Kashechkin suit

Quoted message said:

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

MagillaGorilla said:

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 [censored] like robert millar becoming a
woman, armstrong dating an olsen twin and pascal richard doing jail
time for fraud.

MagillaGorilla said:

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.

In article
<[email hidden]
egroups.com>,

Kurgan Gringioni said:

MagillaGorilla said:

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

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]
egroups.com>,

Kurgan Gringioni said:

MagillaGorilla said:

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

MagillaGorilla said:

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

Dans le message de
news:[email hidden],
[email hidden] <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

MagillaGorilla said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Sandy said:

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 said:

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.

Donald Munro said:

Sandy said:

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

A R:nen said:

MagillaGorilla said:

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