in the turns.

[Phil Holman]

> Magilla
>
> P.S. Eddy Merckx sucked and you go faster on the straightaway on a
> velodrome than you do in the turns.

Only at Alpenrose

Phil H

[amit.ghosh@gmail.com]

On Nov 30, 2:49 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13734.0.html
>
> It was funny listening to all these so-called legal experts in here like
> Sandy talk about how Kashechkin's suit might actually prevail when in
> fact it had no chance of winning.
>
> Only a delusional jackass would think that such a pathetic legal
> argument would have worked.
>
> Don't worry, you are still free to assert the equally lame claim that
> the French lab technicians also have a conspiracy to frame riders from
> Kazakstan. That's just as plausible.
>

dumbass,

these are some things that happened in 2007 that i didn't think would
ever happen or would be possible:

-ullrich's house searched for DNA and matched to fuentes bags
-basso actually getting suspended
-the leader of the tour winning a mtn. stage and being fired later in
the day
-discovery still winning the tour
-someone from armstrong's tdf winning team admitting to doping
-floyd threatening lemond on the internet
-floyd's goon getting wasted and threatening lemond
-lemond revealing he was sexually abused by his uncle
-joe papp testifying against floyd and admitting to doping
-riis admitting to using epo to win the tour
-jeanson admitting to usng epo since she was a junior

this is apart from other weird **** like robert millar becoming a
woman, armstrong dating an olsen twin and pascal richard doing jail
time for fraud.

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Nov 29, 11:49 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:

>
> P.S. Eddy Merckx sucked and you go faster on the straightaway on a
> velodrome than you do in the turns.



Dumbass -


Both sides are sorta right in the straightaway vs. turn thing.

The bike/rider isn't actually moving through space/time any faster
than on the straightaway. But if the bike/rider hugs the line, it does
relative to the system of measurement, the axis of the turn (assuming
the center of gravity is inside the black line).

It's just a matter of definition. Another example would be any one of
us. We could say that we're not moving since we're sitting at our
desk. Relative to the desk that is true. But relative to the universe
as a whole, that isn't true. The earth is hurtling around the sun and
the sun rotates around the center of the galaxy which in turn is
moving away from most of the other galaxies in the universe.

Again, it's just a matter of definition.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[ilanpsi@gmail.com]

On Nov 30, 8:49 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13734.0.html
>
> It was funny listening to all these so-called legal experts in here like
> Sandy talk about how Kashechkin's suit might actually prevail when in
> fact it had no chance of winning.
>
> Only a delusional jackass would think that such a pathetic legal
> argument would have worked.
>
> Don't worry, you are still free to assert the equally lame claim that
> the French lab technicians also have a conspiracy to frame riders from
> Kazakstan. That's just as plausible.
>
> Happy Holidays to all you flatliners,
>
> Magilla
>
> P.S. Eddy Merckx sucked and you go faster on the straightaway on a
> velodrome than you do in the turns.

I thought the legal argument was very good. The judge probably thought
so as well, as she declined to rule on the merits of the argument. Her
jurisdiction argument is specious, as cycling professionals exercise
their profession in the EU (and most of them are EU citizens), so it
is EU work guidelines which apply.

In any case, Kashechkin has to win since the blood sample was not done
within the rules, too late in the in the evening as the UCI officials
were unaware of the local time zone. UCI official stupidity alone
should be enough to win the case for him.

-ilan

[MagillaGorilla]

amit.ghosh@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2:49 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>>http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13734.0.html
>>
>>It was funny listening to all these so-called legal experts in here like
>>Sandy talk about how Kashechkin's suit might actually prevail when in
>>fact it had no chance of winning.
>>
>>Only a delusional jackass would think that such a pathetic legal
>>argument would have worked.
>>
>>Don't worry, you are still free to assert the equally lame claim that
>>the French lab technicians also have a conspiracy to frame riders from
>>Kazakstan. That's just as plausible.
>>
>
>
> dumbass,
>
> these are some things that happened in 2007 that i didn't think would
> ever happen or would be possible:
>
> -ullrich's house searched for DNA and matched to fuentes bags
> -basso actually getting suspended
> -the leader of the tour winning a mtn. stage and being fired later in
> the day
> -discovery still winning the tour
> -someone from armstrong's tdf winning team admitting to doping
> -floyd threatening lemond on the internet
> -floyd's goon getting wasted and threatening lemond
> -lemond revealing he was sexually abused by his uncle
> -joe papp testifying against floyd and admitting to doping
> -riis admitting to using epo to win the tour
> -jeanson admitting to usng epo since she was a junior
>
> this is apart from other weird **** like robert millar becoming a
> woman, armstrong dating an olsen twin and pascal richard doing jail
> time for fraud.


Coupla corrections:

1.) Pascal Richard never went to jail. He got probation.
2.) Ullrich will never be prosecuted. The Germans are big talkers, but
they never put people in jail. Sinkewitz, Ullrich, and those Freiberg
doctors will never see the inside of a courtroom.
3.) The Tour de France has 19 teams and the top teams all had scandals.
Therefore it's not 'really' that surprising that out of the 15
reminaing of which only 3 or 4 hhave GC contenders that Discovery won
again. Discovery's victory this year is by default - like Delgado's win
in 1988.
4.) Joe Papp didn't testify 'against' Landis. He testified that he used
testosterone and that it helped. Papp had no personal information to
offer concerning Landis.

--------
Lance wouldn't really be dating one of the Olsen twins. He might ****
one or both of them if he could swindle his way into their lunchpail,
but they're not his type aside from being thin and rich, they're hideous.

If Lance wanted to be linked to dating one of the Olsen twins in the
press, he wouldn't have told the NY Post they were just friends. He
would have let the rumors go unqualified.

Does Millar's ***** actually work?

That is all,

Magilla

[Michael Press]

In article
<459a2729-5a18-4066-b335-90319e474a49@a39g2000pre.googl
egroups.com>,
Kurgan Gringioni <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 29, 11:49 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > P.S. Eddy Merckx sucked and you go faster on the straightaway on a
> > velodrome than you do in the turns.
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> Both sides are sorta right in the straightaway vs. turn thing.
>
> The bike/rider isn't actually moving through space/time any faster
> than on the straightaway. But if the bike/rider hugs the line, it does
> relative to the system of measurement, the axis of the turn (assuming
> the center of gravity is inside the black line).
>
> It's just a matter of definition. Another example would be any one of
> us. We could say that we're not moving since we're sitting at our
> desk. Relative to the desk that is true. But relative to the universe
> as a whole, that isn't true. The earth is hurtling around the sun and
> the sun rotates around the center of the galaxy which in turn is
> moving away from most of the other galaxies in the universe.
>
> Again, it's just a matter of definition.

Let's use this definition: speed is proportional to the
angular speed of the wheels. When the center of mass of
the bicycle and rider goes onto the banked section if
it has to ascend it slows down. Suppose the COM goes
into a banked section on an equipotential surface of
the Earth's gravitational field. The COM continues to
travel at the same instantaneous speed as it did on the
straight section. The path of the COM is an arc of a
circle, C1. The path of the contact patch is an arc of
a circle, C2.The radius of C2 is greater than the
radius of C1. Therefore the wheel must spin faster than
it did on the straight section to keep up with the COM
that is traveling at the same instantaneous speed as it
did on the straight section, and so the speed is greater.

If speed is measured by rate of track traversed, we
have shown above that the speed increases in banked turns.

--
Michael Press

[MagillaGorilla]

Michael Press wrote:

> In article
> <459a2729-5a18-4066-b335-90319e474a49@a39g2000pre.googl
> egroups.com>,
> Kurgan Gringioni <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Nov 29, 11:49 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>P.S. Eddy Merckx sucked and you go faster on the straightaway on a
>>>velodrome than you do in the turns.
>>
>>
>>
>>Dumbass -
>>
>>
>>Both sides are sorta right in the straightaway vs. turn thing.
>>
>>The bike/rider isn't actually moving through space/time any faster
>>than on the straightaway. But if the bike/rider hugs the line, it does
>>relative to the system of measurement, the axis of the turn (assuming
>>the center of gravity is inside the black line).
>>
>>It's just a matter of definition. Another example would be any one of
>>us. We could say that we're not moving since we're sitting at our
>>desk. Relative to the desk that is true. But relative to the universe
>>as a whole, that isn't true. The earth is hurtling around the sun and
>>the sun rotates around the center of the galaxy which in turn is
>>moving away from most of the other galaxies in the universe.
>>
>>Again, it's just a matter of definition.
>
>
> Let's use this definition: speed is proportional to the
> angular speed of the wheels. When the center of mass of
> the bicycle and rider goes onto the banked section if
> it has to ascend it slows down. Suppose the COM goes
> into a banked section on an equipotential surface of
> the Earth's gravitational field. The COM continues to
> travel at the same instantaneous speed as it did on the
> straight section. The path of the COM is an arc of a
> circle, C1. The path of the contact patch is an arc of
> a circle, C2.The radius of C2 is greater than the
> radius of C1. Therefore the wheel must spin faster than
> it did on the straight section to keep up with the COM
> that is traveling at the same instantaneous speed as it
> did on the straight section, and so the speed is greater.
>
> If speed is measured by rate of track traversed, we
> have shown above that the speed increases in banked turns.
>


Is that why NASCARs go slower in the turn? Your entire "lower the
center of mass" argument is silly because it fails to take into account
that is a very weak gain compared to the loss of speed created by
increased friction and increased G-loads.

A 150 pound rider weighs about 225 pounds in a velodrome turn. A rider
in a turn also has increased aerodynamic drag, something you also failed
to consider, I noticed.

And finally, in order to change one's momemtun 180 degrees in a turn (in
a straightway momentum is conserved), you must lose energy because that
is a very inefficient action.

Finally, you stupid mother****er, the increased in G-loads causes the
heart and circulatory system to work consideably harder, making you go
slower.

All of these factors - NONE of which you seem to even be aware of -
cause you to go slower in a turn.

Your COM analysis wouldn't even result in a faster turn in a vacuum with
a robot as the engine.

And finally, ask any 400 meter track star if he can run faster in a turn
or a straitaway and see what he says. HINT: turns are slower, dumbass.


Magilla

[MagillaGorilla]

Michael Press wrote:

> In article
> <459a2729-5a18-4066-b335-90319e474a49@a39g2000pre.googl
> egroups.com>,
> Kurgan Gringioni <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Nov 29, 11:49 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>P.S. Eddy Merckx sucked and you go faster on the straightaway on a
>>>velodrome than you do in the turns.
>>
>>
>>
>>Dumbass -
>>
>>
>>Both sides are sorta right in the straightaway vs. turn thing.
>>
>>The bike/rider isn't actually moving through space/time any faster
>>than on the straightaway. But if the bike/rider hugs the line, it does
>>relative to the system of measurement, the axis of the turn (assuming
>>the center of gravity is inside the black line).
>>
>>It's just a matter of definition. Another example would be any one of
>>us. We could say that we're not moving since we're sitting at our
>>desk. Relative to the desk that is true. But relative to the universe
>>as a whole, that isn't true. The earth is hurtling around the sun and
>>the sun rotates around the center of the galaxy which in turn is
>>moving away from most of the other galaxies in the universe.
>>
>>Again, it's just a matter of definition.
>
>
> Let's use this definition: speed is proportional to the
> angular speed of the wheels. When the center of mass of
> the bicycle and rider goes onto the banked section if
> it has to ascend it slows down. Suppose the COM goes
> into a banked section on an equipotential surface of
> the Earth's gravitational field. The COM continues to
> travel at the same instantaneous speed as it did on the
> straight section. The path of the COM is an arc of a
> circle, C1. The path of the contact patch is an arc of
> a circle, C2.The radius of C2 is greater than the
> radius of C1. Therefore the wheel must spin faster than
> it did on the straight section to keep up with the COM
> that is traveling at the same instantaneous speed as it
> did on the straight section, and so the speed is greater.
>
> If speed is measured by rate of track traversed, we
> have shown above that the speed increases in banked turns.
>


Dumbass,

I'm talking speed relative to the location of the velodrome. If I
wanted to debate the Theory of Relativity, I wouldn't have come to a
newsgroup where the average IQ is 108.


Thanks,


Magilla

[Michael Press]

In article <fitdbf$fqc$1@aioe.org>,
MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <459a2729-5a18-4066-b335-90319e474a49@a39g2000pre.googl
> > egroups.com>,
> > Kurgan Gringioni <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Nov 29, 11:49 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>P.S. Eddy Merckx sucked and you go faster on the straightaway on a
> >>>velodrome than you do in the turns.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Dumbass -
> >>
> >>
> >>Both sides are sorta right in the straightaway vs. turn thing.
> >>
> >>The bike/rider isn't actually moving through space/time any faster
> >>than on the straightaway. But if the bike/rider hugs the line, it does
> >>relative to the system of measurement, the axis of the turn (assuming
> >>the center of gravity is inside the black line).
> >>
> >>It's just a matter of definition. Another example would be any one of
> >>us. We could say that we're not moving since we're sitting at our
> >>desk. Relative to the desk that is true. But relative to the universe
> >>as a whole, that isn't true. The earth is hurtling around the sun and
> >>the sun rotates around the center of the galaxy which in turn is
> >>moving away from most of the other galaxies in the universe.
> >>
> >>Again, it's just a matter of definition.
> >
> >
> > Let's use this definition: speed is proportional to the
> > angular speed of the wheels. When the center of mass of
> > the bicycle and rider goes onto the banked section if
> > it has to ascend it slows down. Suppose the COM goes
> > into a banked section on an equipotential surface of
> > the Earth's gravitational field. The COM continues to
> > travel at the same instantaneous speed as it did on the
> > straight section. The path of the COM is an arc of a
> > circle, C1. The path of the contact patch is an arc of
> > a circle, C2.The radius of C2 is greater than the
> > radius of C1. Therefore the wheel must spin faster than
> > it did on the straight section to keep up with the COM
> > that is traveling at the same instantaneous speed as it
> > did on the straight section, and so the speed is greater.
> >
> > If speed is measured by rate of track traversed, we
> > have shown above that the speed increases in banked turns.
> >
>
>
> Is that why NASCARs go slower in the turn?

Cycling newsgroup.

> Your entire "lower the
> center of mass" argument is silly because it fails to take into account
> that is a very weak gain compared to the loss of speed created by
> increased friction and increased G-loads.
> A 150 pound rider weighs about 225 pounds in a velodrome turn. A rider
> in a turn also has increased aerodynamic drag, something you also failed
> to consider, I noticed.
>
> And finally, in order to change one's momemtun 180 degrees in a turn (in
> a straightway momentum is conserved), you must lose energy because that
> is a very inefficient action.
>
> Finally, you stupid mother****er, the increased in G-loads causes the
> heart and circulatory system to work consideably harder, making you go
> slower.
>
> All of these factors - NONE of which you seem to even be aware of -
> cause you to go slower in a turn.

This is not an argument until you quantify these
phenomena.

> Your COM analysis wouldn't even result in a faster turn in a vacuum with
> a robot as the engine.

How about a monkey on a tricycle
orbiting the international space station?

> And finally, ask any 400 meter track star if he can run faster in a turn
> or a straitaway and see what he says. HINT: turns are slower, dumbass.

_Bicycle_ track racing.

--
Michael Press

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:af45720a-6c0d-4657-afe4-1e183747177b@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
ilanpsi@gmail.com <ilanpsi@gmail.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Nov 30, 8:49 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>> http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13734.0.html
>>
>> It was funny listening to all these so-called legal experts in here
>> like Sandy talk about how Kashechkin's suit might actually prevail
>> when in fact it had no chance of winning.
>>
>> Only a delusional jackass would think that such a pathetic legal
>> argument would have worked.
>>
>> Don't worry, you are still free to assert the equally lame claim that
>> the French lab technicians also have a conspiracy to frame riders
>> from Kazakstan. That's just as plausible.
>>
>> Happy Holidays to all you flatliners,
>>
>> Magilla
>>
>> P.S. Eddy Merckx sucked and you go faster on the straightaway on a
>> velodrome than you do in the turns.
>
> I thought the legal argument was very good. The judge probably thought
> so as well, as she declined to rule on the merits of the argument. Her
> jurisdiction argument is specious, as cycling professionals exercise
> their profession in the EU (and most of them are EU citizens), so it
> is EU work guidelines which apply.

While it is even broader rules that apply, and are the just basis for the
suit, the _personal_ jurisdiction argument is sound, as UCI is not clearly
subject to suit in a Belgian court. This will proceed elsewhere, and to a
sound result. I suppose the silly monkey guy is pretty impressed with
himself. He sees an intermediate result that he likes, propounds his own
theory, confirms his wisdom, and jumps for joy. If only he had some sort of
organic matter in the braincase, it would be sporting to read and confound
him, but in the pursuit of efficiency, I don't bother reading his drivel.
Zapping him leaves me enough time to correspond with actual people.
>
> In any case, Kashechkin has to win since the blood sample was not done
> within the rules, too late in the in the evening as the UCI officials
> were unaware of the local time zone. UCI official stupidity alone
> should be enough to win the case for him.
>
As with other matters, the actual presentation of facts will be informative.
I'll try to remain unconvinced until there is a basis.

[MagillaGorilla]

ilanpsi@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 30, 8:49 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>>http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13734.0.html
>>
>>It was funny listening to all these so-called legal experts in here like
>>Sandy talk about how Kashechkin's suit might actually prevail when in
>>fact it had no chance of winning.
>>
>>Only a delusional jackass would think that such a pathetic legal
>>argument would have worked.
>>
>>Don't worry, you are still free to assert the equally lame claim that
>>the French lab technicians also have a conspiracy to frame riders from
>>Kazakstan. That's just as plausible.
>>
>>Happy Holidays to all you flatliners,
>>
>>Magilla
>>
>>P.S. Eddy Merckx sucked and you go faster on the straightaway on a
>>velodrome than you do in the turns.
>
>
> I thought the legal argument was very good. The judge probably thought
> so as well, as she declined to rule on the merits of the argument. Her
> jurisdiction argument is specious, as cycling professionals exercise
> their profession in the EU (and most of them are EU citizens), so it
> is EU work guidelines which apply.
>
> In any case, Kashechkin has to win since the blood sample was not done
> within the rules, too late in the in the evening as the UCI officials
> were unaware of the local time zone. UCI official stupidity alone
> should be enough to win the case for him.
>
> -ilan


You are so WRONG on all counts. Although the judge stated she had no
jurisdiction, she did state that cyclists waive their rights to dope
testing contractually.

You cannot assert a legal claim that something violates your rights when
by contract you agreed to waive it, which all UCI cyclists agreed to do
when they took out a UCI license.

Also, if you think about what the implications are of Kashechkin winning
his lawsuit, it would mean that there would be NO DOPE testing in any
European professional sport, including the Olympics.

For anyone to actually believe such an end result is legally in the
cards means you are ****ing delusional and more clueless than Paris Hilton.

Finally, under UCI rules, Kashechkin waived his right to file suit in
any country's court of law because under UCI rules, he agreed that all
doping disputes will be resolved by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Kashechkin is getting taken for a billable hours ride by a loser
attorney and you people are too stupid to realize it.

This lawsuit is right up there with some hillbilly U.S. citizen filing a
lawsuit in federal court that says the IRS doesn't have the authority to
collect taxes.



Magilla

[ilanpsi@gmail.com]

On Dec 3, 12:55 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 8:49 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13734.0.html
>
> >>It was funny listening to all these so-called legal experts in here like
> >>Sandy talk about how Kashechkin's suit might actually prevail when in
> >>fact it had no chance of winning.
>
> >>Only a delusional jackass would think that such a pathetic legal
> >>argument would have worked.
>
> >>Don't worry, you are still free to assert the equally lame claim that
> >>the French lab technicians also have a conspiracy to frame riders from
> >>Kazakstan. That's just as plausible.
>
> >>Happy Holidays to all you flatliners,
>
> >>Magilla
>
> >>P.S. Eddy Merckx sucked and you go faster on the straightaway on a
> >>velodrome than you do in the turns.
>
> > I thought the legal argument was very good. The judge probably thought
> > so as well, as she declined to rule on the merits of the argument. Her
> > jurisdiction argument is specious, as cycling professionals exercise
> > their profession in the EU (and most of them are EU citizens), so it
> > is EU work guidelines which apply.
>
> > In any case, Kashechkin has to win since the blood sample was not done
> > within the rules, too late in the in the evening as the UCI officials
> > were unaware of the local time zone. UCI official stupidity alone
> > should be enough to win the case for him.
>
> > -ilan
>
> You are so WRONG on all counts. Although the judge stated she had no
> jurisdiction, she did state that cyclists waive their rights to dope
> testing contractually.
>
> You cannot assert a legal claim that something violates your rights when
> by contract you agreed to waive it, which all UCI cyclists agreed to do
> when they took out a UCI license.
>
> Also, if you think about what the implications are of Kashechkin winning
> his lawsuit, it would mean that there would be NO DOPE testing in any
> European professional sport, including the Olympics.
>
> For anyone to actually believe such an end result is legally in the
> cards means you are ****ing delusional and more clueless than Paris Hilton.
>
> Finally, under UCI rules, Kashechkin waived his right to file suit in
> any country's court of law because under UCI rules, he agreed that all
> doping disputes will be resolved by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

No, it's the argument that you cannot be bound by an illegal contract.
For example, people are surprised that you can win a lawsuit against a
faulty ski-lift even though there are big signs that state that you
take it at your own risk. Those signs do not constitute a valid
contract because you cannot contractually give up your fundamental
rights (in a civil setting that is).

> Kashechkin is getting taken for a billable hours ride by a loser
> attorney and you people are too stupid to realize it.
>
> This lawsuit is right up there with some hillbilly U.S. citizen filing a
> lawsuit in federal court that says the IRS doesn't have the authority to
> collect taxes.

That is exactly wrong and the actual point of the lawsuit. Only
official state sanctioned organisations can levy an athlete's blood.

-ilan

[A R:nen]

MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> writes:

> Also, if you think about what the implications are of Kashechkin
> winning his lawsuit, it would mean that there would be NO DOPE testing
> in any European professional sport, including the Olympics.

Not quite. Many (most?) types of doping involves unauthorized use of
controlled pharmaceuticals that could be enforced (regardless of
doping per se being a criminal offence, which it is in at least some
member states IIRC) by the proper public authorities. Not that I would
expect them to consider it a high priority unless instructed otherwise
from above, though.

[MagillaGorilla]

ilanpsi@gmail.com wrote:

> On Dec 3, 12:55 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>>ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Nov 30, 8:49 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13734.0.html
>>
>>>>It was funny listening to all these so-called legal experts in here like
>>>>Sandy talk about how Kashechkin's suit might actually prevail when in
>>>>fact it had no chance of winning.
>>
>>>>Only a delusional jackass would think that such a pathetic legal
>>>>argument would have worked.
>>
>>>>Don't worry, you are still free to assert the equally lame claim that
>>>>the French lab technicians also have a conspiracy to frame riders from
>>>>Kazakstan. That's just as plausible.
>>
>>>>Happy Holidays to all you flatliners,
>>
>>>>Magilla
>>
>>>>P.S. Eddy Merckx sucked and you go faster on the straightaway on a
>>>>velodrome than you do in the turns.
>>
>>>I thought the legal argument was very good. The judge probably thought
>>>so as well, as she declined to rule on the merits of the argument. Her
>>>jurisdiction argument is specious, as cycling professionals exercise
>>>their profession in the EU (and most of them are EU citizens), so it
>>>is EU work guidelines which apply.
>>
>>>In any case, Kashechkin has to win since the blood sample was not done
>>>within the rules, too late in the in the evening as the UCI officials
>>>were unaware of the local time zone. UCI official stupidity alone
>>>should be enough to win the case for him.
>>
>>>-ilan
>>
>>You are so WRONG on all counts. Although the judge stated she had no
>>jurisdiction, she did state that cyclists waive their rights to dope
>>testing contractually.
>>
>>You cannot assert a legal claim that something violates your rights when
>>by contract you agreed to waive it, which all UCI cyclists agreed to do
>>when they took out a UCI license.
>>
>>Also, if you think about what the implications are of Kashechkin winning
>>his lawsuit, it would mean that there would be NO DOPE testing in any
>>European professional sport, including the Olympics.
>>
>>For anyone to actually believe such an end result is legally in the
>>cards means you are ****ing delusional and more clueless than Paris Hilton.
>>
>>Finally, under UCI rules, Kashechkin waived his right to file suit in
>>any country's court of law because under UCI rules, he agreed that all
>>doping disputes will be resolved by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
>
>
> No, it's the argument that you cannot be bound by an illegal contract.
> For example, people are surprised that you can win a lawsuit against a
> faulty ski-lift even though there are big signs that state that you
> take it at your own risk. Those signs do not constitute a valid
> contract because you cannot contractually give up your fundamental
> rights (in a civil setting that is).
>

It's not an illegal contract, since dope testing doesn't violate any law.

Magilla

[MagillaGorilla]

ilanpsi@gmail.com wrote:


>>Kashechkin is getting taken for a billable hours ride by a loser
>>attorney and you people are too stupid to realize it.
>>
>>This lawsuit is right up there with some hillbilly U.S. citizen filing a
>>lawsuit in federal court that says the IRS doesn't have the authority to
>>collect taxes.
>
>
> That is exactly wrong and the actual point of the lawsuit. Only
> official state sanctioned organisations can levy an athlete's blood.
>
> -ilan

---

No, no no....the purpose and wording of that law is to prevent private
employers from invading the civil rights of people who test positive for
a drug (i.e. like cocaine) where otherwise it has nothing to do with
their job performance.

It was not a law enacted to prevent companies from preventing crane
operators from employing drunks who can kill people while operating
heavy machinery or cyclists from cheating by taking EPO.

The correct analogy here is that although there are sexual
discrimination laws, it doesn't mean you have to hire male strippers at
your club or that the NFL must hire women players or that Hooters has to
hire male waitresses. Sexual discrimination laws only apply to certain
jobs.

And this drug law only applies to certain jobs where the government
doesn't want an employer meddling in people's private lives for nno good
reason. The law wasn't enacted to prevent pro athletes from cheating.
And in cases where you sign a contract that specifically waives your
right to be tested, the courts generally say "too bad, you waived your
right."

Likewise, if you hire a dominatrix to beat you, you cannot then turn
around and sue her because you claim she violated your rights by
assaulting you and then point to a law that says assault is illegal.

One judge already ruled your logic was frivolous....

Spain's David Meca-Medina and Slovenia's Igor Majcen, two professional
long-distance swimmers, challenged anti-doping rules as an unfair
infringement on their right to work in their chosen field. The court not
only dismissed the claim, but also ordered the two swimmers to pay court
costs for both sides, ruling that the challenge was "frivolous" in nature.



Magilla

[ilanpsi@gmail.com]

On Dec 3, 1:59 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 12:55 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>On Nov 30, 8:49 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13734.0.html
>
> >>>>It was funny listening to all these so-called legal experts in here like
> >>>>Sandy talk about how Kashechkin's suit might actually prevail when in
> >>>>fact it had no chance of winning.
>
> >>>>Only a delusional jackass would think that such a pathetic legal
> >>>>argument would have worked.
>
> >>>>Don't worry, you are still free to assert the equally lame claim that
> >>>>the French lab technicians also have a conspiracy to frame riders from
> >>>>Kazakstan. That's just as plausible.
>
> >>>>Happy Holidays to all you flatliners,
>
> >>>>Magilla
>
> >>>>P.S. Eddy Merckx sucked and you go faster on the straightaway on a
> >>>>velodrome than you do in the turns.
>
> >>>I thought the legal argument was very good. The judge probably thought
> >>>so as well, as she declined to rule on the merits of the argument. Her
> >>>jurisdiction argument is specious, as cycling professionals exercise
> >>>their profession in the EU (and most of them are EU citizens), so it
> >>>is EU work guidelines which apply.
>
> >>>In any case, Kashechkin has to win since the blood sample was not done
> >>>within the rules, too late in the in the evening as the UCI officials
> >>>were unaware of the local time zone. UCI official stupidity alone
> >>>should be enough to win the case for him.
>
> >>>-ilan
>
> >>You are so WRONG on all counts. Although the judge stated she had no
> >>jurisdiction, she did state that cyclists waive their rights to dope
> >>testing contractually.
>
> >>You cannot assert a legal claim that something violates your rights when
> >>by contract you agreed to waive it, which all UCI cyclists agreed to do
> >>when they took out a UCI license.
>
> >>Also, if you think about what the implications are of Kashechkin winning
> >>his lawsuit, it would mean that there would be NO DOPE testing in any
> >>European professional sport, including the Olympics.
>
> >>For anyone to actually believe such an end result is legally in the
> >>cards means you are ****ing delusional and more clueless than Paris Hilton.
>
> >>Finally, under UCI rules, Kashechkin waived his right to file suit in
> >>any country's court of law because under UCI rules, he agreed that all
> >>doping disputes will be resolved by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
>
> > No, it's the argument that you cannot be bound by an illegal contract.
> > For example, people are surprised that you can win a lawsuit against a
> > faulty ski-lift even though there are big signs that state that you
> > take it at your own risk. Those signs do not constitute a valid
> > contract because you cannot contractually give up your fundamental
> > rights (in a civil setting that is).
>
> It's not an illegal contract, since dope testing doesn't violate any law.
>
> Magilla

It does not yet violate a law, but the whole point of the suit is that
the taking of blood samples by a private organization violates
individual rights as guaranteed by the European Community. In other
words, taking this suit to the European court of human rights will
decide whether current dope testing is illegal in Europe.

-ilan

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:5f5537e3-f639-4099-bc5d-5b5a0e67475a@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com,
ilanpsi@gmail.com <ilanpsi@gmail.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Dec 3, 1:59 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>> ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Dec 3, 12:55 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Nov 30, 8:49 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13734.0.html
>>
>>>>>> It was funny listening to all these so-called legal experts in
>>>>>> here like Sandy talk about how Kashechkin's suit might actually
>>>>>> prevail when in fact it had no chance of winning.
>>
>>>>>> Only a delusional jackass would think that such a pathetic legal
>>>>>> argument would have worked.
>>
>>>>>> Don't worry, you are still free to assert the equally lame claim
>>>>>> that the French lab technicians also have a conspiracy to frame
>>>>>> riders from Kazakstan. That's just as plausible.
>>
>>>>>> Happy Holidays to all you flatliners,
>>
>>>>>> Magilla
>>
>>>>>> P.S. Eddy Merckx sucked and you go faster on the straightaway on
>>>>>> a velodrome than you do in the turns.
>>
>>>>> I thought the legal argument was very good. The judge probably
>>>>> thought so as well, as she declined to rule on the merits of the
>>>>> argument. Her jurisdiction argument is specious, as cycling
>>>>> professionals exercise their profession in the EU (and most of
>>>>> them are EU citizens), so it is EU work guidelines which apply.
>>
>>>>> In any case, Kashechkin has to win since the blood sample was not
>>>>> done within the rules, too late in the in the evening as the UCI
>>>>> officials were unaware of the local time zone. UCI official
>>>>> stupidity alone should be enough to win the case for him.
>>
>>>>> -ilan
>>
>>>> You are so WRONG on all counts. Although the judge stated she had
>>>> no jurisdiction, she did state that cyclists waive their rights to
>>>> dope testing contractually.
>>
>>>> You cannot assert a legal claim that something violates your
>>>> rights when by contract you agreed to waive it, which all UCI
>>>> cyclists agreed to do when they took out a UCI license.
>>
>>>> Also, if you think about what the implications are of Kashechkin
>>>> winning his lawsuit, it would mean that there would be NO DOPE
>>>> testing in any European professional sport, including the Olympics.
>>
>>>> For anyone to actually believe such an end result is legally in the
>>>> cards means you are ****ing delusional and more clueless than
>>>> Paris Hilton.
>>
>>>> Finally, under UCI rules, Kashechkin waived his right to file suit
>>>> in
>>>> any country's court of law because under UCI rules, he agreed that
>>>> all doping disputes will be resolved by the Court of Arbitration
>>>> for Sport.
>>
>>> No, it's the argument that you cannot be bound by an illegal
>>> contract. For example, people are surprised that you can win a
>>> lawsuit against a faulty ski-lift even though there are big signs
>>> that state that you take it at your own risk. Those signs do not
>>> constitute a valid contract because you cannot contractually give
>>> up your fundamental rights (in a civil setting that is).
>>
>> It's not an illegal contract, since dope testing doesn't violate any
>> law.
>>
>> Magilla
>
> It does not yet violate a law, but the whole point of the suit is that
> the taking of blood samples by a private organization violates
> individual rights as guaranteed by the European Community. In other
> words, taking this suit to the European court of human rights will
> decide whether current dope testing is illegal in Europe.
>
> -ilan

A small suggestion that you not waste time on this pea-brained silly one.
He has the ability to pose his own questions and answer them, so he is right
in his own warped universe outside the real one. We can't bully him to
respond rationally. It's not even fun poking fun at him for not knowing any
applicable law. His ignorance is arrogant, not happenstance.

[ilanpsi@gmail.com]

On Dec 3, 3:03 am, "Sandy" <leur...@free.fr> wrote:
> Dans le message denews:5f5537e3-f639-4099-bc5d-5b5a0e67475a@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com,
> ilan...@gmail.com <ilan...@gmail.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
>
>
> > On Dec 3, 1:59 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> >> ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Dec 3, 12:55 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Nov 30, 8:49 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13734.0.html
>
> >>>>>> It was funny listening to all these so-called legal experts in
> >>>>>> here like Sandy talk about how Kashechkin's suit might actually
> >>>>>> prevail when in fact it had no chance of winning.
>
> >>>>>> Only a delusional jackass would think that such a pathetic legal
> >>>>>> argument would have worked.
>
> >>>>>> Don't worry, you are still free to assert the equally lame claim
> >>>>>> that the French lab technicians also have a conspiracy to frame
> >>>>>> riders from Kazakstan. That's just as plausible.
>
> >>>>>> Happy Holidays to all you flatliners,
>
> >>>>>> Magilla
>
> >>>>>> P.S. Eddy Merckx sucked and you go faster on the straightaway on
> >>>>>> a velodrome than you do in the turns.
>
> >>>>> I thought the legal argument was very good. The judge probably
> >>>>> thought so as well, as she declined to rule on the merits of the
> >>>>> argument. Her jurisdiction argument is specious, as cycling
> >>>>> professionals exercise their profession in the EU (and most of
> >>>>> them are EU citizens), so it is EU work guidelines which apply.
>
> >>>>> In any case, Kashechkin has to win since the blood sample was not
> >>>>> done within the rules, too late in the in the evening as the UCI
> >>>>> officials were unaware of the local time zone. UCI official
> >>>>> stupidity alone should be enough to win the case for him.
>
> >>>>> -ilan
>
> >>>> You are so WRONG on all counts. Although the judge stated she had
> >>>> no jurisdiction, she did state that cyclists waive their rights to
> >>>> dope testing contractually.
>
> >>>> You cannot assert a legal claim that something violates your
> >>>> rights when by contract you agreed to waive it, which all UCI
> >>>> cyclists agreed to do when they took out a UCI license.
>
> >>>> Also, if you think about what the implications are of Kashechkin
> >>>> winning his lawsuit, it would mean that there would be NO DOPE
> >>>> testing in any European professional sport, including the Olympics.
>
> >>>> For anyone to actually believe such an end result is legally in the
> >>>> cards means you are ****ing delusional and more clueless than
> >>>> Paris Hilton.
>
> >>>> Finally, under UCI rules, Kashechkin waived his right to file suit
> >>>> in
> >>>> any country's court of law because under UCI rules, he agreed that
> >>>> all doping disputes will be resolved by the Court of Arbitration
> >>>> for Sport.
>
> >>> No, it's the argument that you cannot be bound by an illegal
> >>> contract. For example, people are surprised that you can win a
> >>> lawsuit against a faulty ski-lift even though there are big signs
> >>> that state that you take it at your own risk. Those signs do not
> >>> constitute a valid contract because you cannot contractually give
> >>> up your fundamental rights (in a civil setting that is).
>
> >> It's not an illegal contract, since dope testing doesn't violate any
> >> law.
>
> >> Magilla
>
> > It does not yet violate a law, but the whole point of the suit is that
> > the taking of blood samples by a private organization violates
> > individual rights as guaranteed by the European Community. In other
> > words, taking this suit to the European court of human rights will
> > decide whether current dope testing is illegal in Europe.
>
> > -ilan
>
> A small suggestion that you not waste time on this pea-brained silly one.
> He has the ability to pose his own questions and answer them, so he is right
> in his own warped universe outside the real one. We can't bully him to
> respond rationally. It's not even fun poking fun at him for not knowing any
> applicable law. His ignorance is arrogant, not happenstance.

OK, thanks. I'll find more fruitful ways to waste my time.

-ilan

[Donald Munro]

Sandy wrote:
> A small suggestion that you not waste time on this pea-brained silly one.
> He has the ability to pose his own questions and answer them, so he is
> right in his own warped universe outside the real one.

There's an awful lot of private warped universes in rbr.
I just hope there aren't any wormholes connecting these
universes.

[MagillaGorilla]

ilanpsi@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 3, 3:03 am, "Sandy" <leur...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>>Dans le message denews:5f5537e3-f639-4099-bc5d-5b5a0e67475a@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com,
>>ilan...@gmail.com <ilan...@gmail.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Dec 3, 1:59 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Dec 3, 12:55 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>On Nov 30, 8:49 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13734.0.html
>>
>>>>>>>>It was funny listening to all these so-called legal experts in
>>>>>>>>here like Sandy talk about how Kashechkin's suit might actually
>>>>>>>>prevail when in fact it had no chance of winning.
>>
>>>>>>>>Only a delusional jackass would think that such a pathetic legal
>>>>>>>>argument would have worked.
>>
>>>>>>>>Don't worry, you are still free to assert the equally lame claim
>>>>>>>>that the French lab technicians also have a conspiracy to frame
>>>>>>>>riders from Kazakstan. That's just as plausible.
>>
>>>>>>>>Happy Holidays to all you flatliners,
>>
>>>>>>>>Magilla
>>
>>>>>>>>P.S. Eddy Merckx sucked and you go faster on the straightaway on
>>>>>>>>a velodrome than you do in the turns.
>>
>>>>>>>I thought the legal argument was very good. The judge probably
>>>>>>>thought so as well, as she declined to rule on the merits of the
>>>>>>>argument. Her jurisdiction argument is specious, as cycling
>>>>>>>professionals exercise their profession in the EU (and most of
>>>>>>>them are EU citizens), so it is EU work guidelines which apply.
>>
>>>>>>>In any case, Kashechkin has to win since the blood sample was not
>>>>>>>done within the rules, too late in the in the evening as the UCI
>>>>>>>officials were unaware of the local time zone. UCI official
>>>>>>>stupidity alone should be enough to win the case for him.
>>
>>>>>>>-ilan
>>
>>>>>>You are so WRONG on all counts. Although the judge stated she had
>>>>>>no jurisdiction, she did state that cyclists waive their rights to
>>>>>>dope testing contractually.
>>
>>>>>>You cannot assert a legal claim that something violates your
>>>>>>rights when by contract you agreed to waive it, which all UCI
>>>>>>cyclists agreed to do when they took out a UCI license.
>>
>>>>>>Also, if you think about what the implications are of Kashechkin
>>>>>>winning his lawsuit, it would mean that there would be NO DOPE
>>>>>>testing in any European professional sport, including the Olympics.
>>
>>>>>>For anyone to actually believe such an end result is legally in the
>>>>>>cards means you are ****ing delusional and more clueless than
>>>>>>Paris Hilton.
>>
>>>>>>Finally, under UCI rules, Kashechkin waived his right to file suit
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>any country's court of law because under UCI rules, he agreed that
>>>>>>all doping disputes will be resolved by the Court of Arbitration
>>>>>>for Sport.
>>
>>>>>No, it's the argument that you cannot be bound by an illegal
>>>>>contract. For example, people are surprised that you can win a
>>>>>lawsuit against a faulty ski-lift even though there are big signs
>>>>>that state that you take it at your own risk. Those signs do not
>>>>>constitute a valid contract because you cannot contractually give
>>>>>up your fundamental rights (in a civil setting that is).
>>
>>>>It's not an illegal contract, since dope testing doesn't violate any
>>>>law.
>>
>>>>Magilla
>>
>>>It does not yet violate a law, but the whole point of the suit is that
>>>the taking of blood samples by a private organization violates
>>>individual rights as guaranteed by the European Community. In other
>>>words, taking this suit to the European court of human rights will
>>>decide whether current dope testing is illegal in Europe.
>>
>>>-ilan
>>
>>A small suggestion that you not waste time on this pea-brained silly one.
>>He has the ability to pose his own questions and answer them, so he is right
>>in his own warped universe outside the real one. We can't bully him to
>>respond rationally. It's not even fun poking fun at him for not knowing any
>>applicable law. His ignorance is arrogant, not happenstance.
>
>
> OK, thanks. I'll find more fruitful ways to waste my time.
>
> -ilan


Dumbasses,

There's actually going to be a real, definitive answer to this lawsuit
that has nothing to do with me. And what you will notice is it is far
from the view you expressed and identical to the one I stated.

You're the same jackasses who thought Floyd was 'definitely' going to
win his case.

The Landis case and Kashechkin predictions by many in here show most of
you people live in a delusional world.

And that has nothing to do with me.

Magilla

[Bob Schwartz]

Donald Munro wrote:
> Sandy wrote:
>> A small suggestion that you not waste time on this pea-brained silly one.
>> He has the ability to pose his own questions and answer them, so he is
>> right in his own warped universe outside the real one.
>
> There's an awful lot of private warped universes in rbr.
> I just hope there aren't any wormholes connecting these
> universes.

I'm working on wormhole software. It'll happen more
quickly if my grant gets funded so that Greg has to
pick up part of the expense.

Bob Schwartz

[MagillaGorilla]

A R:nen wrote:

> MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> writes:
>
>
>>Also, if you think about what the implications are of Kashechkin
>>winning his lawsuit, it would mean that there would be NO DOPE testing
>>in any European professional sport, including the Olympics.
>
>
> Not quite. Many (most?) types of doping involves unauthorized use of
> controlled pharmaceuticals that could be enforced (regardless of
> doping per se being a criminal offence, which it is in at least some
> member states IIRC) by the proper public authorities. Not that I would
> expect them to consider it a high priority unless instructed otherwise
> from above, though.


Wrong...most doping is prescribed and administered by doctors, making it
legal under the law for all intents and purposes. And how are the police
going to prove any drug you take is unauthorized?

A person has no obligation to discuss their medical care with law
enforcement. How would the police even know if it's legit or not?

Magilla