Thank goodness it had a serial #

http://videos.sacbee.com/vmix_hosted...dia?id=3190910

DirtRoadie wrote:
http://videos.sacbee.com/vmix_hosted...dia?id=3190910

I guess the other three bikes don't matter.

In article , Carl Sundquist
wrote:

DirtRoadie wrote:
http://videos.sacbee.com/vmix_hosted...dia?id=3190910

I guess the other three bikes don't matter.

LANCE! 'Nuff said. I still wonder why they didn't have any security on that van.

--
tanx,
Howard

Caught playing safe
It's a bored game

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Feb 18, 9:52*pm, Carl Sundquist wrote:
DirtRoadie wrote:
http://videos.sacbee.com/vmix_hosted...dia?id=3190910

I guess the other three bikes don't matter.

Two.
One turned up at the team hotel.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/spor...ssing-bik.html

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:14:25 -0800, Howard Kveck
wrote:

In article , Carl Sundquist
wrote:

DirtRoadie wrote:
http://videos.sacbee.com/vmix_hosted...dia?id=3190910

I guess the other three bikes don't matter.

LANCE! 'Nuff said. I still wonder why they didn't have any security on that van.

Well, they figured ever since you can buy lighter bikes and frames on
the market that the UCI permits in races, that no self-respecting
fatty master would steal a UCI frame as long as the extra weights were
still in place. And what other market would there be?

You gotta figure that the TT frame was totally unsuited to the low and
high rider market, so, essentially, this stuff is totally safe from
theft, unless they were just stealing them for the wheels. That was my
bet all along.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Feb 19, 9:59*am, wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:14:25 -0800, Howard Kveck

wrote:
In article , Carl Sundquist
wrote:

DirtRoadie wrote:
http://videos.sacbee.com/vmix_hosted...dia?id=3190910

I guess the other three bikes don't matter.

* LANCE! 'Nuff said. I still wonder why they didn't have any security on that van.

Well, they figured ever since you can buy lighter bikes and frames on
the market that the UCI permits in races, that no self-respecting
fatty master would steal a UCI frame as long as the extra weights were
still in place. And what other market would there be?

You gotta figure that the TT frame was totally unsuited to the low and
high rider market, so, essentially, this stuff is totally safe from
theft, unless they were just stealing them for the wheels. That was my
bet all along.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

do you believe the thief/ thieves targeted those bikes or were
opportunists ? did they realize the value of what was taken ?

On Feb 19, 9:53*am, wrote:
On Feb 19, 9:59*am, wrote:



On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:14:25 -0800, Howard Kveck

wrote:
In article , Carl Sundquist
wrote:

DirtRoadie wrote:
http://videos.sacbee.com/vmix_hosted...dia?id=3190910

I guess the other three bikes don't matter.

* LANCE! 'Nuff said. I still wonder why they didn't have any security on that van.

Well, they figured ever since you can buy lighter bikes and frames on
the market that the UCI permits in races, that no self-respecting
fatty master would steal a UCI frame as long as the extra weights were
still in place. And what other market would there be?

You gotta figure that the TT frame was totally unsuited to the low and
high rider market, so, essentially, this stuff is totally safe from
theft, unless they were just stealing them for the wheels. That was my
bet all along.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

do you believe the thief/ thieves targeted those bikes or were
opportunists ? did they realize the value of what was taken ?

Maybe they learned the bikes would be tough to sell and sent them back
via a "neutral party"?
--D-y

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:15:13 -0800 (PST), --D-y
wrote:

Maybe they learned the bikes would be tough to sell and sent them back
via a "neutral party"?

I kind of liked the French authorities stealing them to test for drugs
comment in the blog. Sub rosa drug ingestion.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 07:53:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:

do you believe the thief/ thieves targeted those bikes or were
opportunists ? did they realize the value of what was taken ?

I think their mothers found the bikes in the garage and told them they
had to take them back. We'd know more, but they aren't allowed to post
to rbr under assumed names for a week.

I tried to come up with a serious answer to the question, but really
couldn't. All the knowledge and expertise the rbr can bring to bear
on the value of the special LA bikes seems to still result in a wide
range of values, mostly depending on how stupid you think the buyer
would be. The economic rule of a willing buyer would appear to run
head on into the legal definition of a reasonable man.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...l

On Feb 19, 4:56*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 07:53:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:
do you believe the thief/ thieves targeted those bikes or were
opportunists ? did they realize the value of what was taken ?

I think their mothers found the bikes in the garage and told them they
had to take them back. We'd know more, but they aren't allowed to post
to rbr under assumed names for a week.

I tried to come up with a serious answer to the question, but really
couldn't. All the knowledge and expertise *the rbr can bring to bear
on the value of the special LA bikes seems to still result in a wide
range of values, mostly depending on how stupid you think the buyer
would be. The economic rule of a willing buyer would appear to run
head on into the legal definition of a reasonable man.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...l

well, lances bike looked like the wheels were gone but still had the
gears and mechs on- so, I would guess the thieves were oppourtunists
because if the bikes were in any way targeted the bikes would be
stripped- but I don't know if it was just lances bike that was
returned or the teammates (and in what condition those bikes are).