Prudhomme considers Tour de France stages without race radios

[[email protected]]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/mar08/mar13news2

"
Director of the Tour de France, Christian Prudhomme, is considering
the idea of banning race radios in the 2008 Tour de France. The
Frenchman might prohibit the use of the devices that allow for rider-
director sportif communication in the mountains stages.

He said to Belgium's Het Nieuwsblad that he is studying "the idea of
banning the race radio in some of the stages of the Tour, maybe in the
mountains [stages]."
"


Why ban them in the mountain stages when it doesn't make a difference?
Doesn't it make more sense to ban them in the flatter stages so the
break
isn't caught in the final kilometer?

(Yes, but a big bunch sprint is more entertaining so let's hope they
don't
figure this one out.)

[Bob Schwartz]

wrote:
> Why ban them in the mountain stages when it doesn't make a difference?
> Doesn't it make more sense to ban them in the flatter stages so the
> break
> isn't caught in the final kilometer?

Are they going to ban that guy with the chalkboard on the motorcycle
too? If they don't the break will still get caught in the final
kilometer.

Bob Schwartz

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> Director of the Tour de France, Christian Prudhomme, is considering
> the idea of banning race radios in the 2008 Tour de France. The
> Frenchman might prohibit the use of the devices that allow for rider-
> director sportif communication in the mountains stages.
>
> He said to Belgium's Het Nieuwsblad that he is studying "the idea of
> banning the race radio in some of the stages of the Tour, maybe in the
> mountains [stages]."

In the sort term, banning radio communication could be very dangerous, as
team try to run the race the only way they know how (frequent communication)
without radios... meaning much more frequent visits to/from the team cars.
Sounds like a bad idea to me. My guess is that, by doing so only in the
mountain stages initially, they're thinking they might be able to get the
kinks worked out without a total disaster.

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


> wrote in message
...
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/mar08/mar13news2
>
> "
> Director of the Tour de France, Christian Prudhomme, is considering
> the idea of banning race radios in the 2008 Tour de France. The
> Frenchman might prohibit the use of the devices that allow for rider-
> director sportif communication in the mountains stages.
>
> He said to Belgium's Het Nieuwsblad that he is studying "the idea of
> banning the race radio in some of the stages of the Tour, maybe in the
> mountains [stages]."
> "
>
>
> Why ban them in the mountain stages when it doesn't make a difference?
> Doesn't it make more sense to ban them in the flatter stages so the
> break
> isn't caught in the final kilometer?
>
> (Yes, but a big bunch sprint is more entertaining so let's hope they
> don't
> figure this one out.)

[Tom Kunich]

"Sandy" > wrote in message
...
>
> Or maybe I'm just a dinosaur, as I suspect.

Sandy, what is wrong with the system they use now? They aren't "roboriders"
at all and you know it. What's more, that 90 bottles allowed Floyd to blast
all day long. The significant thing was the last climb when he wasn't losing
steam. And yet the speed he made was nothing superhuman - only steady.

My biggest concern is that I believe that he was framed. Remember that Eddy
Merckx claimed that he was framed in the same manner. So either you believe
that everyone dopes or that betting agencies sometimes protect their own
investments.

[Michael Baldwin]

ZZ shared;

>Director of the Tour de France, Christian Prudhomme, is considering
>the idea of banning race radios in the 2008 Tour
>de France. The Frenchman might prohibit the use of the
>devices that allow for rider- director sportif communication in the
>mountains stages.

As Race Director Mr. Prudhomme can think, say and do as he pleases.
I'm sure his "study" will include a contingency plan for the thousands
of spectator cell phones along the route as well. :)

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Mar 14, 11:47*am, "Sandy" > wrote:
> Dans le message y.net,
> Mike Jacoubowsky > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> >> Director of the Tour de France, Christian Prudhomme, is considering
> >> the idea of banning race radios in the 2008 Tour de France. The
> >> Frenchman might prohibit the use of the devices that allow for rider-
> >> director sportif communication in the mountains stages.
>
> >> He said to Belgium's Het Nieuwsblad that he is studying "the idea of
> >> banning the race radio in some of the stages of the Tour, maybe in
> >> the mountains [stages]."
>
> > In the sort term, banning radio communication could be very
> > dangerous, as team try to run the race the only way they know how
> > (frequent communication) without radios... meaning much more frequent
> > visits to/from the team cars. Sounds like a bad idea to me. My guess
> > is that, by doing so only in the mountain stages initially, they're
> > thinking they might be able to get the kinks worked out without a
> > total disaster.
>
>
> Well, your idea is fine if you want 189 robo-riders out there. *How is it
> that I can recall races without radios? *Without double team cars? *Without
> 90 bottles of water hand delivered during a single escape? *Change is not
> indicative of progress. *And none of this technology recognizes or elevates
> the exceptional quality of the athletes, without whom, none of the grand
> parade takes place. *So long as marshalls can keep riders on the race
> course, the chalkboard moto is shared reasonably, the riders could use their
> own brains to figure things out. *Or maybe I'm just a dinosaur, as I
> suspect.

I'm glad this douchebag kill-filed me.

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
...
| "Sandy" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > Or maybe I'm just a dinosaur, as I suspect.
|
| Sandy, what is wrong with the system they use now? They aren't
"roboriders"
| at all and you know it. What's more, that 90 bottles allowed Floyd to
blast
| all day long. The significant thing was the last climb when he wasn't
losing
| steam. And yet the speed he made was nothing superhuman - only steady.
|
| My biggest concern is that I believe that he was framed. Remember that
Eddy
| Merckx claimed that he was framed in the same manner. So either you
believe
| that everyone dopes or that betting agencies sometimes protect their own
| investments.

It was much easier to believe in Floyd's good judgment before he stood by
while his friend and business partner made that call to Greg LeMond...
during his initial hearing. I believed Floyd was innocent prior to that. I
was there (in France) when he rode himself into history. I attended one of
his events. But after that phone call, a phone call that he was in a
position to stop, and didn't... after that, I began to wonder just how much
some people can deceive themselves into believing they've done nothing
wrong. I still believe the tests given were so riddled with problems that
they shouldn't have been allowed as evidence, so I'd let him off on that,
but I would not stake my own reputation on defending his innocence.

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

[Donald Munro]

ZZ shared;
>>Director of the Tour de France, Christian Prudhomme, is considering the
>>idea of banning race radios in the 2008 Tour de France. The Frenchman
>>might prohibit the use of the devices that allow for rider- director
>>sportif communication in the mountains stages.

Michael Baldwin wrote:
> As Race Director Mr. Prudhomme can think, say and do as he pleases.
> I'm sure his "study" will include a contingency plan for the thousands of
> spectator cell phones along the route as well. :)

He could ask the CIA to jam them or get them to waterboard anybody with a
concealed radio.

[Tom Kunich]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
...
>
> It was much easier to believe in Floyd's good judgment before he stood by
> while his friend and business partner made that call to Greg LeMond...
> during his initial hearing.

Not to point out something strange but exactly what are you talking about?
Floyd wasn't anywhere near that guy when he called LeMond and what's more,
he would have stopped him if he were. Floyd isn't a fool, he's a hick.

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
...
| "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > It was much easier to believe in Floyd's good judgment before he stood
by
| > while his friend and business partner made that call to Greg LeMond...
| > during his initial hearing.
|
| Not to point out something strange but exactly what are you talking about?
| Floyd wasn't anywhere near that guy when he called LeMond and what's more,
| he would have stopped him if he were. Floyd isn't a fool, he's a hick.

Tom: Hard to believe you either missed or forgot the following, which was
widely known and available all over the 'net (in this case, cut & pasted
from the relevant section on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_LeMond)-

"LeMond later stated to reporters that Geoghegan had admitted making the
call, and "tried to apologize".[14] Landis has admitted to being in the same
room as Geoghegan when the call was made,[16] and defended his decision not
to fire Geoghegan until after the LeMond testimony, saying he had been
waiting for legal advice."

Fact: Floyd was in the same room.
Fact: He knew the phone call was being made, or knew about it immediately
afterward.

Knowing those facts, what conclusion do you wish to draw that's so different
from my own?

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

[Tom Kunich]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> ...
> | "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
> | ...
> | >
> | > It was much easier to believe in Floyd's good judgment before he stood
> by
> | > while his friend and business partner made that call to Greg LeMond...
> | > during his initial hearing.
> |
> | Not to point out something strange but exactly what are you talking
> about?
> | Floyd wasn't anywhere near that guy when he called LeMond and what's
> more,
> | he would have stopped him if he were. Floyd isn't a fool, he's a hick.
>
> Tom: Hard to believe you either missed or forgot the following, which was
> widely known and available all over the 'net (in this case, cut & pasted
> from the relevant section on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_LeMond)-
>
> "LeMond later stated to reporters that Geoghegan had admitted making the
> call, and "tried to apologize".[14] Landis has admitted to being in the
> same
> room as Geoghegan when the call was made,[16] and defended his decision
> not
> to fire Geoghegan until after the LeMond testimony, saying he had been
> waiting for legal advice."
>
> Fact: Floyd was in the same room.
> Fact: He knew the phone call was being made, or knew about it immediately
> afterward.
>
> Knowing those facts, what conclusion do you wish to draw that's so
> different
> from my own?

Yikes! But what I would think is that Floyd was half drunk and thought it
was a joke. Remember that he really is a yokel.

[jean-yves hervé]

In article >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>
> Yikes! But what I would think is that Floyd was half drunk and thought it
> was a joke. Remember that he really is a yokel.

Was Floyd drunk at the time of the post on his web site as well? Or was
it that mean Geoghegan guy again?

jyh.

[Tom Kunich]

"jean-yves hervé" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> Yikes! But what I would think is that Floyd was half drunk and thought it
>> was a joke. Remember that he really is a yokel.
>
> Was Floyd drunk at the time of the post on his web site as well? Or was
> it that mean Geoghegan guy again?

Firstly let's remember that the lab tests were EXTREMELY questionable. There
isn't a single court in the USA that would allow evidence so lousy to be
used. Yet the UCI claims that it is inviolable.

Secondly, Floyd is a hick and really doesn't realize what it looks like to
put stuff like that out on the internet.

Sophisticates such as yourself aside, most people realize that Floyd put in
a good ride but that the real problem was that the peloton didn't react
properly. Nothing in his performance suggested that he had any better
performance than the top 20 in the peloton.

[jean-yves hervé]

In article >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> "jean-yves hervé" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> Yikes! But what I would think is that Floyd was half drunk and thought it
> >> was a joke. Remember that he really is a yokel.
> >
> > Was Floyd drunk at the time of the post on his web site as well? Or was
> > it that mean Geoghegan guy again?
>
> Firstly let's remember that the lab tests were EXTREMELY questionable. There
> isn't a single court in the USA that would allow evidence so lousy to be
> used. Yet the UCI claims that it is inviolable.
>
> Secondly, Floyd is a hick and really doesn't realize what it looks like to
> put stuff like that out on the internet.
>
> Sophisticates such as yourself aside, most people realize that Floyd put in
> a good ride but that the real problem was that the peloton didn't react
> properly. Nothing in his performance suggested that he had any better
> performance than the top 20 in the peloton.

I did not say anything regarding Floyd Landis' guilt, the validity of
the test, or the vast Franco-Swiss conspiracy to frame all American
riders. All I am saying is that between the phone call and the web
post (1), Landis has exposed a very nasty side of himself that is very
far from the "good-natured hick" image that had been peddled to the
media.

jyh.


(1) From the Wiki Floyd Landis page:

LeMond's testimony is arguably supported by an online posting Floyd
Landis made on the Daily Peloton forum, in which he states that LeMond
disclosed personal information of a sensitive nature to Landis, and
threatened to use the information to damage LeMond if he continues to
involve himself in Landis's USADA appeal process:

Unfortunately, the facts that he divulged to me in the hour which he
spoke and gave no opportunity for me to do the same, would damage his
character severely and I would rather not do what has been done to me.
However, if he ever opens his mouth again and the word Floyd comes out,
I will tell you all some things that you will wish you didn't know...

[Donald Munro]

jean-yves hervé wrote:
> I did not say anything regarding Floyd Landis' guilt, the validity of the
> test, or the vast Franco-Swiss conspiracy

So the French and Swiss are also part of the Liberal Conspiracy. I
thought the fact that Assos are Swiss was a bit suspicious and their
cheese is unholy.

[Tom Kunich]

"jean-yves hervé" > wrote in message
...
>
> LeMond's testimony is arguably supported by an online posting Floyd
> Landis made on the Daily Peloton forum, in which he states that LeMond
> disclosed personal information of a sensitive nature to Landis, and
> threatened to use the information to damage LeMond if he continues to
> involve himself in Landis's USADA appeal process:

Let's remember that LeMond approached Landis and told him to come clean and
confess to having doped. LeMond then was being very public about accusing
seven times Tour winner Lance Armstrong of doping and he barely knew the
guy. Landis thought he was being pretty sophisticated by being completely
non-committal and giving LeMond nothing to argue about. Yet of course LeMond
simply started telling all of the cycling reporters that he had asked Landis
to confess.

As I pointed out, you're not some 30 year old who grew up out on a farm with
a religion that didn't allow you to use most modern inventions. Floyd not
only grew up out there but attended those schools that stressed religion at
the cost of everything else. Floyd is just learning behavior you already
knew before your 21st birthday. Give the guy a enough of a break to
understand that he doesn't know the expanse of his seemingly (to him)
unimportant comments/insults etc.

[Howard Kveck]

In article >, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:

> "jean-yves hervé" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> Yikes! But what I would think is that Floyd was half drunk and thought it
> >> was a joke. Remember that he really is a yokel.
> >
> > Was Floyd drunk at the time of the post on his web site as well? Or was
> > it that mean Geoghegan guy again?
>
> Firstly let's remember that the lab tests were EXTREMELY questionable. There
> isn't a single court in the USA that would allow evidence so lousy to be
> used. Yet the UCI claims that it is inviolable.
>
> Secondly, Floyd is a hick and really doesn't realize what it looks like to
> put stuff like that out on the internet.

Whether I believe Floyd was or was not guilty notwithstanding, this is the
stupidest line of excuse making I think I've ever seen in this group. Claiming that
something bad happened while Floyd was drunk would get you laughed out of court if
you tried it there.

> Sophisticates such as yourself aside,

After making that moronic excuse for Floyd, you have the temerity to mock
Jean-Yves?!?!?!?!

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[jean-yves hervé]

In article >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> "jean-yves hervé" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > LeMond's testimony is arguably supported by an online posting Floyd
> > Landis made on the Daily Peloton forum, in which he states that LeMond
> > disclosed personal information of a sensitive nature to Landis, and
> > threatened to use the information to damage LeMond if he continues to
> > involve himself in Landis's USADA appeal process:
>
> Let's remember that LeMond approached Landis and told him to come clean and
> confess to having doped. LeMond then was being very public about accusing
> seven times Tour winner Lance Armstrong of doping and he barely knew the
> guy. Landis thought he was being pretty sophisticated by being completely
> non-committal and giving LeMond nothing to argue about. Yet of course LeMond
> simply started telling all of the cycling reporters that he had asked Landis
> to confess.

This is not about Lemond but about Landis and the disturbing insight
into his characters that the two incidents (the phone call and the web
forum post) give us.

> As I pointed out, you're not some 30 year old who grew up out on a farm with
> a religion that didn't allow you to use most modern inventions. Floyd not
> only grew up out there but attended those schools that stressed religion at
> the cost of everything else. Floyd is just learning behavior you already
> knew before your 21st birthday. Give the guy a enough of a break to
> understand that he doesn't know the expanse of his seemingly (to him)
> unimportant comments/insults etc.

Do you seriously believe that the phone call and the threat to post
Lemond's story on a web site are indications of a nice good boy who's
just learning to deal with "modern inventions"? The back tie during
Lemond's audition at the trial was pure teenage hick stuff, but the
phone call and web forum post are really creepy.

jyh.

[Amit Ghosh]

On Mar 16, 4:23 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> Let's remember that LeMond approached Landis and told him to come clean and
> confess to having doped.

dumbass,

that's not what lemond did.

when lemond was asked about floyd by the press he merely said "IF
floyd is guilty he should come clean". he didn't actually accuse floyd
of anything or tell him to confess even if he is innocent.

floyd called lemond and according to lemond said something along the
lines of "if I confessed i would hurt a lot of my friends", the "soft
confession". that's how floyd dragged lemond into the case.

[Tom Kunich]

"Amit Ghosh" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 16, 4:23 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> Let's remember that LeMond approached Landis and told him to come clean
>> and
>> confess to having doped.
>
> dumbass,
>
> that's not what lemond did.
>
> when lemond was asked about floyd by the press he merely said "IF
> floyd is guilty he should come clean". he didn't actually accuse floyd
> of anything or tell him to confess even if he is innocent.
>
> floyd called lemond and according to lemond said something along the
> lines of "if I confessed i would hurt a lot of my friends", the "soft
> confession". that's how floyd dragged lemond into the case.

Why don't you invent even more incendiary conversations?

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> As I pointed out, you're not some 30 year old who grew up out on a farm
> with a religion that didn't allow you to use most modern inventions. Floyd
> not only grew up out there but attended those schools that stressed
> religion at the cost of everything else. Floyd is just learning behavior
> you already knew before your 21st birthday. Give the guy a enough of a
> break to understand that he doesn't know the expanse of his seemingly (to
> him) unimportant comments/insults etc.

Tom: I'm sorry, but that just doesn't wash. The most decent people I know
grew up in what you'd dersively call a "hick" environment. People who feel
the value of a man's word is more important than the profit that could be
gained by lying.

I find it very offensive that you would trash people who value their beliefs
above material things as being lesser, and that it's something they really
ought to outgrow.

If you've painted yourself into a corner and are trying to find a way out,
jump. Jump over the rhetoric and into the light. Recognize that those with a
background like Floyd would expect to be held to a HIGHER, not lower
standard, than the rest of us. And remember this- there is at least one
member of this newsgroup who is VERY proud of his family background in
farming. People who work with their hands, in the fields, whose livelihood
depends upon getting up before the sun comes up and praying that rain comes
when it's supposed to, and that, when they DO have a good crop, there are
eager buyers.

Yes, that's right, you can talk all you want about farm subsidies and such,
but the truth is that farmers go broke all the time because, at the time
they plant their crops, they don't have a good idea what that crop will
fetch when harvested. Imagine yourself going to work and not knowing what
you'll get paid until the end of the year.

It takes a special kind of person to do that. And it takes a special kind of
"city" person to belittle them.

Basic human decency is a fundamental part of the people you choose to make
fun of. And by the way, I don't share Floyd's religious background. But I
respect it. And I know its values. I wish that I could come close to living
up to the code of values such people do.

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


"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
...
> "jean-yves hervé" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> LeMond's testimony is arguably supported by an online posting Floyd
>> Landis made on the Daily Peloton forum, in which he states that LeMond
>> disclosed personal information of a sensitive nature to Landis, and
>> threatened to use the information to damage LeMond if he continues to
>> involve himself in Landis's USADA appeal process:
>
> Let's remember that LeMond approached Landis and told him to come clean
> and confess to having doped. LeMond then was being very public about
> accusing seven times Tour winner Lance Armstrong of doping and he barely
> knew the guy. Landis thought he was being pretty sophisticated by being
> completely non-committal and giving LeMond nothing to argue about. Yet of
> course LeMond simply started telling all of the cycling reporters that he
> had asked Landis to confess.
>
> As I pointed out, you're not some 30 year old who grew up out on a farm
> with a religion that didn't allow you to use most modern inventions. Floyd
> not only grew up out there but attended those schools that stressed
> religion at the cost of everything else. Floyd is just learning behavior
> you already knew before your 21st birthday. Give the guy a enough of a
> break to understand that he doesn't know the expanse of his seemingly (to
> him) unimportant comments/insults etc.
>

[jean-yves hervé]

In article >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> "Amit Ghosh" > wrote in message
> > floyd called lemond and according to lemond said something along the
> > lines of "if I confessed i would hurt a lot of my friends", the "soft
> > confession". that's how floyd dragged lemond into the case.
>
> Why don't you invent even more incendiary conversations?

What about "according to Lemond" do you find so hard to understand? For
a guy who claims to have followed very carefully the Landis case, you
seem remarkably ignorant about many widely-published aspects of the
case. Amit is not making up stuff but merely paraphrasing Greg (now
whether or not we are to believe GL is an altogether different story).

jyh.

[Tom Kunich]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
...
>
> Tom: I'm sorry, but that just doesn't wash. The most decent people I know
> grew up in what you'd dersively call a "hick" environment. People who feel
> the value of a man's word is more important than the profit that could be
> gained by lying.

I am certainly not disagreeing with you. What I'm suggesting is that Landis
was and still probably is going through a metamorphosis from his past
religion to "modern American male" before he realizes that there was more
value in what he was. I've seen people like him act the same way for the
same reasons before growing up.

> I find it very offensive that you would trash people who value their
> beliefs above material things as being lesser, and that it's something
> they really ought to outgrow.

That "I" would trash people? LeMond stuck his nose in where it most
certainly didn't belong. I happen to like Greg but he's had a lot of
problems of his own and one of those apparently is a need to be in the
spotlight. That's what's caused most of his problems and I'm sure you
realize that.

By the way, I don't see any of these things as very important or insulting
or any of that. It's a child's argument amoung those involved that's built
up to something far larger by reporting.

> If you've painted yourself into a corner and are trying to find a way out,
> jump. Jump over the rhetoric and into the light. Recognize that those with
> a background like Floyd would expect to be held to a HIGHER, not lower
> standard, than the rest of us.

Most assuredly but if I read Floyd correctly he has been trying to live DOWN
to the rest of us. Or at least to the standard he thinks is ours.

[[email protected]]

Greg Lemond has proposed the use of one way radios. Or radios that can
be only used to transmit info to the riders.

Personally I am in favor of limiting radio communication for support
request and or water. No coaching and or advice would be permitted.
The problem is that this would be very difficult to monitor. But if
all riders and coaches used a common channel, Then this would be sort
of self-regulating.

On Mar 14, 12:53 am, wrote:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/mar08/mar13news2
>
> "
> Director of the Tour de France, Christian Prudhomme, is considering
> the idea of banning race radios in the 2008 Tour de France. The
> Frenchman might prohibit the use of the devices that allow for rider-
> director sportif communication in the mountains stages.
>
> He said to Belgium's Het Nieuwsblad that he is studying "the idea of
> banning the race radio in some of the stages of the Tour, maybe in the
> mountains [stages]."
> "
>
> Why ban them in the mountain stages when it doesn't make a difference?
> Doesn't it make more sense to ban them in the flatter stages so the
> break
> isn't caught in the final kilometer?
>
> (Yes, but a big bunch sprint is more entertaining so let's hope they
> don't
> figure this one out.)

[Bill C]

On Mar 16, 9:35*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" >
wrote:
> > As I pointed out, you're not some 30 year old who grew up out on a farm
> > with a religion that didn't allow you to use most modern inventions. Floyd
> > not only grew up out there but attended those schools that stressed
> > religion at the cost of everything else. Floyd is just learning behavior
> > you already knew before your 21st birthday. Give the guy a enough of a
> > break to understand that he doesn't know the expanse of his seemingly (to
> > him) unimportant comments/insults etc.
>
> Tom: I'm sorry, but that just doesn't wash. The most decent people I know
> grew up in what you'd dersively call a "hick" environment. People who feel
> the value of a man's word is more important than the profit that could be
> gained by lying.
>
> I find it very offensive that you would trash people who value their beliefs
> above material things as being lesser, and that it's something they really
> ought to outgrow.
>
> If you've painted yourself into a corner and are trying to find a way out,
> jump. Jump over the rhetoric and into the light. Recognize that those with a
> background like Floyd would expect to be held to a HIGHER, not lower
> standard, than the rest of us. And remember this- there is at least one
> member of this newsgroup who is VERY proud of his family background in
> farming. People who work with their hands, in the fields, whose livelihood
> depends upon getting up before the sun comes up and praying that rain comes
> when it's supposed to, and that, when they DO have a good crop, there are
> eager buyers.
>
> Yes, that's right, you can talk all you want about farm subsidies and such,
> but the truth is that farmers go broke all the time because, at the time
> they plant their crops, they don't have a good idea what that crop will
> fetch when harvested. Imagine yourself going to work and not knowing what
> you'll get paid until the end of the year.
>
> It takes a special kind of person to do that. And it takes a special kind of
> "city" person to belittle them.
>
> Basic human decency is a fundamental part of the people you choose to make
> fun of. And by the way, I don't share Floyd's religious background. But I
> respect it. And I know its values. I wish that I could come close to living
> up to the code of values such people do.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>

Hey Mike, we talking you or me? I thought I was the resident,
****kicker, populist, militant?
And yeah, the farm went broke despite milk price supports,
etc...Being resilient, the cows and all that equip got sold off, and
they are making it go in the market garden/produce biz.
90% of the day to day, local, business is done on a handshake
agreement with no hassles involved and frequently with the caveat
"we'll work it out eventually". It's usually pretty tough to figure
out who owes who what, since just about everyone claims to owe more
than they are owed. It's also why if you need just about anything you
can walk up and "borrow" it and pay it back whenever you can.
I'd much rather deal with htose kind of folks than the ones who bring
a lawyer to the coffee shop in the morning.
Bill C
Little-More Farm Hatfield Ma. You'll still find my nephew running it.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
jean-yves hervé > wrote:

> In article >,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > "Amit Ghosh" > wrote in message
> > > floyd called lemond and according to lemond said something along the
> > > lines of "if I confessed i would hurt a lot of my friends", the "soft
> > > confession". that's how floyd dragged lemond into the case.
> >
> > Why don't you invent even more incendiary conversations?
>
> What about "according to Lemond" do you find so hard to understand? For
> a guy who claims to have followed very carefully the Landis case, you
> seem remarkably ignorant about many widely-published aspects of the
> case. Amit is not making up stuff but merely paraphrasing Greg (now
> whether or not we are to believe GL is an altogether different story).
>
> jyh.

It's pretty hard to disbelieve Greg, most notably since Floyd has never
denied any of this sordid affair, and he fired Geoghean (sp?)

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[jean-yves hervé]

In article
]>,
Ryan Cousineau > wrote:

> In article >,
> jean-yves hervé > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Amit Ghosh" > wrote in message
> > > > floyd called lemond and according to lemond said something along the
> > > > lines of "if I confessed i would hurt a lot of my friends", the "soft
> > > > confession". that's how floyd dragged lemond into the case.
> > >
> > > Why don't you invent even more incendiary conversations?
> >
> > What about "according to Lemond" do you find so hard to understand? For
> > a guy who claims to have followed very carefully the Landis case, you
> > seem remarkably ignorant about many widely-published aspects of the
> > case. Amit is not making up stuff but merely paraphrasing Greg (now
> > whether or not we are to believe GL is an altogether different story).
> >
> > jyh.
>
> It's pretty hard to disbelieve Greg, most notably since Floyd has never
> denied any of this sordid affair, and he fired Geoghean (sp?)

This was my feeble attempt at trying to prevent Tom from sidetracking
this into a discussion about Lemond's motivations, character, etc.
There is indeed no doubt about the veracity of the "Uncle Ron" phone
call story as Greg told it. On the other hand, the "if I confessed i
would hurt a lot of my friends" story is something that we have heard
only from Greg, with no confirmation from Landis or his entourage. I
happen to believe GL because for all his whining and resentment at being
overshadowed by Armstrong I don't think that he would make up stuff like
that, but I understand that others might distrust his version of the
conversation.

jyh.

[Tom Kunich]

"jean-yves hervé" > wrote in message
...
>
> This was my feeble attempt at trying to prevent Tom from sidetracking
> this into a discussion about Lemond's motivations, character, etc.

Followed by:

> I don't think that he would make up stuff like that, but I understand
> that others might distrust his version of the conversation.

Any questions?

[Michael Press]

In article
>,
" > wrote:

> On Mar 14, 12:53 am, wrote:
> > http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/mar08/mar13news2
> >
> > "
> > Director of the Tour de France, Christian Prudhomme, is considering
> > the idea of banning race radios in the 2008 Tour de France. The
> > Frenchman might prohibit the use of the devices that allow for rider-
> > director sportif communication in the mountains stages.
> >
> > He said to Belgium's Het Nieuwsblad that he is studying "the idea of
> > banning the race radio in some of the stages of the Tour, maybe in the
> > mountains [stages]."
> > "
> >
> > Why ban them in the mountain stages when it doesn't make a difference?
> > Doesn't it make more sense to ban them in the flatter stages so the
> > break
> > isn't caught in the final kilometer?
> >
> > (Yes, but a big bunch sprint is more entertaining so let's hope they
> > don't
> > figure this one out.)
> Greg Lemond has proposed the use of one way radios. Or radios that can
> be only used to transmit info to the riders.
>
> Personally I am in favor of limiting radio communication for support
> request and or water. No coaching and or advice would be permitted.
> The problem is that this would be very difficult to monitor. But if
> all riders and coaches used a common channel, Then this would be sort
> of self-regulating.

One word: code.

--
Michael Press

[jean-yves hervé]

In article >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> "jean-yves hervé" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > This was my feeble attempt at trying to prevent Tom from sidetracking
> > this into a discussion about Lemond's motivations, character, etc.
>
> Followed by:
>
> > I don't think that he would make up stuff like that, but I understand
> > that others might distrust his version of the conversation.
>
> Any questions?

Yes: (1) What do you think you are accomplishing with this bit of
out-of-context, selective quoting? (2) Do you still believe that
Landis did not think he was doing anything wrong in his dealings with
Lemond, or that he thought he was just doing "what 'em folks who grew up
using phones and stuff usually do"?

jyh.

[Tom Kunich]

"jean-yves hervé" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> "jean-yves hervé" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > This was my feeble attempt at trying to prevent Tom from sidetracking
>> > this into a discussion about Lemond's motivations, character, etc.
>>
>> Followed by:
>>
>> > I don't think that he would make up stuff like that, but I understand
>> > that others might distrust his version of the conversation.
>>
>> Any questions?
>
> Yes: (1) What do you think you are accomplishing with this bit of
> out-of-context, selective quoting? (2) Do you still believe that
> Landis did not think he was doing anything wrong in his dealings with
> Lemond, or that he thought he was just doing "what 'em folks who grew up
> using phones and stuff usually do"?

1) I'm trying to point out your own selective quoting. I think that you and
I are pretty much on the same sheet except for methodology.

2) Landis is a hick. How many times do I have to say that? He is JUST NOW
learning how to act with the sophistication of someone that earned the
amount of money he did. It is very difficult to connect stuff he said and
did before to his real beliefs. Let's remember that after belonging to an
extremely conservative religious group that blocked out most city
dweller-like thought patterns he attempted to become "Joe Six-pack".
Eventually he began to learn that was equally a false front. Give the guy a
break!

[Amit Ghosh]

On Mar 17, 3:21 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>2) Landis is a hick.

dumbass,

what's your excuse ? does swallowing protour semen cause brain
damage ?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070708/news_lz1s8landis.html

Then DeCanio says this:

"Clinger told me that while he was racing in 2002 on the United States
Postal Service Pro Cycling Team he used HGH, testosterone and EPO
along with Floyd Landis. David told me, and I quote, 'Landis used more
HGH than anyone he had ever witnessed before. He would use entire
vials of HGH and he is crazy.' "

Instead the UCI uses them as health checks, issuing a 15-day
suspension for male riders with hematocrit levels, which measure red
blood cells, over 50 percent and hemoglobin concentrations above 17
grams per deciliter of blood.

In a pre-Tour blood screen from June 29, two days before the 2006 race
began, Landis had a hematocrit level of 44.8 percent and hemoglobin
level of 15.5. On July 11, 10 stages into the Tour, his hematocrit had
increased to 48.2 and his hemoglobin to 16.1.

[dbrower]

On Mar 17, 2:51 pm, Amit Ghosh > wrote:
> On Mar 17, 3:21 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >2)Landisis a hick.
>
> dumbass,
>
> what's your excuse ? does swallowing protour semen cause brain
> damage ?
>
> http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070708/news_lz1s8landis.html
>
> Then DeCanio says this:
>
> "Clinger told me that while he was racing in 2002 on the United States
> Postal Service Pro Cycling Team he used HGH, testosterone and EPO
> along withFloydLandis. David told me, and I quote, 'Landisused more
> HGH than anyone he had ever witnessed before. He would use entire
> vials of HGH and he is crazy.' "

So we have third hand, DeCanio saying Clinger said... And how does
Clinger allegedly know this? Has Clinger subsequently repeated this
story directly to anyone but DeCanio on record? (BTW, the idea of
Maori-man calling someone else crazy is a new twist on pot and
kettle.)

>
> Instead the UCI uses them as health checks, issuing a 15-day
> suspension for male riders with hematocrit levels, which measure red
> blood cells, over 50 percent and hemoglobin concentrations above 17
> grams per deciliter of blood.
>
> In a pre-Tour blood screen from June 29, two days before the 2006 race
> began,Landishad a hematocrit level of 44.8 percent and hemoglobin
> level of 15.5. On July 11, 10 stages into the Tour, his hematocrit had
> increased to 48.2 and his hemoglobin to 16.1.

So after hard pre-tour training before the start he's depleted. Then
after a week of flat stages huddled in the peloton, he's recovered and
the values are up. This proves what?

Even USADA isn't using these numbers to argue anything, because they
know there is nothing there.

-dB

[Tom Kunich]

"dbrower" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 17, 2:51 pm, Amit Ghosh > wrote:
>> In a pre-Tour blood screen from June 29, two days before the 2006 race
>> began,Landishad a hematocrit level of 44.8 percent and hemoglobin
>> level of 15.5. On July 11, 10 stages into the Tour, his hematocrit had
>> increased to 48.2 and his hemoglobin to 16.1.
>
> So after hard pre-tour training before the start he's depleted. Then
> after a week of flat stages huddled in the peloton, he's recovered and
> the values are up. This proves what?
>
> Even USADA isn't using these numbers to argue anything, because they
> know there is nothing there.

Ahh, to think that Amit still knows nothing but what he surmises.