| |
Main
Date: 26 Sep 2007 01:45:05
From: Alexander Lackner
Subject: Next World's
|
Ok even though I delivered a verbose world picks post for Stuttgart,
something tells me this year's edition will paling, just like this year's
big tours (with the possible exception of the Giro).
The entertainment buff's look turns to the next years already: Varese,
Mendrisio, Melbourne, Kopenhagen.
Do we have any way of knowing which course will be dull, and which one
kicking? (All being subjective of course- on my scale, the respective poles
of excitement are, say, Duitama and Zolder, from plus to minus).
From what I've seen (I never thought I'd say this), San Francisco seems like
a nice place to hold a Worlds RR. Including that street, of course!
|
|
| |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 16:50:32
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Next World's
|
On Sep 27, 7:37 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> In article <46fb661c$0$24919$ec3e2...@news.usenetmonster.com>,
> Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> > > It takes a lot of cops to keep Eddy Merckx from sneaking
> > > onto the Worlds course. After Stuttgart, this has to be
> > > taken into account.
>
> > Perhaps, if we're lucky, he'll punch McQuaid in the kidneys.
>
> I think he'd rather eat McQuaid's kidneys - while McQ is still alive.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Ahh Good Scottish food! Works for me.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 22:17:06
From:
Subject: Re: Next World's
|
On Sep 26, 11:55 pm, Casey Kerrigan <ca...@caseykerrigan.com > wrote:
> In article <46FAD41A.4000905@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>, Dan Connelly
>
>
>
> <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote:
> > ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sep 26, 2:28 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
> > > wrote:
> > >> Alexander Lackner wrote:
> > >>> From what I've seen (I never thought I'd say this), San Francisco seems
> > >>> like
> > >>> a nice place to hold a Worlds RR. Including that street, of course!
> > >> Agreed, except the Board of Supervisors was terribly unsupportive of the
> > >> Grand Prix.
>
> > > I thought that it was because they failed to pay money due to the
> > > city, like $60,000. Too bad, they could hold the ITT up the California
> > > street hill.
>
> > There was a dispute over paying for OT for cops who basically stood by the
> > side of the road and watched the race pass.
>
> > But why should the organizers even pay for the cops? Do I pay for the added
> > cost of policing every time I walk down the street? The race was in the best
> > interest of the city. Stuff happens in cities. The city pays to preserve
> > the peace while stuff happens.
>
> > Cities should think less about subsidizing big stadiums, and think more about
> > events which involve the public directly.
>
> > Dan
>
> Dan - Remember that politics played a major rol in the SF Board of
> supervisors being against the race ( or at least some of them). Since
> Tom Weisel was involved in the race any reduction in police OT costs or
> any other city services was seen as a form or corporate welfare to the
> rich. This kind of thing never goes over well with the liberal SF
> crowd.
So maybe the way to go is like England and rename it the Milk Race.
-ilan
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 14:57:39
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Next World's
|
On Sep 26, 2:50 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m >
wrote:
> There was a dispute over paying for OT for cops who basically stood
> by the side of the road and watched the race pass.
>
> But why should the organizers even pay for the cops? Do I pay for the
> added cost of policing every time I walk down the street? The race was
> in the best interest of the city. Stuff happens in cities. The city
> pays to preserve the peace while stuff happens.
>
> Cities should think less about subsidizing big stadiums, and think
> more about events which involve the public directly.
It takes a lot of cops to keep Eddy Merckx from sneaking
onto the Worlds course. After Stuttgart, this has to be
taken into account.
Ben
|
| | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 10:26:59
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Next World's
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> It takes a lot of cops to keep Eddy Merckx from sneaking
> onto the Worlds course. After Stuttgart, this has to be
> taken into account.
Perhaps, if we're lucky, he'll punch McQuaid in the kidneys.
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 16:37:39
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Next World's
|
In article <46fb661c$0$24919$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com >,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:
> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> > It takes a lot of cops to keep Eddy Merckx from sneaking
> > onto the Worlds course. After Stuttgart, this has to be
> > taken into account.
>
> Perhaps, if we're lucky, he'll punch McQuaid in the kidneys.
I think he'd rather eat McQuaid's kidneys - while McQ is still alive.
--
tanx,
Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Sep 2007 09:57:18
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Next World's
|
Donald Munro wrote:
>> Perhaps, if we're lucky, he'll punch McQuaid in the kidneys.
Howard Kveck wrote:
> I think he'd rather eat McQuaid's kidneys - while McQ is still alive.
Luckily cannibals aren't kosher.
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 21:15:14
From:
Subject: Re: Next World's
|
On Sep 26, 2:28 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m >
wrote:
> Alexander Lackner wrote:
> > From what I've seen (I never thought I'd say this), San Francisco seems like
> > a nice place to hold a Worlds RR. Including that street, of course!
>
> Agreed, except the Board of Supervisors was terribly unsupportive of the Grand Prix.
I thought that it was because they failed to pay money due to the
city, like $60,000. Too bad, they could hold the ITT up the California
street hill.
-ilan
|
| | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 14:50:18
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: Next World's
|
ilanpsi@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 26, 2:28 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
> wrote:
>> Alexander Lackner wrote:
>>> From what I've seen (I never thought I'd say this), San Francisco seems like
>>> a nice place to hold a Worlds RR. Including that street, of course!
>> Agreed, except the Board of Supervisors was terribly unsupportive of the Grand Prix.
>
> I thought that it was because they failed to pay money due to the
> city, like $60,000. Too bad, they could hold the ITT up the California
> street hill.
There was a dispute over paying for OT for cops who basically stood by the side of the road and watched the race pass.
But why should the organizers even pay for the cops? Do I pay for the added cost of policing every time I walk down the street? The race was in the best interest of the city. Stuff happens in cities. The city pays to preserve the peace while stuff happens.
Cities should think less about subsidizing big stadiums, and think more about events which involve the public directly.
Dan
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 14:55:57
From: Casey Kerrigan
Subject: Re: Next World's
|
In article <46FAD41A.4000905@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m >, Dan Connelly
<d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m > wrote:
> ilanpsi@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sep 26, 2:28 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
> > wrote:
> >> Alexander Lackner wrote:
> >>> From what I've seen (I never thought I'd say this), San Francisco seems
> >>> like
> >>> a nice place to hold a Worlds RR. Including that street, of course!
> >> Agreed, except the Board of Supervisors was terribly unsupportive of the
> >> Grand Prix.
> >
> > I thought that it was because they failed to pay money due to the
> > city, like $60,000. Too bad, they could hold the ITT up the California
> > street hill.
>
>
> There was a dispute over paying for OT for cops who basically stood by the
> side of the road and watched the race pass.
>
> But why should the organizers even pay for the cops? Do I pay for the added
> cost of policing every time I walk down the street? The race was in the best
> interest of the city. Stuff happens in cities. The city pays to preserve
> the peace while stuff happens.
>
> Cities should think less about subsidizing big stadiums, and think more about
> events which involve the public directly.
>
> Dan
Dan - Remember that politics played a major rol in the SF Board of
supervisors being against the race ( or at least some of them). Since
Tom Weisel was involved in the race any reduction in police OT costs or
any other city services was seen as a form or corporate welfare to the
rich. This kind of thing never goes over well with the liberal SF
crowd.
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 00:28:59
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: Next World's
|
Alexander Lackner wrote:
> From what I've seen (I never thought I'd say this), San Francisco seems like
> a nice place to hold a Worlds RR. Including that street, of course!
>
>
Agreed, except the Board of Supervisors was terribly unsupportive of the Grand Prix.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 21:57:25
From: Carl Sundquist
Subject: Re: Next World's
|
"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m > wrote in message
news:fJhKi.28878$eY.22947@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
> Alexander Lackner wrote:
>
>> From what I've seen (I never thought I'd say this), San Francisco seems
>> like a nice place to hold a Worlds RR. Including that street, of course!
>
> Agreed, except the Board of Supervisors was terribly unsupportive of the
> Grand Prix.
I'd imagine their attitude might be different for /a/ World Championship,
but not three days' worth.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 21:06:33
From:
Subject: Re: Next World's
|
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:28:59 GMT, Dan Connelly
<d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m > wrote:
>Alexander Lackner wrote:
>
>> From what I've seen (I never thought I'd say this), San Francisco seems like
>> a nice place to hold a Worlds RR. Including that street, of course!
>>
>>
>
>Agreed, except the Board of Supervisors was terribly unsupportive of the Grand Prix.
They thought all those straight guys in spandex and shaved legs were mocking
them.
|
|
