Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Seriously Part 106.

Yah, King County sucks cause we don't know how to properly repress ourselves. Not like they do in God's Country.

Monday, October 29, 2007

Summing it up

I think this pretty much sums the internet up.

Another Expo Bites The Dust......

2007 Seattle Ski Fever (FKA BEWI) is in the books. We didn't do the show last year cause, well, it's not the vibe we are normally looking for. Ski shows always seem to be huge blowouts, which makes sense since the ski season is so short, and we aren't a discounter.

We are more about event expos. The athletes there are jazzed to be competing and excited to talk about product and there performance. At these events too many people throw up the "your products crap, so can I get another $10 off" schtick I never understood..But, with the transition to Gin Optics and some odd Axley product kicking around in quantities too small to sell to retail we decided to blow them out.

And blow out we did. I think we sold 50 Cats w/ the Marksman X lenses and cleaned out the last of the Drop-dyed Messenger Cats.

Now it's off to Portland.........

So I'll leave you with a picture of a hot girl wearing StunGunners. No it's not Stoked this time!

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Things to do..

It's a busy week and sadly the thing to go is bloggin'. Sorry. I'd send your money back except none of you pay me to do this (ok, maybe Critter does). Snark!

So go entertain yourself by:
Eating at Taste. Ask for Craig. Tell him Jenna sent you.
Strolling Pikes Place Markets. Make sure to tell them you are going to Spoe-Kane next.
Have a drink at Thumpers.
Catch a movie at Lusty.
Just don't buy an Audi.

*yah I know that the jokes here are kinda embedded but, well, be happy I posted at all!

Sunday, October 21, 2007

I rode my bike

Yep. It's true. I rode my bike 2-1/2 hours yesterday. And I am gonna ride for 3 today. I rode so long that my legs hurt, I lost 30lbs and The Hotness says I look 25 now. Sweet.

Thursday, October 18, 2007

The Neverending Saga of...

My Audi litigation. The judge ruled today that Univerisity Audi's representative was not properly bestowed power to defend University Audi. So the trial was continued until December. If UAudi doesn't send an authorized rep the judge will rule in our favor. But that really sucks. You should see the legal brief I put together. Way better than that rant I did about IGive. Way better. Well I refrained form personally insulting anyone anyway.

I kind of feel bad for John, at first I thought he was a liar. But now I kinda suspect he is just following orders and getting used as a way to avoid dealing with the issue. I also suspect he knows they are going to loose.

I had reems of studies, photos, the written warranty, legal precedents... all he had was our service history (to show they didn't fix it) and Audi's internal claims process which is irrelevent to the case sinceI am not a signer on that contract.

We'll see.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Legal Bloggin's & Shops Too

Why has PruDog been so silent lately? After a week of novel-bloggin' were has PruDog gone? Come back PruDog come back! ~ Stoked (paraphrased)

Well, PruDog's NM/AZ rep is a machine and keeping PruDog busy with his setting up of the retail shops.

2nd, PruDog is getting his legal on for his big day in court against Audi so they'll finally replace the defective sunroof frame. PDog thinks he will win, but secretly fears he will fart in court or something and make the judge angry at him. Or she may remember PDog's manhandling of Walter and take pitty on poor poor Audi. They are, after all, a small little company struggling to make ends meet. When they wrote in the warranty booklet they had a 50,000 mile / 4 year warranty on mechanical defects they didn't know anybody would read it.

Saturday, October 13, 2007

It's official

Strangelover has decided were he is riding in 2008.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Igivegoodleadout, you ignorant slut

In response to my post suggesting that everyone who is up in arms at the Flandis Arbitration panel should instead aim their ire at WADA IGiveGoodLeadOut (forevermore referred to herein as IGive) came out swinging.

Among many things s/he said:

It would be really nice if people formed their opinions off of informative information versus what they read off of the Velonews mailbag. Here are some actual facts...

At first, I wasn't sure if that criticism was levelled at me or the letter writers I quoted. It seems like it was me, but that would mean IGive didn't actually read my post or do any research by looking at the previous posts on the subject of dope testing I've made. That seemed unlikely since IGive just admonished someone (me?) for not making informed opinions "based on facts" or "informative information".

It's further seems odd, since my post was titled "Part Deux", which implies there was a part 1. But maybe IGive doesn't understand French. Or maybe Deux isn't French. I don't know, I just know it was the second Hot Shot movie. So for his benefit here's a link to part 1 and the money quote:

I have read the reports of the Flandis verdict and also the opinions, both majority and minority. I will caveat the following by noting that neither PPuppy V1 or V2 particularly care about my need to read this information so I may have missed an important point or 2.

I won't go back and link all my dopage related posts cause, well frankly I don't have the time to sift through my blog. But if you do you will find some "informative information" such as:

I have read nearly the entire WADA website.
I have read the Vervoken-hooky report.
I have read the publicly released portions of the Tyler Hamilton arbitration case.
I have read many interviews by Dick Pound and Hien Verburghenhousen were they explicitly state that the threshold for a dope test is preponderance of the evidence
My issue with the dope testing is WADA's presentation of tests as scientifically validated for use as a dope test when they are not.
I actually know what it means to be scientifically validated.
I have a hard time spelling names.
I may in fact be a trained Ninja.

But then again, IGive also said the following:
1. The one dissenting arbitrator in the case was chosen by the Landis team. Same guy chosen by Tyler which was also a 2-1 ruling. USADA chose an arbitrator, and those two chose the third. The one picked by Landis was chosen because he has a history to dissent in these cases.
2. The techniques used are completely scientifically valid, and one could argue is the least subjective of all the tests done (MS/MS(steroids) versus FACS(homologous blood transfusion) versus WB(EPO)).
3. An independent lab tested 7 other Landis samples from the tour and found exogenous testosterone (ie not from your own organism) in 4 of those.
4. People are saying that there were not enough parameters positive to call it a positive, which again, is not true. They based the positive off of multiple metabolites of testosterone to prove that it was indeed a positive test.
5. There are arguments that his testosterone numbers were regular and that it was his epitestosterone numbers that were low. Again this is wrong, there is no way to determine a "normal" concentration because this test is done on urine and not blood plasma levels. That is why the use the T/E ratio, which has been completely characterized. I will go as far as saying that a 4:1 T/E ratio is probably too much leeway for a test and is contributing to the abuse of testosterone.

Which is odd since I know a smart commenter like IGive would actually read the arbitration report and know that there were 2 tests ruled on[1]
and that the panel decided to toss the first test's results for protocol errors[2] but to allow the 2nd test[3]. Thus, the panel ruled 2-1 that there was enough evidence based on the 2nd test for the adverse analytic finding to stand. He would also know they did not rule on the validity of the techniques, instead it referred to several UCI verdicts as precedence for accepting the 2nd test as a valid dope test. The panel did not, as IGive's comment seems to imply, find that the tests were scientifically valid and that both tests were allowed to stand by a 2-1 vote.

Despite my absolute confidence in IGive's research skills, here's another linky to the report plus the money quote from velonews' coverage:

The majority of the panel found that while the initial testosterone-epitestosterone test was not "established in accordance with the WADA International Standard for Laboratories," the more precise and expensive carbon-isotope ratio analysis (IRMS), performed as a follow-up was accurate. As a result, "an anti-doping rule violation is established," said the majority.

Now it could also be true that IGive knows the panel ruled on 2 different tests and just wasn't clear in comments. But someone who would sarcastically call me a "genius" because I couldn't get a link to work properly wouldn't set themselves up for ridicule by making an in your face argument that wasn't perfectly written would they?

But then again, I would assume that someone coming out guns ablazin' at your dear blogger would not say something like:

2. The techniques used are completely scientifically valid, and one could argue is the least subjective of all the tests done (MS/MS(steroids) versus FACS(homologous blood transfusion) versus WB(EPO)).

1. The first statement is substantiated by link to a search result for studies by Catlin and specifying the the abstracts of 2 which,not surprisingly, do not in total meet the standard of independently replicable results since Catlin is a researcher in both them[4].
2 The second statement is both meaningless (one could also argue it's not, so what's the point?)and irrelevant Association Fallacy. Scientific Validity is not based on a grade curve.

Anyway, I could go on, following Strangelover's dictum that the best use of the internet is to insult people. But rather I'll stop, since probably 1 person will even read this far and present my actual point.

I am perfectly up for having a real discussion about the issue's of dope testing. However, that discussion needs to be in good faith and based on a willingness to question ones own beliefs. I am not up for someone questoning my intelligence (the "genius" comment) or my analytic abilities (the "It would be really nice if people formed their opinions off of informative information" graph) when they can't even meet the same standard of analysis they are demanding of me (see above).

Assuming that's what IGive meant. If not, well then move along. Nothing to see here.

[1]Page 47, Paragraph 145

[2] Page 53, Paragraph 172

[3] Page 53, Paragraph 173

[4] Note that the link was to a search that does not always return the results in the same order. So rather than pick apart the relevance of the study it seemed easiest to point out the obvious failing in the basic search.. they are all studies involving Catlin and therefore relevant only as 1 study, not as replication of results required to be considered valid. On my own I was able to find 4 other studies, 2 by WADA accredited agencies and therefore also of questionable relevance in terms of replication, none of which were detailed enough in the abstract to determine provided validation to the test.

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

So here's what we know

New Teams in '08: The Definitive Guide

So my very scientific and valid study has proven that next year:

Mike Hone, thinking he works at Adobe, will start a new team only to discover it's Adobe Chicken by Cucina Fresca.

Ian Tubbs will also be joining Cucina Fresca, thinking that there will be Acrobats on the team.

Taco Bell will be back. Hold the Seachickens.

I will be riding unattached, as apparently no one wants me including my own team. Bastards.

Todd Herriott
will be riding for Team Herriott p/b Todd Herriet on Todd Harriot bikes w/ SRAM's new Todd groupo and Harry-utt logoed Gin Optics. He will copyright all 3 mispelled versions of his name and charge WSBA for printing results using them.

Stoked will race all year for her new team, Stoked's Knits and Kits. The new kit will be all knit gear thus one-upping Portland's wool fetish.

Jamie Strangweloverboy
will decide who he is riding for on October 30th, 2008.

Older Than Old As Dirt (Now with Kids!) will join Rock'n'Republic as their new crit specialist.. you fill in the rest of this joke.

Monday, October 08, 2007

Rumor List

Rumor has it there will be at least 3 new Cat 1/2 teams next year. That should rock, as the talent gets spread the chances for better racing increasing.. assuming of course the new teams race smart.

So let the rumors commence. Who have you heard is starting a new team?

Sunday, October 07, 2007


Michael Emde is a hard man. He just won the Furnace Creek 508, a UCI World Cup endurance event, for the second consecutive year. He came close to a course record and has now finished 3rd, 1st and 1st in 3 tries. I think he would have won in his first try as well but we had mechanical difficulties with the support vehicle (rider's must have the support vehicle with them and cannot continue riding if the vehicle is not with them).

He rules. You drool.

Friday, October 05, 2007

Flandis should sue not appeal

There seems to be a growing cry that Flandis should appeal to CAS over the Arbitration Panels finding that the 2nd test produced a WADA-standard valid positive dope control.

He shouldn't.

CAS, unless I completely misunderstand their mandate, will produce the same ruling because they are only ruling on whether the doping protocols met WADA's standards. They will likely find the initial test did not, but the 2nd did*

If Flandis really cares about rider's rights he will instead take this to a real court of law wear the validity of the test itself can be questioned.

This is very unlikely, as circumstantial evidence, seems to indicate that Flandis probably did not take the Testosterone he is accused of, but has doped plenty in his career. Any lawsuit that vindicates him will likely also include the detruction of his reputation as well as forcing many of his friends, specifically JV and FA, to testify.

In otherwards, like Hamilton, the best (and probably most noble) path to vindication on the specific doping charge probably will not be worth it.

*I've noticed a lot of letter writters to Velonews and Cyclingnews seem to think the arbitration ruling threw out the first test's a sample but upheld the b sample. Again, it's hard to read carefully with 2 kids crawling on me but.. I believe the arbitration panel threw out the first test completely and did not consider the subsequent "retests" that the lab did.

Rather, the positive finding is based on the different 2nd test which specifically (supposedly) tested for synthetic testosterone. The legitimate issue many more technically minded people have is that this test has not been validated for this use meaning it should work, but maybe not.

Thursday, October 04, 2007


PruCousin: So why didn't you tell me?
PruDog: What?
PruCousin: about the dude screwing the goat at the farm.
PruDog: What?
PruCousin: you hadn't heard?
PruDog: What?
PruCousin: yah -redacted- walked in on that Al dude doing it with the goat. Aunt -redacted- has been answering the phone from the media non-stop. You know she loves that.
PruDog: What?

So to recap. PruCousin is in town for 1 day and he already knows some guy who worked at Pioneer Farm (which was started by PruGangy and run by PruAunt V1) was arrested for bestiality back in May. And no one told me????????? For the love of Christmas someone will pay.

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Flandis Verdict Part Deux

From Comments:
James Westphal said...

I totally disagree with the verdict. Forget the protocol, the lab's records don't show anything akin to a positive test.

I'm a Ph.D. candidate in physical chemistry with a background in isotopic analyses like those used in this test. Their results don't begin to meet standards for industry, let alone a medical testing lab.

Their records don't gibe with their assertions. Period. The protocol itself, even followed correctly, does not present a positive doping result. [emphasis mine]

From Cyclingnews.com letters:
The Landis decision

Well, I've read several articles about the decision on the Landis case, as I'm sure everyone else has. But after reading the stories and the findings of the errors and mishandlings in the French lab can you say, without a reasonable doubt [emphasis mine], that Landis is guilty? 1 of the 3 panel judges didn't.

How about the quote that said the following: "The panel does, however note that the forensic corrections of the lab reflect sloppy practice on its part," the majority decision noted. "If such practices continue it may well be that in the future an error like this could result in the dismissal of an AAF (Adverse Analytical Finding) finding by the lab."

In future cases "an error like this could result in the dismissal of an AAF finding by the lab" [just not this one]. I'm sorry but with statements like that from the panel this whole thing just doesn't sit well with me.

I hope the best for all athletes subject to these testing's and shoddy lab works.

Gary Lee
Daly City, CA, USA
Friday, September 21, 2007

I think this pretty much sums up the objections to the Landis verdict. They are:

1. The tests are not scientifically valid. (James' objection).
2. The results do not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Landis is guilty. (Gary direct objection and James' indirect objection)

I agree with both points. They are, in terms of the arbitration hearings and the probably appeal to CAS, irrelevant.

The panel's job is to determine whether or not the lab met WADA's standards for a positive dope result. WADA's standard requires the lab to meet international protocols for the handling of samples and a preponderance of evidence for analysis of samples. WADA also considers a test validated for use as an anti-doping tool if it meets that same preponderance of evidence standard.

The panel ruled that the 1st test did not follow the required protocol and threw it out. The panel ruled 2-1 that the 2nd test was handled in accordance with WADA protocol and met the WADA standard of proof.. in otherwords the results showed a 51% minimum probability that Landis used testosterone.

That's the right ruling given the standards of proof set forth by WADA.

So, in short, your beef is not with the ruling. It's with WADA, which has set a very low standard of proof. I'd further argue that they intentionally try to cloud the waters to imply the tests they use do meet the rigorous scientific standards James' and many others allude to.

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Well said

Country Music Stars Challenge Al-Qaeda With Patriotic New Song �Bomb New York�


Northwest Cycling has a new online goto resource that's not a cheeky blog: http://bicyclenorthwest.com

Monday, October 01, 2007

No car?

I am going to try to go carless this week. Let's call in the Stranglylover challenge.