DaLoCo

The only bike I managed to crash at least once out of every three rides

If it rains Vettel will take it...he won his first points in a race where it rained, he is the better wet weather drive....sadly for Ferrari . And yet, the chequered flag has not fallen yet

The law was amended to accept the choice to drive as pre-meditated murder, simply because the heavier sentences would deter people from choosing to drive drunk. If you are under the influence and choose to drive your car it is seen as a pre-meditated action in the eyes of the law. All actions that follow that decision can be seen as intentional. Legally Andre Gouws can be charged with murder. He managed to single-handedly destroy all mitigating circumstance with his actions following the collision. I do agree that some cyclists are right tjops when cycling, but to even consider that as mitigating for the death of one is absurd. Motorists are the major tjops for not knowing the road act regarding the rights of cyclists and pedestrians.

What's written on her shirt

Not bar flies!!

Ah sweet...Joy is back

Kimi bought the whole team each a t-shirt like this

I did the Argus in 2010, bought an entry from someone on The Hub two months before. It does cost extra, but is fairly painless.

Idiot in the good ole SA leaned out of the window to slap a guy on a bike whilst doing about 60....completely dislocated his own shoulder. Guy on the bike had a small tumble and a bit of a bruise where idiot's hand connected.

Yah...Kimi was funny on the radio, and the the podium interviews were just as funny. Kimi : "I get sh*t for not smiling enough" Vettel: "We had a chance to f*ck it up" Coulthard: "We apologise for the language used" Priceless.....

Dear WADA Regarding adverse blood test Please note that I was involved in a road accident and subsequently spent a few days in hospital where I had no control over my medications. I am feeling a lot better now, thanks for asking Kind regards B Wiggins

I tend to recall them selling for about R 20-25k two or three years ago....but cannot remember secs and such.

I saw some 96's at Wayne Pfeiffer on Tuesday, sorry I did not check prices. Give them a call to get the new price, and use that as a starting point

It's true.... http://bicycling.com/blogs/thisjustin/2012/11/07/wiggins-in-hospital-after-being-hit-by-car/

Welcome to skidrow.....

As things would have it, you are in luck...get your orders in as they are flying off the wire....so to speak. Some models are a bit harder to obtain....

The machinations behind the scenes were wild, but what concerns me most is what Judge Sparks said regarding LA future recourse if USADA followed the route they did. Could it be that LA expected this and withdrew tactically so he can now return and attack the case against him. I do not see his refusal to arbitrate as submission. The effect of the USADA sanctions have created precedent whereby LA can now turn to the justice system claiming unfairness and have a chance to win it, which in return will discredit WADA. I am probably just verbalizing what Sparks foresee during the case.

The thing is, they have now created precedent to used this flawed process again....I would be very nervous if I was a top rider, knowing that a governing body is willing to bend the rules to reach a desired outcome. LA doped....no argument

Just voicing the same concerns as Judge Sam Sparks....you know, the judge that threw the whole thing back to USADA. One of his key comments were that though LA has no defense at the time of the case due to the fact that the court cannot rule on hypothetical situations, he might have recourse in the future if USADA does decide to follow a different set of rules where he is concerned. Un-ostrich enough for you? Here is the link: http://leastthing.blogspot.com/2012/08/notes-from-sparks-ruling-on-armstrong.html You will find a link to the full pdf of the judgement with footnotes on the second line.

You cannot claim to have the moral high road whilst using the same tactics...

Morally I agree with you The thing is, USADA had to apply a different set of rules to get to this conclusion. By doing this they have placed their moral standing on shaky ground. Their legal process only pertains to the sport of cycling, and whilst everybody is threatening to sue for sponsorship money and prize money to be returned, it will be far harder to get a justice system to feel satisfied that the evidence is conclusive. Had USADA applied the same rules to everyone and the same conclusion is reached then there would be no question mark over their methodology. The texas judge only ruled that USADA were within their own procedural rights to proceed, not whether there was sufficient evidence of doping. You cannot break your own moral code to reveal immorality, and then claim to stand on the other side untarnished. The compromise they chose will come back to haunt them in future. The impact on the UCI and WADA could irreparable and from a anti-doping point of view could put the sport in a far worse situation than when LA was chief of the doping ring. Some clever legal eagles will use this to find loopholes for their future doping client. Contador has a marginal case to claim back his TdF victory, because by implication the Anti-drug movement is corrupt...just an example.

When my chain started jumping I took it to the LBS and R 35 later it was properly adjusted and has not jumped in any of my rides the last three years. The bike had done about 500 km easy km's from brand new, so nothing was worn. TiBones has hit the nail on the head.