Doping and the French
Tom Kunich
that the French are doing so much better.
Scheldeprijs Vlaander - one Frenchman in the top 50 - 5th
Pais-Roubaix - 2 Frenchmen in the top 25 and first one was 11th
Gent-Wevelgem - First Frenchman 11th
Ronde van Vlanderen - First Frenchman 26th
Amstel - First Frenchman 10th
I suppose one has to question the complaints from the French since they
don't seem to finish any better under much stricter controls than under the
looser ones.
So the questions appears to be -
a) Do drugs make all that much difference?
b) Were so many people using drugs if they're really that effective? (Let's
remember that study I noted before that showed that about the same amount of
people would NORMALLY TEST POSITIVE for testosterone as have been testing
positive even if they never took the drugs.)
c) Were the French using drugs as commonly as everyone else and that's why
under a supposedly stricter regime they're simply holding the same places
they did before?
d) It's beginning to look like Landis was framed after all.
zzfra...@mac.com
c.
Fred Fredburger
I agree with a and c. I'd add:
e) despite the rhetoric, nothing's actually changed.
b and d may also be true, but I don't see them as strongly tied to
recent french results.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:waWdnQm2f6cXSpbV...@earthlink.com...
You raise some good questions with A, B & C. But how does any of this have
something to do with Landis being framed?
You can argue (with good cause) that the French screwed up the tests pretty
badly. But it wasn't the French that decided that there was enough evidence
in the flawed tests to consider Landis guilty anyway. Thus I don't see where
the French enter into the equation (regarding Landis being framed) at all.
If that had been the intent, I'm sure they could have done a much better job
right from the beginning. Seriously.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Keith
>| positive even if they never took the drugs.)
>| c) Were the French using drugs as commonly as everyone else and that's why
>| under a supposedly stricter regime they're simply holding the same places
>| they did before?
>| d) It's beginning to look like Landis was framed after all.
>
>You raise some good questions with A, B & C. But how does any of this have
>something to do with Landis being framed?
>
>You can argue (with good cause) that the French screwed up the tests pretty
>badly. But it wasn't the French that decided that there was enough evidence
>in the flawed tests to consider Landis guilty anyway. Thus I don't see where
>the French enter into the equation (regarding Landis being framed) at all.
>If that had been the intent, I'm sure they could have done a much better job
>right from the beginning. Seriously.
Agreed, but keep in mind that Kunich's nationalistic paranoia and
other assorted problems prevent him from making sense of what he sees,
hears, reads, I wouldn't waste my time on him.
Tom Kunich
news:GhUOj.4583$vF....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>
> You raise some good questions with A, B & C. But how does any of this have
> something to do with Landis being framed?
Floyd has held all along that he didn't use testosterone and the latest
information is that perhaps he is of the type that tests positive most of
the time.
> You can argue (with good cause) that the French screwed up the tests
> pretty
> badly. But it wasn't the French that decided that there was enough
> evidence
> in the flawed tests to consider Landis guilty anyway.
Sorry, but the ASO has been pushing for stronger actions on positive tests
and now we see that these tests are not reliable.
Tom Kunich
news:8l0p04ptsuj663udn...@4ax.com...
>
> Agreed, but keep in mind that Kunich's nationalistic paranoia and
> other assorted problems prevent him from making sense of what he sees,
> hears, reads, I wouldn't waste my time on him.
It must be terrible for you to feel so insecure and impotent like that.
Though I figure that impotency comes from the way women treat you.
Mike Jacoubowsky
| "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
| news:GhUOj.4583$vF....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
| >
| > You raise some good questions with A, B & C. But how does any of this
have
| > something to do with Landis being framed?
|
| Floyd has held all along that he didn't use testosterone and the latest
| information is that perhaps he is of the type that tests positive most of
| the time.
An athlete claiming innocence is rarely evidence of that being the case.
Marion Jones comes to mind. And regarding Floyd, from what I read, it would
be relatively simple to test him to see if he fits into the category of
those who would show false positives.
I have little sympathy for athletes who claim that interesting phenomenon
are responsible for their "false" tests, and yet don't provide evidence
(tests performed on themselves) showing that to be the case. Most (not all)
of this is not open for debate over individual rights. These people chose
their line of work, and essentially, they knew the job was dangerous when
they signed up.
| > You can argue (with good cause) that the French screwed up the tests
| > pretty
| > badly. But it wasn't the French that decided that there was enough
| > evidence
| > in the flawed tests to consider Landis guilty anyway.
|
| Sorry, but the ASO has been pushing for stronger actions on positive tests
| and now we see that these tests are not reliable.
Pushing for stronger actions on those caught doping is not evil. Having
tests that aren't reliable is. We spend too much time pretending that a
problem with one makes the other something to be ignored.
Tom Kunich
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> news:-tednXrEz_reBpHV...@earthlink.com...
> | "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> | news:GhUOj.4583$vF....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> | >
> | > You raise some good questions with A, B & C. But how does any of this
> have
> | > something to do with Landis being framed?
> |
> | Floyd has held all along that he didn't use testosterone and the latest
> | information is that perhaps he is of the type that tests positive most
> of
> | the time.
>
> An athlete claiming innocence is rarely evidence of that being the case.
> Marion Jones comes to mind. And regarding Floyd, from what I read, it
> would
> be relatively simple to test him to see if he fits into the category of
> those who would show false positives.
Let us review - the INITIAL measurement of Floyd's sample showed 4.5:1 t/e
ratios. The SECOND of the same sample showed 11:1. This was proof positive
of contamination and by UCI's own rules should have disqualified that
sample. - Nevertheless they carried on as if this was a good test.
We also know that under NORMAL conditions you can have a t/e ratio of above
4:1 and that's why the drug testers had always used 6:1 as a switch point
before that.
Now we find out that the test itself can read incorrectly because of
physiological differences from patient to patient.
More importantly the t/e ratio did NOT show increased testosterone but
reduced epitestosterone which could very well be yet another physiological
difference not presently accounted for.
> I have little sympathy for athletes who claim that interesting phenomenon
> are responsible for their "false" tests, and yet don't provide evidence
> (tests performed on themselves) showing that to be the case. Most (not
> all)
> of this is not open for debate over individual rights. These people chose
> their line of work, and essentially, they knew the job was dangerous when
> they signed up.
Exactly what tests do you presume should be done by Floyd? Do you have any
idea of how much such tests actually cost? Floyd said that he was near
bankruptsy from defending himself. And someone at his age would tend to
spend money with a great deal more abandon that you or I so I'm not very
surprised.
Furthermore, you can't get these tests performed just anywhere and you need
to have them interpretted by someone who actually understands the results.
This isn't easy to find and he'd probably have to pursue the person who
wrote that article. Can you understand what that guy might want to charge?
> | > You can argue (with good cause) that the French screwed up the tests
> | > pretty badly. But it wasn't the French that decided that there was
> enough
> | > evidence in the flawed tests to consider Landis guilty anyway.
> |
> | Sorry, but the ASO has been pushing for stronger actions on positive
> tests
> | and now we see that these tests are not reliable.
>
> Pushing for stronger actions on those caught doping is not evil. Having
> tests that aren't reliable is. We spend too much time pretending that a
> problem with one makes the other something to be ignored.
Pushing for stronger actions IS most certainly evil if you prefer to ignore
the fact that there are a significant percentage of false positives that
cannot be identified as such.
Mike Jacoubowsky
phenomenon
| > are responsible for their "false" tests, and yet don't provide evidence
| > (tests performed on themselves) showing that to be the case. Most (not
| > all)
| > of this is not open for debate over individual rights. These people
chose
| > their line of work, and essentially, they knew the job was dangerous
when
| > they signed up.
|
| Exactly what tests do you presume should be done by Floyd? Do you have any
| idea of how much such tests actually cost? Floyd said that he was near
| bankruptsy from defending himself. And someone at his age would tend to
| spend money with a great deal more abandon that you or I so I'm not very
| surprised.
|
| Furthermore, you can't get these tests performed just anywhere and you
need
| to have them interpretted by someone who actually understands the results.
| This isn't easy to find and he'd probably have to pursue the person who
| wrote that article. Can you understand what that guy might want to charge?
????
This guy's entire life is on trial here. His past, present & future. Trade
places with him for a moment. If you were innocent, and if there was this
test that could show that, a test that would prove that your body will
produce false positives, and you were certain of the validity of this
test... you WOULDN'T risk EVERYTHING to do it?
C'mon Tom, let's get real. If this test is everything you say it is, and can
prove that what ended his professional cycling career was a bogus test,
you'd do it. You'd sell your house. You'd sell your cars. In fact, you'd
probably go a lot further than that. You'd risk everything in something you
believe so strongly (your innocence).
Wouldn't you?
But there's a problem, isn't there? You're saying he has to pursue "the
person who wrote that article." Article. All of a sudden this is just one
person who can clear the world of this evil, and nobody else. Now that *is*
a problem, isn't it? Because one person isn't enough, is it? You need peer
review and secondary testing to prove something, and you're implying that
this is all about just one person who wrote an article? One person who you
imply is likely to hold Floyd for ransom rather than see this as his ticket
to validation and future financial gain? This is beginning to sound rather
shaky. That's not how research scientists generally work.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:cpSdnVyv0M8WWZHV...@earthlink.com...
Tom Kunich
>
> This guy's entire life is on trial here. His past, present & future. Trade
> places with him for a moment. If you were innocent, and if there was this
> test that could show that, a test that would prove that your body will
> produce false positives, and you were certain of the validity of this
> test... you WOULDN'T risk EVERYTHING to do it?
Excuse me Mike, but maybe you missed the fact that the French have already
said that Floyd is out. His results in the local MTB races demonstrates that
he has essentially lost the will to fight anymore. I wonder if you've EVER
been in a situation like that where everything you do seems to be to no
avail to people.
> C'mon Tom, let's get real. If this test is everything you say it is, and
> can
> prove that what ended his professional cycling career was a bogus test,
> you'd do it.
If the French are willing to accept it then why would you want to put out
$100,000 you don't have?
Tom Kunich
>
> If the French are willing to accept it then why would you want to put out
> $100,000 you don't have?
Please make that: If the French aren't willing to accept it then why would
Benjo Maso
From: "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 1:53 AM
Subject: Doping and the French
> Now that there's a lot better control of doping in the peloton we can see
> that the French are doing so much better.
>
> Scheldeprijs Vlaander - one Frenchman in the top 50 - 5th
> Pais-Roubaix - 2 Frenchmen in the top 25 and first one was 11th
> Gent-Wevelgem - First Frenchman 11th
> Ronde van Vlanderen - First Frenchman 26th
> Amstel - First Frenchman 10th
>
> I suppose one has to question the complaints from the French since they
> don't seem to finish any better under much stricter controls than under
> the looser ones.
Yesterday Dutch newspaper De Volkstrant suggested that thanks to stricter
anti-doping a lot of young unknown Dutch riders are getting the opportunity
to break through: Gesink, Langeveld, Maaskant. etc.
> So the questions appears to be -
>
> a) Do drugs make all that much difference?
> b) Were so many people using drugs if they're really that effective?
> (Let's remember that study I noted before that showed that about the same
> amount of people would NORMALLY TEST POSITIVE for testosterone as have
> been testing positive even if they never took the drugs.)
> c) Were the French using drugs as commonly as everyone else and that's why
> under a supposedly stricter regime they're simply holding the same places
> they did before?
> d) It's beginning to look like Landis was framed after all.
And yes, products like EPO are extremely effective. As I wrote once before:
just look at the Alpe d'Huez results. The record for the climb was set by
Fausto Coppi in 1952: 45'22". In 1989 (Fignon) it was 42'15".Meanwhile the
road to the top was asphalted and the bikes much lighter than in the times
of Coppi. In spite of those technical improvements, there was only a small
progress: 3 minutes in 37 years or in other words: five seconds a year. But
in 1994, the year that EPO with the Gewiss team and dr. Ferrari reached its
first apotheosis, the time of the winner (Pantani) was suddenly 37'15", a
progress of five minutes in 5 year! In 1995 Pantani broke his own record:
36'40". In 1995 there were 20 riders faster than Fignon in 1989, in 1997 33.
And by the way, the first five riders were Pantani, Ullrich, Virenque,
Casagrande and Riis.
Benjo
Tom Kunich
news:6743mmF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> Yesterday Dutch newspaper De Volkstrant suggested that thanks to stricter
> anti-doping a lot of young unknown Dutch riders are getting the
> opportunity
> to break through: Gesink, Langeveld, Maaskant. etc.
But thinking and actuality are two different things. We could mention that
the peloton is getting older and it would be normal for fresh riders to
begin looking good. These cycles are all pretty normal.
> And yes, products like EPO are extremely effective.
Well, yes but testosterone doesn't appear to be. Yet those who take
something non-effective are treated like those taking something that really
is effective.
> As I wrote once before:
> just look at the Alpe d'Huez results. The record for the climb was set by
> Fausto Coppi in 1952: 45'22". In 1989 (Fignon) it was 42'15".Meanwhile the
> road to the top was asphalted and the bikes much lighter than in the times
> of Coppi. In spite of those technical improvements, there was only a small
> progress: 3 minutes in 37 years or in other words: five seconds a year.
> But
> in 1994, the year that EPO with the Gewiss team and dr. Ferrari reached
> its
> first apotheosis, the time of the winner (Pantani) was suddenly 37'15", a
> progress of five minutes in 5 year! In 1995 Pantani broke his own record:
> 36'40". In 1995 there were 20 riders faster than Fignon in 1989, in 1997
> 33.
> And by the way, the first five riders were Pantani, Ullrich, Virenque,
> Casagrande and Riis.
Question for you Benjo - during this time there has also been a revolution
in gearing and the manner in which riders climb. I know that here I am
nearing 64 and I'm actually climbing faster than when I was in my late 40's
because I have proper gearing now.
This must have a significant effect among real racers. I suppose the
question is "by how much?"
Donald Munro
> Question for you Benjo - during this time there has also been a revolution
> in gearing and the manner in which riders climb. I know that here I am
> nearing 64 and I'm actually climbing faster than when I was in my late
> 40's because I have proper gearing now.
>
> This must have a significant effect among real racers.
I will exercise my free won't. I will exercise my free won't.
I will exercise my free won't. I will exercise my free won't.
I will exercise my free won't. I will exercise my free won't.
I will exercise my free won't. I will exercise my free won't.
Kyle Legate
>
> An athlete claiming innocence is rarely evidence of that being the case.
> Marion Jones comes to mind. And regarding Floyd, from what I read, it would
> be relatively simple to test him to see if he fits into the category of
> those who would show false positives.
>
they all came back negative.
Then WHAMMO!@#
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:67496sF...@mid.individual.net...
So the initial negative tests were all part of the conspiracy? Will the
French stop at nothing? Is Sarkozy involved?
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> Question for you Benjo - during this time there has also been a revolution
> in gearing and the manner in which riders climb. I know that here I am
> nearing 64 and I'm actually climbing faster than when I was in my late 40's
> because I have proper gearing now.
>
> This must have a significant effect among real racers. I suppose the
> question is "by how much?"
By 11/12.
Ben
dbrower
wrote:
Maybe on flats, but I fail to see how that helps climbing. If one
were to observe lots of guys running larger clusters, maybe, but it
appears everybody uses the same 53/39 11 or 12 to 23 cassette they've
run forever.
I'd like to know what other changes in climbing technique are thought
to have emerged in the last 20 years that would make a difference.
-dB
Benjo Maso
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> schreef in bericht
news:CNydnRFCg9jXQ5HV...@earthlink.com...
> "Benjo Maso" <benjo...@chello.nl> wrote in message
> news:6743mmF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> Yesterday Dutch newspaper De Volkstrant suggested that thanks to stricter
>> anti-doping a lot of young unknown Dutch riders are getting the
>> opportunity
>> to break through: Gesink, Langeveld, Maaskant. etc.
>
> But thinking and actuality are two different things. We could mention that
> the peloton is getting older and it would be normal for fresh riders to
> begin looking good. These cycles are all pretty normal.
I'm not taking the Volkskrants's suggestions very serious. But's it's rather
amusing that more than one country is claiming that the disappointing
results of their riders must be explained by the fact that they are "clean",
unlike all those perfidious foreigners. Not only the French and the Dutch,
but the Belgians as well.
I don't know, but I think gearing has undergone its most radical
improvements in the late 1980's. Of course, since then they're gradually
improving as well, but I don't think it makes riders much faster, and
certainly not 12 % in five years. Anyhow, in spite of all improvements
since 1995, Pantani's climb is still the fastest ever.
Benjo
Tom Kunich
>
> I don't know, but I think gearing has undergone its most radical
> improvements in the late 1980's.
Actually I believe that it was Tyler Hamilton that popularized the 32/50
chainrings and now you can get a Campy rear 10 speed cassette with a 29 (!)
tooth low gear. That is a substantial change over what was before where
everyone used a 39/53 and the animals used 42/53 and the rear was always a
12-21, 12-23 or sometimes a 12-25 worst case.
I've found that you can make a single climb in that sort of gearing without
any trouble but repeated difficult climbs with those large gears causes a
lot of leg exhaustion. That effects both the speed over a course and of
course the recovery time for the next day.
> Of course, since then they're gradually improving as well, but I don't
> think it makes riders much faster, and certainly not 12 % in five years.
> Anyhow, in spite of all improvements since 1995, Pantani's climb is still
> the fastest ever.
There's something else going on Benjo - look at the PACE that they're riding
these days. Back in the early 80's and before the teams all rode at moderate
speeds most of the time and then attacked in certain locations. These days
the pack moves along at amazing speeds that I don't think occurred in the
earlier times.
There is also some significance to the training improvements, food
improvements etc. that might have added a couple of percent. Certainly
today's riders are a much better hydrated.
Mike Jacoubowsky
riding
| these days. Back in the early 80's and before the teams all rode at
moderate
| speeds most of the time and then attacked in certain locations. These days
| the pack moves along at amazing speeds that I don't think occurred in the
| earlier times.
In the 'Tour, maybe, but the Giro is (still) known for stages that start out
at a, well, relaxing pace, often not kicking into high gear until the last
quarter of the course. And nobody accuses the Giro of being dope-free.
| Actually I believe that it was Tyler Hamilton that popularized the 32/50
| chainrings and now you can get a Campy rear 10 speed cassette with a 29
(!)
| tooth low gear. That is a substantial change over what was before where
| everyone used a 39/53 and the animals used 42/53 and the rear was always a
| 12-21, 12-23 or sometimes a 12-25 worst case.
It was worse than that. 42t was the *smallest* commonly-available chainring.
And sports being a macho thing, some riders were using 44t.
The gearing Tyler popularized was a 34/50, by the way. There's no way to use
a 32t on a 110mm bolt circle.
The problem with Campy's 29t is that it's only available with a 13t small. A
bit patronizing of Campy, who believes that, if you need a 29t, you
shouldn't be trying to push a 12. Never mind that any hill requiring a 29t
just might have a reason on the other side for using a 12.
SRAM goes too far the other direction. They've come out with a very popular
11-28. But I don't want an 11. I can *wish* I could spin out a 12, but the
truth is, 44mph in a 12 (the point at which I've spun out) is likely beyond
my top sprint speed anyway. I don't think a bigger gear would be any help.
Descending anything that steep, you're often better off just getting as aero
as possible and let gravity do the work. I pass many people on descents who
are pedaling like crazy, and I just float past, silently, knees pushed up
against my stomach and squeezing the top tube, pedals level with the ground.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:RdCdndjUKt4D0pDV...@earthlink.com...
Donald Munro
> The problem with Campy's 29t is that it's only available with a 13t small.
> A bit patronizing of Campy, who believes that, if you need a 29t, you
> shouldn't be trying to push a 12. Never mind that any hill requiring a 29t
> just might have a reason on the other side for using a 12.
I think you need a long cage derailleur too.
Keith
wrote:
Good point, where"s Kunich when you need him ?
Dan Gregory
> It was worse than that. 42t was the *smallest* commonly-available chainring.
> And sports being a macho thing, some riders were using 44t.
I remember (IIRC) that in the UK I had a 52x48 and when I went to
Spain I had 52x42 which was the smallest available at the time (late 50s
early 60s)
SLAVE of THE STATE
> I'd like to know what other changes in climbing technique are thought
> to have emerged in the last 20 years that would make a difference.
It's not technique. It is 33% red herring energy bars.
SLAVE of THE STATE
Not exactly. Cage size is primarily related to needed capacity.
_Increased slant angle_ is the primary answer to wide rear cluster
range. A shallow (road dr) slant angle will cause the top pully to
ride on a large cog, thus an increased slant angle is needed. A
shallow slant angle will allow the top pully to ride closer to the
cogs on a "tight cluster," thus improving shifting.
Of course, bigger capacity and wide rear cluster range have some
relationship, and so we see them often go together, but that is a
secondary, not primary dependence.
SLAVE of THE STATE
> It was worse than that. 42t was the *smallest* commonly-available chainring.
> And sports being a macho thing, some riders were using 44t.
I don't know how macho I am, but I'd use a 53/46-12/22 for crits like
Cat's Hill and I had a 130 BCD.
> The gearing Tyler popularized was a 34/50, by the way. There's no way to use
> a 32t on a 110mm bolt circle.
There is the 110 BCD TA 33t.
> The problem with Campy's 29t is that it's only available with a 13t small. A
> bit patronizing of Campy, who believes that, if you need a 29t, you
> shouldn't be trying to push a 12. Never mind that any hill requiring a 29t
> just might have a reason on the other side for using a 12.
I customize my cassettes. The price is weight.
> SRAM goes too far the other direction. They've come out with a very popular
> 11-28. But I don't want an 11. I can *wish* I could spin out a 12, but the
> truth is, 44mph in a 12 (the point at which I've spun out) is likely beyond
> my top sprint speed anyway. I don't think a bigger gear would be any help.
> Descending anything that steep, you're often better off just getting as aero
> as possible and let gravity do the work. I pass many people on descents who
> are pedaling like crazy, and I just float past, silently, knees pushed up
> against my stomach and squeezing the top tube, pedals level with the ground.
The _old_ Corral Hollow RR course is a good example of a case where an
11t would be nice. For, example, if you got to the finishing straight
of the old course and needed to sprint, you would have wanted an 11t.
It is sloped downward, and a 20 mph tail wind wouldn't be at all
shocking there.
In the good old days of doing the Santa Cruz training rides, one might
as well have had an 11t. If I needed smaller than a 39-17, I was
dropped anyway. The Larkin descent was very brief, but one is
pedaling at 43-45 mph at the bottom, for example, to pop up the
ensuing tiny little hill and false flat.
I think I'm saying "it depends."
Bret
> "Benjo Maso" <benjo.m...@chello.nl> wrote in message
The biggest change in pro climbing technique is that they have to
brake for the hairpin turns these days.
Bret
Mike Jacoubowsky
> 11t would be nice. For, example, if you got to the finishing straight
> of the old course and needed to sprint, you would have wanted an 11t.
> It is sloped downward, and a 20 mph tail wind wouldn't be at all
> shocking there.
Oh thanks, bring up painful memories of the past. Early 70s, jr gear
restriction was 84.9 inches. So that's what I show up with (old Corral
Hollow RR that you mention). BIG tailwind on the finishing straight (as
you're aware).
Nobody told me that they were suspending the jr gear restriction for that
particular race.
Ouch. 4th place in a race I really should have done better, but got totally
spun out in the sprint. Still, it was my fault. I was lazy that day, and
didn't work to break things up on the two climbs (climbing was my thing back
in the day). Actually, there were several of us being lazy. So lazy that Rod
Jewitt, a blocky track sprinter, was there with us at the end. No way should
he have been with us. And you can guess who won.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwh...@ti.com> wrote in message
news:62eff387-9fbc-4998...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Michael Press
Donald Munro <fat-d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
A long cage derailleur is gay.
--
Michael Press