text:
veloclinic: brailsford fortifying the base
""He didn't have the best equipment. I watched his time trial; this was a guy from nowhere, he did this phenomenal performance," Brailsford told VeloNews. "I was like, 'bloody hell, who is this guy?' That was the first time I ever saw him."
40-kilometer course Froome, riding for Kenya, was 17th,…
expert analysis: Ryder Hesjedal 2012 Giro Blood Data
first off the disclaimer:
thissus data provided by JV inna email
not from an official document
fer this reason real journalists n legit experts
have shied away from gettin into it
fer obvious reasons
but seein as captain claims tuh be neither
let's have at it
the first graph is hemoglobin
day 0
is day 1 uv the giro
negative days are from the pre giro period
the second graph is
reticulocyte percentage
the actual data is included at the end uv the post
so whater yuh seein
1. ryders got an ave hgb uv 14.9
2. hgb range uv 16.1 - 14.1
3. during the giro hgb drops from 16 to 14.1
or 11.8% down
remeber 11.5% down is expected based on published lit
again normal
so far so good
but there are some issues
6. may 3rd hgb 16.0
or hgb just before giro start
nearly equals his season high 16.1
not normal
(at this point in the season , yuh'd expect some volume expansion and a lower hgb)
a. Altitude camp ?
vaughters says no
b. lab error
vaughters says yes
hct at giro start was high across the board
so did the lab screw up ?
ie not good
or was the entire peloton doped ?
also not good
is ther supporting evidence uv doping ?
the retic is 1.76
so high hgb + high retic = epo use just prior to the giro
right ?
maybe not
thissus where the biopassport
and establishing individualized baselines comes in to play
4. his ave retic is 1.60
normal retic is 1.0 +/- 0.5
his baseline is
not normal
what about the thresholds?
5. highest retic is 1.93 Nov 14
or 0.3 above baseline
retic above 2.0 or greater than 1.0 above baseline
is considered evidence uv epo use or blood withdrawal
so 1.93 as high as it is
is not unusually elevated above the 1.60 baseline
call it normal
6. lowest retic is is 1.13 feb 29
or 0.47 below the baseline
retic below 0.7/0.5 threshold or down 0.3/0.5 from baseline
is evidence uv blood transfusion/comming off epo
so 1.13 is unusually low fer ryder
but hgb 14.6
is not elevated
so transfusion or comming off is epo not likely
was he sick ?
vaughters says yes
so low hgb and retic
is consistent with viral suppression
call it normal
ok so is his retic uv 1.6 accepted as his "normal" baseline
not yet
need tuh look fer doping that could skew the baseline
is there evidence uv blood withdrawal/transfusion
expected doped pattern would be
retic higher than baseline pre giro/lower than baseline during the giro
7. pre giro ave retic is 1.62
ave giro retic is 1.59
essentially no change
expected clean pattern is no change
so no evidence uv
blood withdrawal/transfusion
(though the outlier retic 1.13 could have skewed the pre giro average)
lastly epo use
do you have high hgb and retic
8. prev mentioned nov 14
hgb 16 retic 1.93
but it's nov
epo use year round ?
off season
hemoconcentration and retic fluctuation
is more likely
call it normal
at this point accept 1.6 retic as a "natural" baseline
so back to
9. may 3 hgb 16 retic 1.73
higher than expected hgb
normal retic
could be epo use
could be normal
any supporting evidence?
does hgb stay abnormally high?
or any evidence uv comming off epo
unexpectedly low retic during giro ?
10. not in this data set
final analysis/opinion
A. Ryder has one abnormally high hgb
on may 3 just prior to the giro
although thiis data point may indicate
a cycle of epo use in the leadup to the giro
the remainder uv the data set
does not support this conclusion
B. the data set is not consistent with
a pattern uv
blood withdrawal/transfusion
C. ryder has an elevated retic at baseline
the data does not suggest
that it is due to manipulation
D. the data is not sufficient to make conclusions
with regards to year round epo microdosing
Nov 14, 2011:
Hb: 16.0
Hct: 44.9
Retic: 1.93
Jan 17, 2012:
Hb: 16.1
Hct: 46.9
Retic: 1.66
Feb 29, 2012
Hb: 14.6
Hct: 42.1
Retic: 1.13
May 3, 2012
Hb: 16.0
Hct: 46.0
Retic: 1.76
May 14, 2012
Hb: 14.1
Hct: 42.3
Retic: 1.56
May 18, 2012
Hct: 42.6
Retic: 1.74
May 17, 2012 AM
Hb: 14.1
Hct: 43.4
Retic: 1.34
May 17, 2012 PM
Hb: 14.1
Hct: 43.4
Retic 1.71
Dispelling the Armstrong "defence".
Far be it for me to continue on the Armstrong theme, but it's still relevant to the sport, even though the sport is doing it's best to keep stony-faced and silent on the issue, so for the moment it's got to be something that everyone keeps pushing to point out the direct problem with drugs in sport.
Something I'm still seeing a lot of is a willingness to continue to peddle soundbites used in Armstrong's defence, as though they're facts. Let's have a look at them:
USADA's process is unconstitutional, and they don't have the right to do this.
A District Court judge disagrees. The long and short of why is reasonably complex, but I'll simplify it as much as possible. The World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) is mandated to stamp out drug use which is performance enhancing or dangerous to health in sport. No sport can be an Olympic Sport without abiding by WADA and the IOC's rules. WADA delegate their authority to national bodies. The United States Olympic Committee's testing and management is carried out by the United States Anti-Doping Authority (USADA), and is an organisation mandated by US Congress to undertake independent drug enforcement and testing for Olympic Sports that athletes from the United States compete in.
USADA's process is a witch-hunt against Lance Armstrong
As their own website demonstrates, USADA has undertaken to punish athletes from all sports under their mandate, without prejudice. You'll find names there you've never heard of, interspersed with the occasional athlete you have. Just because you haven't heard of every case they take to punishment, doesn't mean they're not working fairly and effectively.
USADA plays judge, jury and executioner, and didn't show Armstrong the evidence, so Armstrong couldn't get a fair trial
No, the reality is that the process has a few separate steps along the way. The first step is to inform the accused (Armstrong) that he's been charged with something. Then that person can decide if they want to fight the charges or not. This is the point at which Armstrong tried to stop the whole process, through court action. His mantra was that he wasn't getting a fair attempt to make a defence. The point this misses is that he hadn't elected to make a defence. Think about this as a comparison:
If I'm charged with committing a crime, I don't get to see the evidence first. I (think Armstrong) go in front of a judge (think USADA) who asks me how I plead. If I answer 'guilty' or 'no contest' (the latter is what Lance did), then the accuser doesn't need to present evidence showing how I did it - I've already accepted that I did, and don't wish to fight the charge and see the evidence presented. If I answer 'not guilty', then we go to a jury (think arbitrators), I get to see the evidence before it's presented, and then argue against it in front of that jury.
What Lance wanted to do was see the evidence before making a plea. What he also fails to disclose is how that 'jury' (I'll call them arbitrators from here) was made up.
The arbitration panel is made up of three people from a registered and approved pool. USADA get to choose one. Lance Armstrong would have gotten to choose one. Those two arbitrators then would get together and choose the third. It makes it an unbiased process then, and ensures neither side gets to hand-pick the arbitrators to make the process of hearing evidence unfair.
How can USADA charge him without a positive test?
Well, the reality is that USADA were claiming Armstrong had tests showing he was blood doping, in 2009, during his second 'comeback'. They had evidence to show this, and were going to present it if Armstrong had made that 'not guilty' plea.
But Lance had over 500 tests and never tested positive!
Well, for starters, this figure is an outright lie. As dimspace's excellent graphic shows below (source), Armstrong probably had a total test figure over his entire career that was likely less than half of that figure. As I've also demonstrated here, Armstrong had tested positive on at least two occasions prior, but they were covered up.
USADA don't have the right to take away Armstrong's titles
The answer to this one is a bit complex, but the reality is that they do, albeit indirectly. Cycling's governing body, the UCI, ultimately controls the history books for cycling races. But as a signatory to the IOC, and as an Olympic event, they agree to abide by all decisions made WADA, and all delegated national anti-doping authorities, including penalties made affecting results under their management. The UCI can appeal this to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, but they are extremely likely to be unsuccessful. In any case, why would they want to keep a person as a winner who's elected not to contest cheating?
But Bjarne Riis admitted to doping and got to keep his title!
This one is a bit more complex - but the gist of it is that Riis admitted to doping outside the statute of limitations (or more than 8 years later). Consequently he couldn't be charged and penalised for his actions when he won.
But Armstrong get penalised for things more than eight years ago!
That's because of two things: The precedent set in a case against Eddy Hellebuyck, and Armstrong's testimony in his lawsuit against SCA Promotions, in early 2006. Basically what it means is this: If you lie under oath, then the statute of limitations can be set back from the date of that lie - because if you'd told the truth, you would have been penalised there and then from that date.
So instead of Armstrong's eight years going back from 2012 when he was charged, by Armstrong making that lie under oath in 2006 means that the statute of limitations could pre-date that, to 1998 - which is the year Armstrong loses all his achievements from.
But weren't they all doping, so it was a level playing field? And that Armstrong was probably still the best cyclist?
It's not as simple as that. Drugs affect human bodies in different ways. Athletes in endurance sports are very heavily dependant on the bloodstream to carry oxygen around the body. It aids recovery, and so aids the ability to make bigger efforts for longer. Basically, you can respond to drugs differently, with no control over it yourself. It's why people with immense levels of 'fight' and 'determination' die to cancer and other diseases, and why people who don't display those traits can still beat it. Medical Science and Human genetics in that respect are still a bit of a mystery.
What we do know is that those same traits which make for a superb endurance athlete also make for them to be far less likely to respond to those drugs which stimulate red blood cells to carry oxygen. So the less of an athlete you are in that respect, the more you'll gain from using those drugs.
So ultimately it wasn't a level playing field at all - people simply had no control over how much of an advantage they could get, and as a result, races weren't decided by how good a cyclist you were, but simply by how well you could win the lottery of your body responding to the drugs introduced into it. So it's highly likely races were won by cyclists who ordinarily wouldn't have had a chance of winning.
Lance's good work with his charity far outweighs any bad that he did in cycling
Well, that depends on your viewpoint. Lance is very big on the rhetoric of "helping fight this disease". But the reality is that people don't fight the disease - medicine does. And his charity haven't donated anything to cancer research for over two years now.
You could also make the point that his charity is entirely dependant on his name, success and fame for it's work. Given that we now know his success to be perpetuated upon a lie (and continued upon its persistent success), is it really fair to do good things if they're based on a lie? Or, as I read recently: If I go and rob a bank, does that crime get outweighed by me giving all that money to charity?
The people testifying against Armstrong are just liars, jealous that he beat them seven times.
Well, this simply isn't true. Cycling is a team sport. The leaders are dependant upon their team-mates to protect them, to fetch them water, and to help them in many ways. Each rider on Armstrong's team knew they were riding for him. They weren't ever going to win those races, and they weren't going to be the leader of that team either. As a result they weren't ever competing against him.
Nor do they have a reason simply to make up lies. All of them lose far more than they gain - they have their own legacies tarnished for the most part, and public opinion swings against them for lying about doping in the first place. So that leaves money as a prime motive. In which case, can't the reverse be true? Couldn't Armstrong have simply doped (and lied about it) for money, fame and prestige? Could he have covered it up to continue to enjoy those things?
It's also worth mentioning that, as part owner of Armstrong's cycling team, he also had a direct influence on the riders that it hired to help him win. Was Lance such a poor judge of character that he would hire riders on his team, and that they would be fiercely loyal to him, even years after they left, only to turn on him now? That seems unlikely.
Why isn't USADA prosecuting those people who admitted to doping?
Well, there's one of two explanations for this: The first is that their own admitted use falls outside the statute of limitations (as is the case with Jonathan Vaughters), but the other explanation is more accurate for those whose use falls within that statute: The anonymity of those testifying is paramount to avoid retribution (from several sources) prior to their evidence being heard in the ongoing cases against people still active in the sport of cycling. It's likely they'll be dealt with later.
Why are they getting reduced sentences as rumoured?
Although this has been denied from several reports, think of it as time off for good behaviour, or striking a plea bargain. Some time ago USADA invited all implicated cyclists to come forward and give evidence about what they knew about doping. The only cyclist to decline this opportunity was Armstrong. For cooperating with authorities, USADA are entitled to hand down reduced suspensions - and they have a clear history of doing that in the sanctions they've handed down in the past.
Why don't they let them just all dope then if they can't catch them?
The answer to this one simply lies in public health. Do we turn a blind eye and allow people to do something dangerous to their body, simply in the pursuit of a medal, money or achievement? Seems a little morally reprehensible. The reality is that plenty of sports-people have died as a result of improper drug usage, and given the option, there's evidence athletes may dope even if it kills them.
In a study conducted from 1982 to 1995, athletes were given a Faustian bargain: They could take a drug which guaranteed them sporting success but would also certainly kill them in five years time. An astonishing amount of athletes answered they would take that. It became known as the Goldman Dilemma. Somewhat curiously, a similar study revealed that members of the general population would almost universally decline the offer. It highlights the differences between risks taken by athletes, and therefore the responsibilities of society to prevent harm occurring.
But Lance was retired, why are they going after him?
Lance was actually an active athlete, in the sport of triathlon which, as an Olympic sport, is subject to the same controls and authorities as cycling is. He was attempting to compete in triathlon's show-piece event in Kona. He may have been retired from one sport, but he was certainly competing in others, and should therefore be held just as accountable as any other active athlete for their actions.
In summary: It's worth mentioning here this isn't just about Lance. Five other people were charged directly alongside Armstrong, including doctors, team management, and two others immediately elected not to contest their charges. Armstrong is not alone, hasn't been singled out, and wasn't unfairly dealt with. What happened, instead, was that he knew the volume of evidence against him was going to prove overwhelming, and it was more damaging to him to have it heard than to accept being guilty.
Which makes you wonder, when someone prefers to be announced guilty rather than have the evidence heard, how bad must that evidence have sounded?
As always, I'm available on twitter if you've got a comment. Thanks for reading!
Where to from here?
So, now that the evidence is beginning to come, not so much as a trickle, but more as a flood against Lance Armstrong, what does it all mean for cycling's future?
The reality of that will be measured by who else is implicated. If (or more likely, when) Johan Bruyneel is found guilty, Team Radioshack are likely looking for an entirely new staffing team. That's a relatively simple process by most standards, but doesn't directly impact upon the sport.
True change comes when someone's brave enough to show the levels of complicity within the governing body - the UCI - as far as Armstrong's case involved them. Only specifically when someone names McQuaid et al as being part of Armstrong's cover-up will there be any form of pressure for change at the top of the sport. The UCI's lack of popularity with teams, riders and supporters is well known - but despite all of that, there is no catalyst for change. Why?
The answer to that question is simple, but as in the cause of a lot of things, often the best: money. As long as sponsors stay with the UCI, there's no reason for their governance to change in their eyes. But, sponsors are fickle. They're only happy so long as their product is presenting with a reputable ideal. Take team sponsors for example - how often have we seen a sponsor bail on a team after a drug scandal or positive tests?
But scandals involving teams don't affect the UCI's sponsors. They don't (directly) affect the UCI's income - so there's no reason for them to leave. But an allegation of corruption, of directly running an unfair competition for their own financial benefit? That's the sort of thing no reputable company wants to be a part of. So it ultimately boils down to the reporting - or public evidence.
We know that several USPS staff members have elected for arbitration now, but the scope of the UCI's involvement with them may be somewhat more limiting in evidence, given that it was Armstrong who had direct access to the very top of the UCI, and not the team members.
So, if there's only a very slim chance for criticism of - or evidence against - the UCI, where does that leave cycling? With the same people in charge, and only a few guilty parties penalised? No thanks. Armstrong may be the very public PR prize, but in terms of importance he ranks only third or fourth.
So, which route does the sport go down? Truth and reconciliation? If so, how?
The reality is, whilst riders are afraid to speak out against the terms of their employment and the governing body, truth and reconciliation won't work. As inrng's piece here shows, it's only effective once there is a sincere willingness from all parties to genuinely discuss and learn from the past. Could we say that about all of the riders, teams, and the governing body? I'm not so sure.
Bjarne Riis, for example, was named this week in Tyler Hamilton's book as having not just doped when he was a rider (as he admitted to in the past), but for facilitating doping as a team owner. Riis, of course, was quick to deny the accusation - just as he did when he was riding. In that respect, he's the classic example of someone who can't be trusted, and shouldn't be near the sport again.
There's also the problem of having the UCI be a willing participant. Many riders are fearful of retribution from the UCI these days. Without the UCI being absolutely dedicated to true transparency and education - even at the potential cost of individuals within it - any T&R process is destined for failure, because the only way it works is if you can guarantee nobody will be vilified for speaking out. Cycling, as we've seen with Bassons and many others, does not have a good record for being able to commit to that process.
So change must come from within, and one of two ways. Either a process which places intense scrutiny and pressure upon the UCI, by way of external concerns over transparency which directly affects the UCI's ability to govern effectively and be a credible organisation, or through internal pressure. Teams dedicated to a better way of running their own sport, with a greater say and more financial power could certainly effect large change for the better.
We've seen it before: dissatisfaction with the governing body resulting in teams looking for better conditions, and it can work as demonstrated so aptly by England's Premier League. But it requires iron will to see it through to that conclusion. It may be that a split from the UCI is what professional cycling really needs. But if we start down the path of greater commercialisation, does that lead us back down the dark path again towards doping? After all, if it wasn't for money and prestige, we probably wouldn't have ended up here in the first place.
For now, there's far more questions than there are answers. We can only hope that the forthcoming revelations prove to be just that, and provide clarity for what is undoubtedly a key point in time for the sport of cycling.
Questions? Comments? Contact me on twitter - I'm happy to converse, even if you disagree!
It's about the money
As I wrote a few days ago, we now know that Armstrong had a long history around doping - and that he got some help. Now we'll look at how this help was built around him to create an empire that thrived upon the myth of Lance - both in terms of the people who profited, and in terms of the importance of Lance.
It's worth me mentioning here that cycling teams tend to be owned by companies, but take on the name of the sponsor. The company that managed the US Postal team Armstrong enjoyed his success with was named Tailwind Sports. It's directors were, amongst others:
Lance Armstrong
Bill Stapleton
Thomas Weisel
Now, we could start with any of their directors and be able to follow a long trail. But let's start with the man second on the list, Bill Stapleton.
Stapleton has been Lance Armstrong's agent since 1995. He was there before the cancer, and he's been there ever since. Now, Stapleton has worn a lot of hats, and most of those gain great benefit from the myth of Lance. Stapleton is the chief management officer of Livestrong, and sits on several other companies , including Capitol Sports & Entertainment. But let's allow CSE to tell the story:
Today, CSE is an integrated marketing and investment company with Lance as a key partner. Bill acts as CMO for the LIVESTRONG brand on behalf of the Lance Armstrong Foundation, serves on the boards of Stubb's (the club destination for live music in Austin) and FRS, and continues to represent Lance in all aspects of his business.
Note that carefully and distinctly. The Lance Armstrong Foundation is the charity. Livestrong is a brand, and has a very distinctive 'for profit' arm. It's fair to say that all of those are dependant upon Armstrong's image being that of the clean hero who overcame cancer, and in Stapleton's role as Armstrong's agent, it's his job to promote that. But those aren't the only hats Stapleton has worn.
Stapleton also served as a vice-president on the United States Olympic Committee, whose mission is:
To support U.S. Olympic and Paralympic athletes in achieving sustained competitive excellence and to preserve the Olympic Ideals, thereby inspiring all Americans.
Now, it goes without saying that Armstrong's doping goes entirely against the Olympic ideal of clean sport. But did you also know that Stapleton was instrumental in the removal of Marty Mankamyer and the sanctioning of the USOC's CEO, Lloyd Ward, for ethics violations? Wouldn't representing an athlete you know to be doping, and whose activities you have managed and covered up also be some fairly heavy ethics violations, particularly when the most flagrant breaches occurred during the time you were supposed to be upholding the Olympic ideal?
But the most interesting thing about this, of course, is that Bill Stapleton was part of the committee responsible for creating USADA, and it's regulations. Didn't hear Armstrong complaining about that then? No, neither did I. In fact, Armstrong agreed to be bound by their regulations and arbitration a further four times after USADA's creation. One can only assume that Armstrong thought they were a great organisation when they were finding other athletes guilty, including his ex-teammates, simply because the man with his best interests at heart had created the organisation. Perhaps the most ironic thing is that Stapleton had called for congressional involvement in the USOC, which led to the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act - a process which Armstrong was to try and claim meant that USADA was a state actor, and therefore couldn't charge him under the processes Armstrong had agreed to. Now, either Armstrong has the most seriously inept agent in the world, or the most two-faced, inept sports administrator. Somehow I don't think Armstrong will be lining up to convict him on either count while the dollars keep coming in.
Thomas Weisel is an investment banker by trade, and an extremely successful one. His company, Montgomery Securities, was the sponsor of Armstrong's first cycling team, Montgomery-Subaru, for whom he rode before making the US National Team. Many of the directors of Montgomery Securities would form Thomas Weisel Partners, an investment firm. Thomas Weisel would also serve on the board of the USA Cycling Development Foundation (USACDF), along with Armstrong and other members of Tailwind Sports. This was apparently a non-profit organisation. In 2000, Weisel organised a buyout of USA Cycling - and this is where it gets interesting - and a new board was appointed. On this board were appointed Steve Johnson from the USACDF, and a man named Jeff Garvey, who was the first chairman of…Livestrong, and currently serves as it's vice-chairman. I intentionally won't link to their website (I feel there's thousands of more worthy cancer charities out there who do something for actual research), but it's there, in all it's glory.
So now not only do we have people on the board of Livestrong also on the board of USA Cycling, but the organisations are becoming entrenched with people responsible for punishing doping cyclists prior to USADA, and at the same time, responsible for protecting and building Armstrong as an asset as part of his brand.
But back to Thomas Weisel. Montgomery Securities would go on to fund a company named Amgen, a pharmaceutical company. They, in turn, would sponsor the Tour of California. But what their business came from was the sale of the one drug that would later be at the center of most doping storms - Amgen were the manufacturer of Epogen, one of the most common brands of EPO. Amgen were also a corporate sponsor of….Livestrong.
There's a hell of a lot of business links which are dependant on Armstrong's continued image and success, and I'd encourage everyone reading to thank dimspace, whose outstanding spreadsheet hosted at Velorooms formed the basis for much of this. So much of it I omitted from here for the purpose of brevity, but anyone with an interest in cycling should look carefully at it, because MANY of those people are still involved in professional cycling today, not least of whom are two of the most recognisable voices in cycling, Paul Sherwen and Phil Liggett. Sherwen especially has business interests with Armstrong - so if you ever hear him commentate, listen for the occasional mention of Armstrong, and the character with which he's referred.
I guarantee you drugs and doping will be the furthest thing from his mouth. He'll happily sing the praises of Lance the cancer-fighter, as though that ever remotely had a hand in curing the disease. He may even mention the words 'witch hunt'.
Any questions? Follow me on twitter: https://twitter.com/cavalierfc
It's not about the bike
There's a lot of misinformation out there following Lance Armstrong's decision to accept a life ban rather than contest charges of doping. Let's correct some of it, and show you the man behind all of the myths. As we go along, you'll see that allegations against Armstrong have been there not just since he began winning the Tour de France, but that he's been associated with people around doping almost since he began competing in organised sport. Be warned: This is a very long read. I intended it to be as concise as possible, and for that reason I've been unable to shorten it.
Lance Armstrong was 18 when he first met Chris Carmichael, in 1990. Carmichael was the new head of the US cycling team, and was an ex-professional with experience on the American 7-11 team, competing in one Tour de France which he failed to finish. Carmichael was named and sued by two other cyclists also training with him at this time, Greg Strock and Erich Keiter, for doping them with cortisone, steroids, and other various products during the 1990 season. Carmichael settled this case out of court, in 2001, but the evidence was damning - there was systemic doping and corruption in the US coaching system during Carmichael's time there.
The doping undertaken by Carmichael and others on these junior riders posed significant health risks to both of the men, a core concern about the risks of doping in sport. Of course, Lance Armstrong was a team-mate back then. Armstrong would go on to work with Carmichael for the rest of his sporting career.
Yet this week, Carmichael's response to Lance Armstrong's acceptance of is ban is simple: He believes that Lance was the best athlete, but at no point does he say that Armstrong never doped - he only made a statement that he'd never seen him do so. The lack of a specific denial there is key and follows a very clear theme - Armstrong would never say that he'd never doped. Instead, he would say one of two themes, that he'd either never tested positive (note here: this isn't correct, and we'll go over that later), or that he'd never been caught.
Armstrong went on to race in Europe after that period with Carmichael and the US team. In 1992 he raced with Motorola, and in 1993 he won both the US national title and the World Championship in a race in horrible weather, including roads covered in a torrential downpour, rendering the road surface slippery like ice due to the diesel and oil on them. The inclement conditions resulted in one of the smallest finishing fields in history, and the withdrawal of the majority of race favourites citing the danger the weather presented.
Allegations about Armstrong's involvement with drugs come from at least this far back. Steve Swart, team-mate of Armstrong's on Motorola, said that Armstrong was the central figure in encouraging riders to dope. His claims were published in two books, and Armstrong sued after their publication: He dropped one lawsuit in France, and had another dismissed, being slightly more successful when obtaining a judgement in England after a newspaper there printed an excerpt about it. But where the books were published, in France, Armstrong never had a case - it was not proven the books were lying.
Armstrong enjoyed mixed success from that point onward - winning the occasional one day race or stage and podium places on a few others. There was nothing in his ability level which suggested he had the ability to win a Grand Tour - in fact it was the very opposite. In 1995 he managed to finish the Tour at the third time of asking, in 36th place.
Armstrong's career continued along these lines, with sporadic wins, until he met (and began working with) Italian doctor, Michele Ferrari in 1996. Michele Ferrari is a doctor who has been implicated in evidence from a number of athletes, and banned for life by the Italian Olympic Committee. No Italian athlete is permitted to work with him, and breaches are punishable with bans. More on him a little later.
Armstrong famously got very ill in 1996, contracting cancer. The signs of this showed up very early in the year, but weren't recognised. This is important: Armstrong, despite having cancer, put in some of his best ever performances. A debilitating disease (at least, Armstrong's own foundation lists it as such) was having a chronic effect on his body and yet he was performing better than ever before, despite Armstrong's own admission that he'd noticed abnormalities related to the cancer three years before his diagnosis.
But there's a subscript to his cancer that hasn't really been explored: Armstrong by his own claim is the most tested athlete on the planet, and given he enjoyed considerable success in 1996 and beforehand, would certainly have been subject to numerous doping controls. Some cancers - including the type Lance Armstrong had - cause enormously elevated levels of human chorionic gonadotropin hormone (hCG), a naturally occuring hormone in the body, but at low levels in males. Now, there are rules for the amount of hCG permitted in an athlete, because it offers a competitive advantage - not enough to overcome the deficiencies cancers cause, but a good advantage in a healthy human being, because it produces testosterone. An athlete is often considered to have failed a drug test if the urinary T/E (Testosterone:Epitestosterone) ratio is greater than 6. So the UCI would have been testing for it, and Armstrong's cancer would have resulted in an enormously elevated T/E ratio.
But Armstrong never produced a positive sample. Compare that with Jake Gibb whose life, it could be argued, was saved by USADA's testing, when it detected those hugely elevated levels in an anti-doping test, and advised him to see a doctor. That ultimately led to the discovery of testicular cancer, and Gibb recovered. Lance Armstrong wasn't so lucky - so we can assume one of two things. Either the UCI's anti-doping measures were woefully below standard, and didn't detect Armstrong's elevated levels of hCG, allowing his cancer to worsen while competing, or the UCI's anti-doping discovered Armstrong's elevated levels and didn't report them. Either way, it's a massive condemnation in the UCI's ability to validate itself as a serious entity in drug testing. At best it's woefully ineffective, at worst it's simply corrupt.
Ultimately nobody can fight off cancer without medicine, and Armstrong's condition worsened, until he finally went to a doctor where the diagnosis was confirmed, and Armstrong began urgent treatment.
As part of that treatment, Armstrong, scared and with nobody with knowledge to consult about his condition, was asked in hospital whether he'd ever used any performance-enhancing drugs(PEDs). His response, as detailed by npr, and in evidence given by Betsy Andreu, was to list off a reel of drugs which he'd taken.
Betsy Andreu's deposition was given and submitted as evidence years later, when SCA promotions was taken to court by Armstrong for non-payment of a bonus. SCA's defence was that Armstrong had used PEDs, and they obtained Andreu's evidence to defend that claim. Armstrong, by now estranged from the Andreus , had not spoken to them for years. But when he learned that the Andreus were to be subpoenaed, he made the extraordinary step of contacting Frankie Andreu in an attempt to influence his testimony, and that of his wife, Betsy, who declined to give a statement along Armstrong's version of events. Frankie was rattled - he said in his evidence that he hadn't wanted to testify but had been forced to by the subpoena - but he corroborated his wife's version of events; that Armstrong had confessed to PED use. Armstrong, in a further attempt to intimidate Betsy Andreu when giving evidence, flew to witness her doing exactly that, sitting in the back of the room during her deposition, saying nothing, and then immediately flying back home. In the process that followed he attempted to characterise Betsy as fat, ugly, obsessed and jealous. Hard to characterise any of those as true if you saw her or listened to watch she had to say.
Ultimately, modern medicine saved Armstrong. That fact has been distorted as years have gone by with Armstrong's claim to be riding to 'fight' the disease - when the only time it's been beaten is with the help of medicine and drugs. The ironic thing here is that steroid usage has been proven to cause cancer, and was suggested by a former WADA spokesman to have possible been complicit in Armstrong contracting the disease.
Ultimately, Armstrong found it difficult to find a team after recovering, and ended up on the US Postal team, which from 1999 onward would have it's management under the direction of former ONCE rider, Johan Bruyneel. ONCE were a Spanish cycling team heavily implicated in EPO usage in investigations following the 1998 Tour de France.
In 1997, Armstrong's agent, Bill Stapleton, became an official of the US Olympic Committee. Sports Illustrated would report years down the track that Armstrong, in three tests the 90s, produced samples that indicated doping with testosterone. The anti-doping scientist who allegedly tested these samples was Don Catlin. He was unable to confirm two of the tests - a highly irregular occurrence - and refused to comment on the third. Don Catlin would later be called to oversee Armstrong's "transparent" testing during his comeback - a process which covered only a single test before it was aborted. Having an atmosphere where two men so closely tied in business relationships with Armstrong wouldn't be conducive to finding a positive test against him.
With Armstrong's return to the bike in 1998 came the return to working with Michele Ferrari. Armstrong would later state to Floyd Landis, a team-mate on the USPS team, that Michele Ferrari was paranoid that he'd helped cause the cancer through his providing the drugs Armstrong was using in 1996. Ferrari, the team doctor on Gewiss-Ballan, had been famous for his statement that 'EPO was no more dangerous than drinking orange juice', when suspicions began to arise about drug use due to Gewiss' sudden exceptional performances. Ferrari immediately got Armstrong back into an intensive program of drug use. The net result was Armstrong, cancer-free and drug-boosted, beginning to suddenly make the cycling world sit up and take notice with increased endurance, producing performances in stage races. Make no bones about it: Cancer does not cause this. It doesn't transform an athlete into a super-athlete. This has never happened before, or since. That's because it doesn't happen. Armstrong's 4th placed finish at the Tour of Spain confirmed the work Ferrari had been doing. The next thing to do was to take it to the next level.
1998's Festina scandal did produce a diamond from the rough: Riders implicated in Festina's team-wide doping scandal all said that Christophe Bassons had been the only rider on his team to refuse to take drugs. Bassons, cleared of any wrongdoing, was invited to write newspaper articles the following year when he was to ride, for a new team (FDJ), in the Tour de France. Bassons wrote largely innocuous columns, but one in particular came to the attention of Armstrong. Bassons had written that Armstrong's return, suddenly to the head of the pack, had 'shocked' the peloton.
Armstrong's response was to question the rider during a subsequent stage, inform Bassons that "it was a mistake to speak out" about doping, asking why he'd done it. Bassons responded by telling Armstrong that he was 'thinking of the next generation of riders'. Armstrong's response to Bassons was to tell him "Why don't you leave then?". Armstrong confirmed this version of events, and stated to the press that evening "His accusations aren't good for cycling, for his team, for me, for anybody. If he thinks cycling works like that, he's wrong and he would be better off going home."
The problem was, of course, that Bassons had seen his entire team found guilty of it - cycling did work like that, and he was the lone voice at that point to speak up about it. Armstrong's suggestion that he leave the sport was, therefore, an admission that Bassons was, at least in Armstrong's eyes, unwelcome. Bassons was ostracised, and forced to leave the race. Armstrong had effectively bullied him out of the sport Bassons was trying to clean up. Bassons attempted to ride on for two more years, but it wasn't a hospitable place. He now works in anti-doping.
This wasn't the last time Armstrong would, mid-race, seek to influence another cyclist's view on doping. But nor was it the only relevant point in that race.
In 1999, Lance Armstrong tested positive for a prohibited substance in a urine test: corticosteroids. Armstrong produced a prescription for a cream, claiming it was being used to treat saddle sores, a common ailment amongst cyclists. The problem with this was that riders are required to produce these prescriptions prior to use, and prior to testing. Armstrong had not done so, and consequently had indeed tested positive. Not only that, but Armstrong, as corroborated by a staff member at the time, obtained and then back-dated that prescription after the positive test had taken place.
That staff member was Emma O'Reilly, a soigneur (basically a jack-of-all-trades within a team, but commonly a masseuse). She also stated that Armstrong had made her dispose of syringes, traffic drugs for him and use make-up to cover up needle marks on his arms. Armstrong, in an attempt to discredit O'Reilly, would stoop as low as he could go: He alleged she was having multiple sexual relationships with riders on the team, called her a liar, and her employment was disposed of, for telling the truth.
Perhaps out of complicity, or perhaps out of guilt for not detecting Lance Armstrong's cancer, the UCI then decided to take no more action. Armstrong's positive was seemingly buried into history with his repeated claims that he 'never tested positive'.
Armstrong, fresh from that success in the 1999 tour, went on to win in 2000 and 2001, where the most serious and damning issue in his whole career took place.
The Tour of Switzerland is one of two races normally ridden as preparation for the Tour de France, the other being the Dauphine Libere, and Armstrong headed to Switzerland as part of his preparation for the defence of his Tour de France.
Armstrong, fresh with a warning from Michele Ferrari not to use EPO, as a test had been formulated and ratified, tested positive for exactly that in Switzerland in 2001. This has been corroborated by multiple people, including ex-Armstrong team-mates, and the lab director (Martial Saugy) who, although initially stating through the media that this hadn't occurred, later corrected his stance, and told the only anti-doping agency to ask him, that it was a positive. Saugy has also stated that he was told by a prominent person at the UCI that it wasn't going any further. The directive to make it disappear was delivered by none other than the head of the UCI at the time, Hein Verbrugghen.
This is worth emphasising: A number of people testified that Lance Armstrong testified positive for EPO, and that Armstrong's influence with the governing body of the sport made that positive test simply disappear. That's another nail in the coffin of Lance's "never tested positive" diatribe. Two positive tests, two years apart. But that wasn't to be the end.
What came out of that was the most damning evidence of corruption possible. Armstrong made two payments to the UCI, totalling $125,000. The UCI has said these were to purchase anti-doping equipment. They have never produced the receipts to corroborate this. Regardless of where that money went, it is unprecedented that an active athlete would voluntarily pay a sum of money to a governing body. If it's happened before, or since, I'd be amazed.
In 2002, Armstrong was exposed as working with Michele Ferrari. This caused considerable consternation due to Ferrari's history and comments about drugs in sport. Floyd Landis, a team-mate of Lance Armstrong's, would later disclose that Michele Ferrari would withdraw blood from him, to be transfused back into his blood stream at the Tour de France - as serious a doping breach as has ever taken place.
Fast-forward to 2003, and an Italian cyclist named Fillipo Simeoni becomes enemy number one for Lance Armstrong. Simeoni had admitted in evidence that he'd (Simeoni) begun doping in 1993 and Armstrong's doctor, Michele Ferrari, had prescribed and showed him how to use products like EPO and HGH in 1996 and 1997. Simeoni subsequently served a suspension in 2001/2002. Armstrong's response in 2003 was to call Simeoni a liar in a newspaper interview - as though Simeoni would, for no reason, gain himself a suspension and make it up. Simeoni's response was to then sue Armstrong for defamation, announcing any winnings would be donated to charity. Things reached a head in the 2004 Tour de France.
On the 18th stage, Simeoni put in an attack, and joined a breakaway of 6 other riders. That breakaway posed no threat to the leaders of the tour, and normally would have been let go, to be chased down later in the stage, or to win it. But Armstrong had other ideas. Vengeance was the plan, and it was exacted. Armstrong himself attacked, and immediately closed the gap to the breakaway. The riders, in the knowledge the peloton would not let Armstrong get away, knew they would be caught. The other six in the break implored Armstrong to return to the group, but Armstrong would not leave unless Simeoni did also. Simeoni sacrificed his own race, rejoined the group and Armstrong did the same. When Simeoni dropped back, he was abused, and Armstrong made a famous gesture of zipping his lips. The implication was clear: shut your mouth, or you will never get any success. Armstrong subsequently was indicted by Italian authorities and was lucky to escape charges of witness intimidation. Simeoni, due to Lance's actions, was ostracised, spat at, abused, and finished his career as a journeyman of sorts, mostly untouched by cycling teams at the highest level. He was persona non grata, for speaking out against the man who'd helped him dope, and who just happened to be Armstrong's doctor.
2005 brought more things to light. Armstrong's former personal assistant, Mike Anderson saw a box of androstenone - a steroid - when cleaning Armstrong's apartment. Anderson's deposition in a lawsuit against Armstrong detailed systemic bullying and harassment against both Anderson and his wife, both in the period of Anderson's employment and afterward. Armstrong settled the case out of court.
The most explosive issue though, was the discovery of Armstrong's 1999 Tour de France samples. A test for EPO wasn't available back in 1999, and so samples couldn't be tested for it at the time. As was practice though, samples were stored in the event they could be retested later. After an EPO test became available, Armstrong's samples were amongst a batch to be retested. Six of Armstrong's samples tested positive for EPO, a result one of the world's leading anti-doping scientists verified as being almost impossible to have occurred any other way than through drug usage. Chalk that up as another nail in the "never tested positive" coffin. Unfortunately, Armstrong wasn't prosecuted (again!) on these EPO positives - the retests were for research purposes, not anti-doping ones, and so the UCI declined to pursue the matter further.
Armstrong retired, confident in the knowledge his cheating hadn't been punished.
Except that, in 2008, he announced a comeback. This is important today for two reasons:
1) Without this comeback, he wouldn't have finally been caught and banned.
2) It provided the evidence that finally caught Lance Armstrong.
As mentioned earlier, Lance announced, to much fanfare, that he was going to be tested by Don Catlin, once and for all, to prove his innocence, and publish the results on his website.
Armstrong stopped the arrangement after a single test, presumably fearful of it actually turning up a positive result. He did continue to post his bio-passport figures though, including changing some of them after their publication in an attempt to make them less suspicious.
Armstrong was permitted to ride despite not having fulfilled a mandatory period of testing for the new bio-passport prior to competing - yes, that's the UCI being complicit in shifting the goalposts again.
Regardless, science and the sport had moved on somewhat, and Lance's blood values ultimately assisted in bringing him down - his values in the Tour of Italy in May were largely what should be expected of an athlete competing in endurance sport. But in the Tour de France, they were the opposite, and displayed evidence that he had been receiving blood transfusions during the race. This was to form part of USADA's case against Armstrong - and he knew it.
In 2010, more bad news: Armstrong's former team-mates began to admit their own doping histories, and when asked, admitted that Armstrong had both used doping products and facilitated the supply of them to his team, along with doctors and management. Armstrong's response was to smear the character of the individuals - a tactic which I've shown was a standard response for every allegation dating back to the mid 90s.
Finally, in 2012, an anti-doping agency would finally collate all the evidence to bring charges against Lance Armstrong. Armstrong would identify the extent of his guilt, and accept the charges without contest. But he'd intentionally obfuscate, lie, and make false allegations about the entire proceeding to prevent the evidence from becoming public, and to smear those presenting them. He'd enlist the help of organisations who helped cover up positive test results, who he sent money to, and who fought themselves to try and keep it quiet.
Yellow wristbands are too important you see. Lance was never doing it for cancer. His actions prove - Lance was always doing it for himself, and by extension, he became worth a lot to other people.
If you've read this far, congratulations. You're probably in one of three mindsets:
- Stunned at the extent of what has gone on and amazed. This isn't uncommon amongst people who discover the truth. My only request to you is that you don't allow lies and misinformation to distort the wonderful work of the people in anti-doping. They aren't conducting witch-hunts. They're after clean sport, and to protect the lives of athletes. They're trying to stop cyclists dying in their sleep from EPO thickening their bloodstream.
- Completely disagreeing with everything I've shown you here, and labelling me a hater. If so, you're looking for something you'll never find. Enjoy your yellow wristbands, post on Lance's facebook about how he's an idol and role model. People who saw his behaviour will disagree, and they've a little more experience than you.
- Thinking 'I knew this already'. Yes, but for every one of you, there's a thousand people who don't know it. Send them here. Show them the truth, so that we can stop this behaviour happening again.
Me? Even while writing this I was still stunned by how much there was, and I've known about much of it for years. I never thought I'd fill almost 4,000 words detailing bullying, harassment, and efforts to keep drug-taking in sport quiet. I pray nobody has to again. Even now, I know I missed a lot of it. I may have to do some edits to give even more detail and context.
Am I a hater? You bet. I'm a hater of drug-taking athletes the world over. Most of all, I detest behaviour that ostracises, punishes, and abuses people simply because they dared to tell the truth, to rid themselves of guilt, and seeks to ruin their lives. I hate corrupt organisations that run sports, and I hate the people who foster that corruption.
Any questions? Follow me on twitter: https://twitter.com/cavalierfc
The winds of change pt2
In Part One of this article I covered the UCI's mismanagement of the sport, and what the financial implications of that were. The sport's spectacular failure to directly engage sponsors also has something else which contributes to it, and in this respect it also fails spectacularly in getting it's own supporters onside.
Assuming the USADA case against Lance Armstrong is successful, it will mean that nine of the last fourteen tours to have been awarded will have had the victor stripped of his title, directly because of doping offences. That's also ignoring riders convicted of doping who have kept other titles won, despite serving doping suspensions in their career.
It's obviously a problem within the sport, and it directly contributes to corporate scepticism (who wants to have their product associated with a drugged sport?), as well as public scepticism.
The UCI needs to remove itself as both the organisation who runs the sport, makes it's rules, markets the sport, and also punishes those for cheating within it. It's a clear and enormous conflict of interest. When the sport has someone extremely marketable - who can increase revenues enormously for the sport simply with his presence - in a position where an investigation into their possible doping is required, the UCI is directly stuck between which of the two positions it takes. Does it risk corporate sponsors abandoning the sport? Does it punish the athlete and risk the sport's growth? Clearly, given the accusations about covered-up tests, that dilemma has been encountered. And the UCI has been found wanting.
The sport needs an organisation which is prepared to separate itself from the management and promotion of the sport, and simply test athletes, and if required, instigate disciplinary procedures against them. This is clearly the mandate of WADA, and as a result they're the perfect organisation to turn this responsibility to.
Cycling also obviously has a substantial image problem. It continually turns up positive drug tests at the one single event which has more viewing numbers than any other race in the calendar - it's continually shooting itself in the foot.
Transparency is also an enormous issue. Not in terms of governance - in terms of simply making information available to the public. It's improving at a snail's pace, but this is not something that is sport - or UCI - driven. It's individual riders. I'd normally be loath to say those within the sport keep the fans in contempt, but I struggle to come up with a more suitable term. Particularly when it comes to anti-doping. Think seriously about this - when was the last time you saw a male road cyclist express happiness about drug testing? Now, compare it with the amount of times you've seen them complain about it. Even riders found guilty of doping have complained about it, as Alberto Contador did this week on twitter. People whose reputations have been trashed, complaining about them being tested for the one thing they did that caused it? A little hypocritical.
But it's not just that - the professional ranks have very few riders who speak out about it. When a positive test comes up, the sport closes ranks. It stays quiet, in the hope it goes away. This is entirely the wrong approach. The sport needs to condemn, in the strongest possible way, those who would even consider it. Not abuse those who suspect it may be happening, based on decades of it actually occurring.
But it's clear those who are stakeholders in the sport don't view the public as a stakeholder. It's frustrating, even when an organisation as inept as FIFA manage to at least acknowledge the public in that respect. Even one of the sport's most engaging people, Jonathan Vaughters, acknowledged this week that his riders were only expected to tell the truth - when asked - to the organisations which engage them with questions. His own response when asked on twitter was this:
my philosophy is simple and previously stated: tell truth to those who can make move things forward.
I'd like to think fans of the sport should be a part of that process, and it's disappointing to see attitudes that confirm the view that the sport is a closed shop.
My position on what should happen is simple:
- The UCI needs a broom through it, and responsibilities taken away. Responsibility for drug testing needs to go to an external, independent body. Get this body to report weekly, on measures it's undertaking, new testing procedures, backdated testing.
- Remove the statute of limitations. It's an irrelevance. If a test shows up 10 years down the track that someone was cheating under the rules of the day, but wasn't detectable then due to science, why should they get to keep their achievements due to an arbitrary time period?
- Mandate the use of power-meters. Teams must post data from each rider's power meter within 2 hours of a stage on a dedicated website, publicly accessible. Small enough time-frame to prevent manipulation.
I realise that people would say "but it may give away competition secrets" - but the reality is, it's one thing to be able to look at what your competitor did on one day, it's another thing to be able to do anything about it. But in the interests of entertainment, and the sport - why would it be an issue anyway? So you notice that the guy ahead of you on GC used a lot of power one day, and had an elevated heart rate, indicating he might not recover well, and you use it to your advantage the next day by attacking him - why is this a problem?
This point is also possibly relevant for another factor: Spectator enjoyment. Imagine if television could use this information live, in much the same way as, for instance, Formula One? Occasionally there you get a car's stats, how fast it's going, how much KERS it has, whether it's using DRS. I realise it's not immediately transferable in terms of usefulness, but picture the possibilities: What gear is the rider in, what's his cadence, what is his heart rate. Statistical overlays are limited nowadays to only distance points - engage the public and show them how much a guy is suffering. Give them more than visual cues - put the riders into their lounge room.
Surely it's just adding to the entertainment and excitement of the sport?
- Blood values and testing to be posted by relevant testing body on the same website as above (when available), aligned with performance data. I realise this may happen after the event due to time limitations.
- Significantly increase OOC testing. If the numbers we've seen with regards to Armstrong are even close to accurate, getting tested roughly once a month OOC is so infrequent as to make it completely unworthwhile, and entirely dependant on chance. The frequency must be far greater.
The goal is organisational transparency, anti-doping transparency, and rider transparency. Don't like it as a rider? Find another career. We're talking a few years worth of inconvenience for something the common man would never get to experience but love to be able to.
One other thing:
- Anyone caught doping, facilitating doping or with unexplainable blood markers automatically receives a lifetime ban. This is reducible to two years for a first offence providing the following condition is met: A rider must be able to prove from where he received the doping product(s), when he received them, and how he received them. He needs to show testing organisations how they were taken as well. That enables the sport to go after the problem at it's very source, and forces people to put their own livelihood before protecting others. Nobody will destroy their own career/earnings ahead of reporting a doctor or team manager.
I realise these are broad strokes I'm painting with and that, as always, the devil is in the detail. But the sport needs to open itself up to fans, and prove the public that people are simply on the limit of human endurance, not give rise to suspicions of doping.
Thanks for reading!
The winds of change pt1
A change is coming.
The USADA case against Lance Armstrong could possibly be a watershed moment for the sport of cycling. Not necessarily for the opportunity to (finally) clear up a dubious period in the sport's results - but for something even more serious. Something remotely acknowledged - but not necessarily focused on during the case - is the impact this will have upon cycling's governing body, which could have enormous ramifications for the sport.
News broke in May 2010 that Lance Armstrong had made a large donation to the UCI in 2002. The money was used to purchase a Sysmex machine, a piece of equipment for analysing blood samples. Ignoring the irony of that machine possibly being partially responsible for Lance Armstrong's downfall, a guilty verdict on Lance Armstrong will cause that donation to be revisited.
It's one thing to get a donation from an active athlete to the governing body (although it's rather unprecedented). It's another thing entirely to have received a donation which, in hindsight, has come from an athlete engaged in the greatest sports doping conspiracy of all time. I suggest that no other governing body in another sport would have accepted such an offer from an active athlete, particularly one seemingly in the prime of their career.
If Armstrong is guilty (although the evidence in the public domain suggests it is far more likely to be when), then the issue of Armstrong's donation must be revisited. More accurately, those who accepted the donation must walk from the governing body. It is entirely inappropriate that anyone with hopes of transparent governance would accept such a donation from a cheat. We can only hope that such pressure is brought to bear.
If it does, the sport can finally move on from the archaic leadership model it's had for a long time. Pat McQuaid must be part of that departure. He's spectacularly failed to bring the sport further than when he inherited it's leadership. The sport needs a new model of leadership, something like this:
- An independent organisation to manage road races, and the teams competing within them.
- The UCI needs to act as a governing body and nothing else. It should be the organisation responsible for promoting cycling around the world, governing technical rules of the sport, and providing education on bike-riding.
- The chairperson of the board should rotate between one of each of the categories laid out below on a bi-annual basis.
- No person should serve on the board for a total of greater than six years at any time.
- The board of the organisation should consist of 13 seats:
- 4 seats for members nominated by teams competing in the elite men's category of road racing
- 2 seats for members nominated by teams not represented in the elite men's category, but from teams competing in the elite women's category
- 1 seat each to experts responsible for the following categories: marketing, sponsorship, development (this should include development in underprivileged areas, as well as paralympic)
- 1 seat for a nominated member by a cyclist's union.
- 1 seat from a recognised anti-doping authority (more on that later)
- 2 seats for affiliated cycling sports (MTB, Track, CX)
The UCI should have nothing to do with the marketing, the sponsorship or the management of any segment of the running of races/leagues or competitions at the elite level. Nor should it be involved in any anti-doping activity. Anti-doping should come under the mandate only of WADA, and a new, independent body should be responsible for both investigation and prosecution, answering only to WADA, with the UCI as a signatory.
A simple glimpse at the UCI reveals how spectacularly it has failed: Sponsors are largely small multinationals, and largely involved in bike-related manufacture. Nowhere is there a corporate giant on the scale as those as FIFA, for example. Bike riding is constantly underestimated in terms of public participation, and the viewing figures for the Tour de France make it the world's most watched annual sporting event. This equates to a spectacular failure of the UCI to market it, and encapsulates why they need to have the responsibility for that side of the sport removed.
Tomorrow I'll look at how the process of anti-doping in cycling needs to be revolutionised, and also stripped away from the UCI.
An introduction
Deep breath. Sound interesting. Don't sound like a singles ad. Don't let your wife read that part. Am I over 140 characters yet?
For anyone remotely interested, anything I post here will ultimately fit into one of the three categories at the top. It's opinionated, and whilst I normally try and research everything as much as possible, it's occasionally incorrect.
I'm 34, work as an AV tech, and mostly run cable (are you excited yet ladies?). Next year, that all changes. Next year, I'm going to start back down the slope of study that I haven't done for half of my life now. I always said "I don't know" whenever my parents asked me what I want to do with my life. A few months ago, I had a moment of clarity. My wife was pleased (at last). Our children (6 and 1) said "Can I have (insert expensive toy here) for Christmas?". Priorities are different I guess, and they're good evidence.
I loved sport, ever since I was a kid. I'd play it, was occasionally very good it, and I'd watch it. Even to the extent I once decided to take a day off school when I was around to watch the final day of a match of test cricket. Of course, they rang my parents, and I got a rather sore pair of buttocks that night (For the record, New Zealand drew against Australia in Perth, it was brilliant).
Over time obviously I grew to become more than just a fan. When I was 16 I watched Ayrton Senna die from my bedroom, on the opposite side of the world, and very late at night. It remains one of the saddest days of my life, and I never met him, or saw anything of it. Sport had well and truly grabbed me. My icons came, stayed and made their own impacts (in no particular order, Liverpool FC, Michael Schumacher, Jan Ullrich).
But I don't just like any sport. It has to be clean. I have no interest in watching dopers, cheats or frauds win. I believe in the human endeavour - even though my support of individuals has occasionally made that support collide with that ethos.
So next year, I'll start studying towards a Sports Science degree, with the goal ultimately of working in anti-doping, and formulating methods to keep sport clean.
I have a dream. Might as well try and make it happen.


text:
Abdur Rahman bin Awf
|Abdur Rahman bin Awf
|Companion of Muhammad
|c. 580 C.E.
|c. 653 C.E.
Honored in
Abdur Rahman bin Awf, (Arabic: عبد الرحمن بن عوف) (c.580 CE (10th year after the Year of the Elephant [1]) -- 33 AH / 653 CE[citation needed] ) was one of the Sahaba.
His original name was Abdul Amr ("servant of Amr"). It was Muhammad who, on his conversion, renamed him Abdur Rahman ("servant of the Most Merciful"). His name has also been transliterated as Abdel Rahman Ibn Auf, Abdur-Rahman ibn 'Auf, Abdur-Rahman bin 'Auf and Abdel-Rahman ibn Auf.
Conversion to Islam[edit]
Abu Bakr spoke to Abdur Rahman about Islam, then invited him to meet Muhammad, who heard his declaration of faith and taught him the Islamic prayers. This was before the Muslims had entered the house of Al-Arqam; Abdur Rahman was one of the first eight men to accept Islam.[2]
From about 614 the pagan Quraysh in Mecca "showed their enmity to all those who followed the apostle; every clan which contained Muslims was attacked."[3] The usual threat to Muslim merchants was: "We will boycott your goods and reduce you to beggary."[4]
Abdur Rahman was one of a pioneering party of fifteen Muslims who emigrated to Abyssinia in 615. Other Muslims joined them later, forming a group of over a hundred. "They were safely ensconced there and grateful for the protection of the Negus; could serve God without fear, and the Negus had shown them every hospitality."[5] In late 619 or early 620 "they heard that the Meccans had accepted Islam." This probably refers to the Gharaniq episode. Abdur Rahman was one of forty who "set out for the homeland. But when they got near Mecca they learned that the report was false, so that they entered the town under the protection of a citizen or by stealth."[6]
Emigration to Medina[edit]
In 622 Abdur Rahman joined the general emigration of Muslims to Medina, where he lodged with Saad ibn Al-Rabi[7] until he could re-establish his business.
Military campaigns during Muhammad's era[edit]
The Battle of Badr[edit]
Abdur Rahman was friends with Umayyah ibn Khalaf, a stern opponent of Islam. When Abdur Rahman emigrated to Medina, the two reached a written agreement, according to which Abdur Rahman was to protect Umayyah's property and family in Medina, while Umayyah would protect Abdur Rahman's in Mecca. When Abdur Rahman wanted to sign the document, Umayyah protested, saying "I do not know Ar-Rahman" and requested that the pre-Islamic name "Abdu Amr" should be used, to which Abdur Rahman agreed.[8]
The two met again in the Battle of Badr in March 624.
Invasion of Dumatul-Jandal[edit]
In August 626 Muhammad directed Abdur Rahman ibn Awf to raid the Kalb tribe in Daumatul-Jandal, instructing him: "Take it, Ibn Awf; fight everyone in the way of God and kill those who disbelieve in God. Do not be deceitful with the spoil; do not be treacherous, nor mutilate, nor kill children. This is God's ordinance and the practice of His prophet among you." Muhammad also instructed him on the correct way to wind a turban.[10] Abdur Rahman defeated the Kalbites and extracted from them their declaration of Islam and the payment of the jizya. He then sealed the alliance by marrying the chief's daughter Tamadur bint Al-Asbagh and bringing her back to Medina.[11]
Role in successions to the Caliphate[edit]
In August 634 the dying Caliph Abu Bakr called in Abdur Rahman and Uthman to inform them that he had designated Umar ibn al-Khattab as successor. (See Hadith of the succession to Abu Bakr.)
In 644, the dying Umar nominated a board of six members (the Council of Shura) to elect one of themselves as the next caliph. The group consisted of Sad Ibn Abi Waqqas, Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf, Zubayr ibn al-Awwam, Talha ibn Ubayd Allah, Ali ibn Abi Talib and Uthman ibn Affan. Uthman was chosen as the third caliph by Abdur Rahman bin Awf after he consulted with women.[12]
Personal life[edit]
It was well-known his sister is married to Bilal ibn Rabah.
He married at least fifteen times and had twenty-eight known children.[13]
- Umm Kulthum bint Utba al-Abdshamsiya.[14]
- Salim the Elder (died before Islam).
- The Daughter of Shayba ibn Rabia ibn Abdshams.
- Umm Al-Qasim (born before Islam).
- Habiba bint Jahsh al-Asadiya (childless).[15]
- Tamadir bint Al-Asbagh al-Kalbiya. Although he divorced her during his final illness, she, like his other three widows, inherited one-thirty-second of his fortune, which was 80,000 or 100,000 dirhams.[16][17]
- Abdullah the Younger (Abu Salama).
- Umm Kulthum bint Uqba al-Umayyiya.[18]
- Muhammad, from whom he took his kunya of Abu Muhammad.
- Ibrahim.
- Humayd.
- Isma'il.
- Hamida.
- Amat ar-Rahman the Elder.
- Sahla bint Asim from the Baliyy tribe of Medina.
- Maan.
- Umar.
- Zayd.
- Amat ar-Rahman the Younger.
- Bahriya bint Hani of the Shayban tribe.
- Urwa the Elder (killed at Ifriqiya).
- Sahla bint Suhayl of the Amir ibn Luayy clan of the Quraysh.[19]
- Salim the Younger (killed at Ifriqiya).
- Umm Hakim bint Qariz.[20]
- Abu Bakr.
- The Daughter of Abu al-His ibn Rafi from the Abdulashhal ibn Aws tribe of Medina.
- Abdullah (killed during the conquest of Africa)
- Asma bint Salama
- Abdur Rahman.
- Umm Hurayth, a war-captive from Bahra
- Mus'ab.
- Amina.
- Maryam.
- Majd bint Yazid al-Himyariya.
- Suhyal (Abu'l-Abayd)
- Zaynab bint As-Sabbah.
- Umm Yahya.
- Badiya bint Ghaylan al-Thaqafiya.
- Juwayriya.
- Ghazzal bint Khosrau (concubine), a war-captive from Al-Mada'in
- Uthman
- Other Concubines (unnamed).
- Urwa.
- Yahya.
- Bilal.
Many stories are told of Abdur Rahman's personal generosity. He once furnished Muhammad's army with 1,500 camels. He bequeathed 400 dinars to the survivors of Badr and a large legacy to the widows of Muhammad. One day he brought a caravan of 700 merchant camels into Medina. Aisha remarked, "I have heard the Allah's Messenger say: 'I have seen Abdur Rahman ibn Awf entering Paradise leaping.'" This was repeated to Abdur Rahman, who replied: "If I could, I would certainly like to enter Paradise standing. I swear to you, yaa Ammah, that this entire caravan with all its merchandise, I will give in charity." And so he did.
Abdur Rahman died in the Levant (بلاد الشام) in 33 AH (653-654 CE) during the reign of Uthman. He was buried on a hill to the north-east of present day Amman, Jordan.
Sunni view[edit]
Sunnis regard him as one of the al-asharatu-l mubashshirin, the ten people whom Muhammad personally assured of entering Paradise.
See also[edit]
- ^ Al-Isabah.
- ^ Muhammad ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah. Translated by Guillaume, A. (1955). The Life of Muhammad, pp. 115-116. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Note that the expression "the first eight men" does not include a few female converts whose profession of faith may have been earlier.
- ^ Guillaume/Ishaq 143.
- ^ Guillaume/Ishaq 145.
- ^ Guillaume/Ishaq 148.
- ^ Guillaume/Ishaq 167-168.
- ^ Guillaume/Ishaq 218.
- ^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 3:38:498
- ^ USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts
- ^ Guillaume/Ishaq
- ^ Muhammad ibn Saad, Tabaqat vol. 8. Translated by Bewley, A. (1995). The Women of Madina, pp. 207-208. London: Ta-Ha Publishers.
- ^ http://worldreminder.net/QAABOUTISLAM/Thefirstgroup/PARTTWO/Chapter7FamilyandWomenAffairs.aspx
- ^ Muhammad ibn Saad, Tabaqat vol. 3. Translated by Bewley, A. (2013). The Companions of Badr, p. 97. London: Ta-Ha Publishers.
- ^ Bewley/Saad vol. 8 p. 167.
- ^ Bewley/Saad vol. 3 p. 171.
- ^ Bewley/Saad vol. 3 p. 104.
- ^ Bewley/Saad vol. 8 pp. 207-209.
- ^ Bewley/Saad p. 163.
- ^ Bewley/Saad p. 190.
- ^ Bewley/Saad pp. 304-305.
External links[edit]

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Proshow Gold
Editor Photodex Corporation
(latest version)
A problem?Ask a question
Photoshow Gold is a graphic program that lets you combine all your picture and/or video in a one file with impressive effects. Very convenient, it allows users in a few clicks to get a pleasant slideshow without too many efforts. With its intuitive interface, anyone can handle it easily.
Key featuresProshow Gold aims at creating slide show with ease. Whether with image or video, all you have to do is to upload them with a sound and a text file. Then you customize it by adding various styles such as transition or motion effects and by setting the timing. To avoid compatibility issues, Proshow Gold supports several kinds of graphic file format such as PSD, PNG, TIFF, GIF and more. If you want to import a file, you just have to drag and drop it on the software's interface. Once edited, your slideshow is ready to be exported. For that, either you export it on Social media such as Facebook, Youtube, Vimeo, online environment as flash or web show, or simply by saving it with MPEG or EXE formats on devices like DVDs, CDs.
System requirements
- Operating System: Windows 98, Windows Me, Windows 2000, Windows XP
- Required disk space: 19 MB
ProsProshow Gold enables to load unlimited photos and videos. It is fast and easy to use.
ConsThis is a trial version.
See also
- Proshow gold
- Proshow gold free download
- Proshow gold software free download
- Proshow Gold (User feedback on) » Forum
- Download WhatsUp Gold » Download - Network
- Download RealPlayer » Download - Playlists
- Download Wedding Album Maker Gold » Download - Graphics
- Download MySlideShow Gold » Download - Graphics
Knowledge communities.
Add comment
Latest update on Monday September 22, 2014 01:08:18 PM


text:
Bush 69
Hairy Berries 3 by Combat Zone
porn stars: Victoria Daniels Ashley Woods Franco Roccaforte Joachim Kessef Janet Eva
director: Joachim Kessef
Running Time: 105 minutes
Released: 01/2014
All natural, full grown bushes bury hard cocks deep in hairy heaven! Get your fill of organic unshaven Euro-muff, sweet to taste and soft to touch! Pussy fuzz feels good!
Hair Down There 3 by New Sensations
porn stars: Natalia Starr Heather Night Erik Everhard Ramon Nomar Jessie Andrews Xander Corvus Cassandra Nix Liv Aguilera Nadine Sage
director: Eddie Powell
Running Time: 112 minutes
Released: 11/2013
description: These muff maidens want to bare it all! Join Natalia Starr, Cassandra Nix, Heather Night, and Liv Aguilera as they set the new standard for pubic hair fashion while getting fucked hard. These pussies are just so pretty with hair down there!
Bush 3. by Elegant Angel
porn stars: Dani Daniels, Karlie Montana, Casey Cumz, Lia Lor, Nadine Sage, James Deen
director: Mason
running time: 143 minutes
released on Feb 18 2013
description: These beautiful babes have bushes down below and are ready for that cock to cut through the thickness. Watch the XXX hairy poon loving action!
Bush 2. by Elegant Angel
porn stars: Jessie Andrews, Francesca Le, Manuel Ferrara, Mick Blue, James Deen, Dana DeArmond, Alex Gonz, Dani Jensen, Katie St. Ives
director: Sam No / Mason
running time: 138 minutes
released in 03/2012
description: Hairy girls are more fun! Watch these beautiful stars who let it grow in passionate sex scenes focused on their bush!
Bush by Elegant Angel
porn stars: Allie Haze, Steve Holmes, Mr. Pete, Manuel Ferrara, James Deen, Kimberly Kane, Raylene, Bobbi, Starr, Kristina Rose
director: Sam No / Mason
running time: 151 minutes
released in 03/2011
description: Hairy girls are more fun! Watch these beautiful stars who let it grow in passionate sex scenes focused on their bush!
(Source: hotbushporn.com)
We're launching our website today, come back for the hottest girls with hairy pussies and natural bush!


text:
You need help to ensure accuracy.
How to Research Before Writing Historicals, part 1
How to Catch An Editor's Attention
Working with Critique Partners
Planning Your Novel Series, Part 3
Planning Your Novel Series, Part 2
Planning Your Novel Series, Part 1
Is Your Plot Believable?
Chekhov's Rifle
Critique Covenant
Critique partners are essential to the working writer. They provide readers (and hopefully, writers!) to bounce one's work off of, to get honest feedback from, and to find both inspiration and direction, as needed. Because you are entrusting yourself and your work to these partners, you'll want to be selective when choosing. Does this person […]


text:
The TCAP is everything.
Third-grade students at Tracie Ellis' classroom at Tunnel Hill Elementary School transformed the school's cafeteria into a wax museum Friday when they portrayed historical figures they have studied this year.
It's not just black and white anymore.
More than two dozen Hamilton County high school students were sworn in Wednesday to serve on the county's first youth court.
After agreeing to pony up almost $12 million in past due taxes, Chattanooga has filed a motion claiming the Hamilton County school system doesn't have the right to file a lawsuit to recover the liquor-by-the-drink taxes.
The school lunchroom isn't your typical supply-and-demand marketplace.
With talks stalled and a potential change in state law threatening the mounting tab owed to the Hamilton County school system over past-due liquor taxes, school officials filed a lawsuit against Chattanooga on Friday as a safeguard.
There is a battle boiling in Georgia.
Three local teachers were honored Friday as the 2014 Hamilton County Teachers of the Year.
In Josh Yother's classroom, students can spend more than 40 minutes on a single math problem.
Parents at Ganns Middle Valley Elementary, Sale Creek Middle-High, Chattanooga School for the Liberal Arts and others have been lobbying for years for new or expanded schools.
For $50 million, county officials say taxpayers can afford to fix issues at five zoned neighborhood schools, or replace one magnet school.
A Hamilton County Schools lawsuit demanding nearly $12 million from the city of Chattanooga in unpaid liquor taxes won't be filed just yet, as the two sides have agreed to meet over the dispute.
With the Hamilton County Commission vote to approve Mayor Jim Coppinger's school building proposal looming Wednesday and a continuing stakeout of the County Courthouse by supporters of a local magnet school, at least one commissioner proposed a solution Monday that brought mixed reaction.
When Mayor Andy Berke took office last spring, his administration stopped making payments on a legally required tax to the county school system that the previous administration had started to pay.


text:
(via marcjacobscandy)
(Source: http, via mochafleur)
Tumbled on TumTum ♻
Natalia Vodianova by Bruce Weber for W July 2002
Reblogged on TumTum ♻
Lady Gaga covers Vogue's September issue
photographed by Mert Alas and Marcus Piggott
(Source: woodsmokeandpumpkins, via kateordie)
(Source: ahighndtheory, via mochafleur)
(Source: kaylahadlington, via fuckyeahrunwayhair)
(Source: canard-a-la-mode, via fuckyeahrunwayhair)
Discovered on TumTum ♻
We are here when you need us.
Posted on TumTum ♻
"Mood indigo". Anna Maria Jagodzinska by Sophie Delaporte for Harper's Bazaar UK September 2006
(via fuckyeahrunwayhair)


text:
Product 2/18
We only sell tv box , you need know how to diy and set up the box!
The Dreambox 500S Satellite Receiver is the smallest Linux satellite TV receiver, with 1 x Smartcard-Reader.
DreamBox 500S Satellite Receiver Power consumption: < 10W / 12V
Product Link:Dreambox 500S Satellite Receiver, DM500S
•We ship to worldwild, and the shipping fee is only $9.00 Via DHL to worldwide. The shipment will only take 3-5 days.
•All items will be shipped within 24 hours after payment is received.
Warranty & Returns Policy:
�?00% new in good quality
•The product warranty term is one(1) Year started from the purchase date.
•All our products have been checked and packaged in good condition. If the item is defective, please inform us within 15 days upon receipt of item, we will replace a new one or refund if stock out (shipping, insurance and handling charges are not refundable).
Useful Links:


text:
I do love a cocktail that involves showmanship. And few cocktails have quite the flair of this week's Last Call, the Flame of Love martini. With a name like that, how could I resist making one for Valentine's Day? The Flame of Love was created in 1970 for none other than the legendary Dean Martin. ... More >>
Brian Kohatsu The comedian and media producer performs tonight at 3rd Place Neighborhood Grill at 7:30 p.m. His full schedule is here. When you put your key in the ignition and turn on the radio, what station would play right now? Mix 96.9-FM or 96.3-FM Real Country. What's the fi ... More >>
A young Frank Sinatra, after being arrested for "carrying on" with a married woman (which was a crime way back then). Not one of the things that makes him cool, but a damn good photo.When it comes to crooners, they don't get any cooler than Frank Sinatra. Over the course of his 60-year career, "O ... More >>
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this morning that the matching funds portion of Arizona's "Clean Elections" system is unconstitutional, meaning candidates in next year's election will not be given taxpayer money to match funds raised by their opponents.Under the matching funds system, publicly funde ... More >>
Stephanie ReaPaul Thorn Paul Thorn, a native of Tupelo, Mississippi, learned most of what he needs to know in life from his preacher father and pimp uncle. Thorn's ninth album, Pimps and Preachers, is all about the light and dark parts of life he learned about from these individuals.After a brief ... More >>
Congressional beefcake Jeff Flake wants to be a senator.It's official: Republican Congressman Jeff Flake will run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Senator Jon Kyl.Flake made his announcement this morning at the same Phoenix hotel where Kyl announced his upcoming retirement last week. Fla ... More >>
Wanna-be-governor Dean Martin Want to know how to get love as a Republican candidate for just about any office in Arizona RIGHT NOW: Drop to your knees and pucker up to Sheriff Joe Arpaio's ass.Smooch, smooch, GOPers (that's you Vernon Parker, J.D. Hayworth, and Andrew Thomas.) ... More >>
Yavapai County businessman Owen "Buz" Mills released his campaign's spending report this week and it turns out he's dropped even more cash on his dismal campaign for governor than previously imagined.According to the report, prior to May 31, Mills had spent about $2.3 million on the race and much ... More >>
www.firstfriday.comArizona's controversial Clean Elections Law got a new lease on life Friday when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a ruling of the U.S. District Court in Phoenix, which found the law to be unconstitutional.The three-judge panel ruled unanimously that the law does ... More >>
According to the latest poll, Attorney General Terry Goddard leads all potential Republican challengers in his bid to become the next governor of Arizona -- even Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has been hinting at a run for months, but is not officially a candidate.The poll was conducted by the North Car ... More >>
www.loanmodnews.com Attorney General Terry GoddardState Attorney General Terry Goddard, the lone Democratic candidate for governor, has lost his once vast lead over all Republican candidates, the latest poll shows.He still trounces Governor Jan Brewer, though (no shock there).
Senator Jim WaringOne little tidbit we forgot to mention in our earlier post about Treasurer Dean Martin's announcement that he was running for governor is who would replace him as the Republican candidate for state treasurer.The likely suspect -- for now, anyways -- is Senator Jim War ... More >>
Gov. Arpaio? If Rasmussen's right, start packing your bags... Arizona voters apparently love racial profiling and corruption. That's the conclusion I'm drawing from newly released Rasmussen poll numbers showing that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio does the best of possible GOP candidates ag ... More >>
In the 24-hour news cycle it can be difficult to keep up. We have the solution. Check back on Valley Fever every evening for highlights from each of New Times' blogs. Today's entries: Feathered Bastard: Joe Arpaio Best in Field Against Terry Goddard for Governor's Race Rasmussen Reports Up ... More >>
JanWe're sure the anticipation has been killing you, but the word around the water cooler is that Governor Jan is expected to announce her candidacy for a full term as governor tonight.
www.allhatnocattle.comIn a seemingly meager attempt to impress, the Vernon Parker Exploratory Committee issued a press release today about some "interesting" new poll results for the 2010 gubernatorial election.Before reading the release, we thought to ourselves "hey, maybe junior's got a shot ." ... More >>
From left, Jack Harper, Dean Martin, Russell Pearce, and John Huppenthal Obama is a Nazi. Obama is a commie. Obama is a pirate. (Yo-ho-ho, and a bottle of rum.) Obama is a socialist. Obama is the Joker from The Dark Night. (You know, Heath Ledger) Yadda-yadda-yadda. Such was the refrain f ... More >>
Governor Jan Brewer, who took office after Janet Napolitano resigned in January, indicated she may run for a full-term as governor in 2010. In a recent interview with The Arizona Republic, Brewer says she's "leaning toward" running. Other Republicans who've expressed interest in running for gover ... More >>
Arizona State Treasurer Dean Martin's wife of 13 years died this morning while giving birth to the couple's son. State House Speaker Kirk Adams announced the tragic news on the House floor, "his voice breaking," according to the Arizona Republic. KTAR (92.3 FM) news also has the sto ... More >>
Size matters: Arizona's Republican senators are both pushing for an alternative to Obama's stimulus package. Napolitano called him "Chicken Little" when he made the prediction that the state was going to run out of money, but now State Treasurer Dean Martin is sounding an optimistic note, declaring ... More >>
We understand that in the 24-hour news cycle it can be difficult to keep up. Worry not! We have the solution. Check back on Valley Fever every evening for highlights from each of New Times' blogs. Today's entries: Valley Fever: PETA "Barbecues" Woman to Promote Veganism. Tasty Drumsticks! Police: ... More >>
Last week we brought you a debate over the best Arizona musicians of all time after Arizona Premiere Living put out a list that includes Mr. Mister but not Stevie Nicks. Turns out, there are so many great musicians from Arizona it's impossible to fit them all on to a top 10 list. With the Arizona C ... More >>
We were scared even before lunch. The state's economy's in freefall, and, as she heads to Washington, D.C. in hopes of becoming the nation's Homeland Security honcho, Governor Janet Napolitano leaves behind a giant budget deficit. But after attending the annual Legislativ ... More >>
A revisionist history of Mob-era Las Vegas
Ho still needs a few new tricks
The Arizona Legislature should start caring more about children than zygotes
Patsy Grimaldi's Coal Brick Oven Pizzeria
Sample the subgenres of punk
Our cafe critic goes Italian under America West Arena
Christmas Remixed (Six Degrees)
Local designers look to go national
Hot Club of Cowtown and others revive the rebel spirit of Django Reinhardt
Gritty new book is nuts about George W.
By Nick Tosches (Little, Brown, & Co.; 352 pages; $24.95)
Secrets Every Smart Traveler Should Know delights at every stop
Can you dig Shaft?
Return to Me pumps unintentional laughs out of transplant travesty
What future is there for rock without the Chairman of the Board to kick it around?
Old-fashioned love songs redeem Crooners' off-key plot


text:
Star Wars Rebels, which will take place between the two Star Wars trilogies, will premiere with a one-hour special on Disney Channel this fall before moving to Disney's more action-centered network Disney XD.
So what can fans expect? It would seem like they can look forward to fun character moments, serious discussion about Empire politics and, of course, some droid hijinks.
The cast of characters for Star Wars Rebels are slowly being revealed to the public with a few character trailers just released. One of the characters being introduced is Chopper, a cantankerous old droid made from all types of spare parts. Chopper really doesn't care much in the way of the human struggle present before him; he's really only about himself. But in the end, he still saves the day.
There is also Kanan (voiced by Freddie Prinze, Jr.), the show's renegade "Cowboy Jedi." Kanan was a Jedi in another life, but after Order 66 destroyed the Jedi way of life, Kanan's been forced underground, having to hide his true powers from the Empire. He's currently the leader of our motley crew while facing the demons of his past.
Naturally, with Kanan, there always needs to be a Han Solo-type for it to feel like a Star Wars story. What we hadn't had up until now, though, was our Luke Skywalker-type, our young hero. Now we have him: Ezra.
Ezra, voiced by Taylor Gray from Nickelodeon's Bucket and Skinner's Epic Adventures, is a young boy who has had to learn how to fend for himself on Lothal, an Outer Rim planet, according to supervising director Dave Filoni. He's unaware that some of his abilities stem from using the Force. However, he comes to realize the nature of his true power once he comes under the tutelage (of sorts) of Kanan.
Ezra's feelings about the Empire come up during the series. "With Ezra, we see how a kid is reacting to imperial rule," Filoni said to TV Guide Magazine. "That becomes a big question: What is imperial rule like? We've seen it in the movies with a big rebellion that ends up blowing up the Death Star, but do we just assume that when the Empire took over in Revenge of the Sith it was seen as a bad thing? I would challenge that. It wasn't this terrible thing that came in and was cruel to everyone all at once. It was slow to build its power base and spread out, and then we get to see the Rebel Alliance it affects, and the repercussions of that tyranny."
Ezra doesn't mind hitting the Empire where it hurts, but eventually, he realizes the full scope of what the Empire and the rebellion capable of, leading him towards the path of becoming a Jedi Knight.
What do you think about Star Wars Rebels? Give your opinions in the comments section below!
Image: Lucasfilm/Disney


text:
Maggie Scott, of Charleston, Tenn., practices her putt at the Cleveland Country Club on Tuesday in Cleveland, Tenn. Scott has qualified for the national senior women's golf championship at The Honors Course.
Photo by Jenna Walker .
published Friday, September 9th, 2011
Stories this photo appears in:
Maggie Scott has a permanent parking spot at Cleveland Country Club as the women's club champion.


text:
Travi$ Scott featuring Migos – Quintana (Remix)
Fresh off the release of its PacSun-exclusive collaboration with Diamond Supply Co. and the debut of a new range of snapbacks alongside SSUR, the Been Trill collective unleashes its latest project: a remix of Travi$ Scott's hit "Quintana." Originally found on the G.O.O.D. Music producer/rapper's acclaimed Owl Pharaoh mixtape, the remix sees Scott joined by ATL trio Migos as La Flame, Quavo and TakeOff spit respective verses over the certified #BEENTRILL beat.
Date: Jul 31, 2013 / Views: 19 / Author: Staff / Source: HYPETRAK


text:
Join the 'Arthrotec' group to help and get support from people like you.
Arthrotec Support Group
Our support group for Arthrotec has 25 questions and 12 members. Updated 27 Apr 2014.
Latest Blog Post
Painkillers May Halve Risk of Breast Cancer Return in Obese Women: Study
THURSDAY, Aug. 14, 2014 – Obese women who have battled breast cancer might halve their chances of a recurrence if they take aspirin or other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) regularly, ...
Latest Questions
What can I take to replace arthotec?
1 answer
Further Information
Related Condition Support Groups
Osteoarthritis, Sciatica, Rheumatoid Arthritis


text:
"Beacon", 40" x 68", oil on canvas, 2011 by artist Aaron Nagel.
Tags: aaronnagel art artist painting nude woman female girl erotica warholian
Our goal is to educate, inform, and explain the current world of contemporary art...and the artists within it.
Follow us here on Tumblr or visit our official site at:
It's what's hip yo....
Powered by Tumblr. Minimal Theme designed by Artur Kim.