Sure sounds like “black” to me….

Oh, Ricky, Ricky, Ricky. You tried to weasel out of it:

On CNN Wednesday, Santorum said he reviewed the context in which he made his remarks and said, “I’m pretty confident that I didn’t say ‘black.’” The GOP contender said he “was starting to say one word, and I sort of came up with another word and moved on and it sounded like black.”

Well, it sure as hell sounds like “black” to me, Rick. You sad little liar you.

http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/cbsnews_player_embed.swf

The CBS article points out that in Iowa the vast majority of welfare recipients are white:

NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous said in a statement Wednesday that “Santorum’s targeting of African Americans is inaccurate and outrageous, and lifts up old race-based stereotypes about public assistance.”
Jealous pointed out that federal benefits are determined by income level, not race. In Iowa, for instance, 9 percent of food stamp recipients are black and 84 percent are white.

Since Rick made his remarks at a stop in Sioux City, Iowa, that pretty much makes his comments the usual Republican race-baiting on welfare.

Now true, African-Americans are disproportionally poor and disproportionally on welfare, accordingly. However, since there are considerably more non-black folks in these here United States the raw numbers show more non-black Americans supported on welfare. And in fact more white Americans are on welfare than black Americans.

So if some guy is going to make a dent in the numbers of Americans on the dole, targeting the less populous group is…peculiar. Unless, you know, he’s engaging in race baiting in the good old tradition of Ronald Reagan.

By the numbers

The Census quick facts sheets report the following:

USA: 72.4% white, 12.6% black, 16.3% report Hispanic or Latino origin.

Iowa: 91.3% white, 2.9% black, 5% report Hispanic or Latino origin.

NH: 93.9% white, 1.1% black, 2.8% report Hispanic or Latino origin.

This is hardly news. But it IS pretty damn screwed up that two totally unrepresentative states have such a disproportionate impact on who is a viable candidate for President. This is even before we get to their generally conservative leaning populations, lack of dense urban living and a host of other factors.

Too smart to be a police officer…..okay, what THE FUCK WAS THAT NOW?????

Are you kidding me? Really?

Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Good God I hope that New London is the only police force idiotic enough to limit their pool to officers of average intelligence and below.

Happy Jebuween!!!

Sooo. It’s been a few years. 30 give or take. How’s that trickle down working out?

about like they always knew it would.

We have record low tax rates for the extremely wealthy. The smartest investor of the supremely wealthy is himself falsifying the claim that the fabulously well to do are EVER discouraged from investing their money to make more of it. And the obscenely well-off are stockpiling trillions and trillions of dollars of value.

Should be a mighty healthy trickle to the middle class and below, no?

[Demotivator image source]

Natuh

Midshipman fish (Porichthys genus, not sure about species).

Clamming

GARotD

You know those foodie dipshittes who try to find more and more fucked up repugnant shit to eat because they have nothing decent and real going on on their lives?

Flying

For a short period of time in my foolish youth I ran track. The mile and the 2-mile but mostly the former…and I may possibly have run the 800 once or twice. I hasten to add, I was no great shakes as a miler. Never did beat the 5 min barrier. The abilty to do so, at the time anyway, was what distinguished a highschool level miler that was worth a hmmmmm from one who was just there to be there. My PR might have been what, 5:07 I think? I was just there to be there. Pretty much the story of my life as a runner. Nary a win at any distance, age grade or class that I can recall.

However, the good part about running track…on a nice perfect surface, trained to run with form, gradually brought up to actually running fast through dedicated drills…is the flying.

Eventually you will have a race or workout, perhaps many or nearly an entire season. Where you are just floating down the track. Nice, even mid-foot strikes in your barely-padded spikes or flats…..and you can’t even feel it. FLYING!

This brings me to these barefoot running nutjobs. I’m pretty convinced that this RunBare goofaloon trueDisciple is PeeWee…so I may be a bit biased. Dave Munger has a post up with some actual science over at his new blog project, Science Based Running so maybe we better review that first. Okay, I really like the fact that this is within subjects and it does appear to show improved efficiency on treadmill and track with bare over shod feet. What I don’t know, since I don’t have access to the paper, is anything about the running style of the subjects.

So here’s my take on barefoot running. I bet it simply makes you run correctly. Better anyway. More forefoot, less heelstrike plodding. I have ranged all over the foot strike map depending on my level of fitness, training and general involvement in the sport. I am full willing to believe that when I am hitting midfoot instead of hammering the heelstrikes that I am more efficient. I bet a LOT more efficient. Because it certainly feels that way when you are doing it.

The other take on this is that modern running shoes let us get away with running like crap. Poor form doesn’t lead to immediate pain or medium-term injury as much as it would with lesser quality shoes. What about the longer term though? Do the shoes let us run with poor form for longer distances, more often or across a longer span of years? And does that permit all kinds of nagging long-term stresses and injuries to add up?

If so, that would account for the alleged decreased injury factor of bare footin’ it as well.

Get orffa the bandwagon you utter posers!

This is a music meme. Your job is to identify an album or single, the release of which caused a massive popular surge for the band and therefore huge outrage on your part. Because YOU had been into them since the first album, single…or even the bar/club days.

And all these current fans are just posers.

My top one was when Dire Straits released Brothers in Arms.

Commuting

one of the bennies is this…

Ticket the $(*%($@^* parking in the damn bike lane!

h/t: arikia

Can’t we get to the more important questions?

This is not the conversation I want to have any more.   I’ve had this argument at work, on group rides and in countless online forums.  ”Did Armstrong dope?” My answer is yes. But that’s not the important question.  The important questions are the implications of his doping.  From a sporting perspective I no longer care; it’s like caring whether they use steroids in the World’s Strongest Man competition. They all do, and yet I’m still amazed when they pull a freight train 50 feet. It is spectacle, and the fact that they all dope levels the competition.  But Armstrong is more than an athlete, and if he doped, there are ethical/moral implications beyond sports (particularly given his public comments about doping and dopers.) I want to talk about that, but I can’t. Because I keep having to talk about this first. Did Armstrong Dope?

I used to say no. No Way!  “He’s never tested positive.” “He might have before cancer, but after cancer he would never risk his health that way.”  I was a Fanboy; I wore the yellow bracelets, I read his book, I wore a replica US Postal jersey (the dark blue one.) I cheered his TDF wins, held my breath as he cyclocrossed past a broken Joseba Beloki, and nearly had a heart attack when a fan’s errant musette bag jerked him to the ground.  But sometime between 2007 and 2009 my faith crumpled against mounting allegations and increasing evidence that he used a variety of banned performance-enhancing drugs.  True the allegations are hearsay, they are not proof, and no one allegation by itself is terribly damning, but in total they paint a picture that is more consistent with Armstrong doping than not.  As the allegations continued,  I started reading.  Paul Kimmage’s “Rough Ride.” The Sports Scientists Blog.  Articles in Velonews, CyclingNews  ESPN.com, SI.com, an interview with Michael Ashenden.    The more I learn, the more implausible Armstrong’s narrative becomes, the more it is clear that he must have, and in fact did use PEDs during the peak years of his athletic career.

And he’s not alone. Cycling has a long inglorious history with doping. Fausto Coppi freely admitted to using amphetamines,  Jacques Anquetil too.  Eddie Merckx tested positive three times.  The Festina Affair  and more recently the Puerto Investigation revealed the systemic, organized nature of modern doping.  As the battle between dopers and testers has heated up during the past decade, multiple riders, even whole teams (Astana, pre-Armstrong) continue to be caught, further evidence that doping in the peleton is not limited to a few isolated cases.  I believe that a genuine effort is being made to change the culture in pro cycling, but I harbor no illusions that the entire peleton is now clean, nor that there are elements resistant to change.  The history of doping is too long and too entrenched to think it has vanished, particularly given that many current managers were cyclists in the heavy-doping eras.

So what’s the evidence? Why am I convinced he doped? Let’s start with what some view as the weakest evidence, his multiple accusers. The list of those claiming first-or-second-hand knowledge is long: There’s the obvious, probably well-known to readers; Tyler Hamilton, Floyd Landis, Frankie&Betsy Andreiu.  The older: Emma O’Reilly (former soigneur who co-wrote LA confidential), Ron Jongen (former soigneur),   Mike Anderson (personal assistant),  Steven Swart (teammate on motorola).    I’ll add George Hincapie with a question mark.  CBS reports that he implicated Armstrong in Grand Jury proceedings; Hincapie’s carefully-worded response stops short of denial. Armstrong’s defense is that his accusers are Haters, motivated by jealousy, publicity and money, and/or that they have a history of public deceit which invalidates their accusations.  I’ll speak to this more below, but I will point out that both the Andreius’ and Hamilton’s accusations resulted directly from subpoenaed (ie legally compelled) testimony given at risk of perjury (felony) and that none of the three had accused Armstrong of doping prior to their testimony.

Two others worth mentioning for their investigative work are David Walsh (formerly of the Sunday Times, Co-author of LA Confidential) and David Epstein (ESPN). Theirs is obviously not first-hand knowledge, but both have solid credentials as investigative journalists which lends credence to their opinions/conclusions.  Separately, they have uncovered reports that retesting of Armstrong’s 1999-2000 samples using updated tests reveals that he used Epo (the Epo test was not used in cycling until 2001). Epstein brought to light Armstrong’s ethically dubious bribe donation to the UCI, the very organization overseeing drug testing.

Armstrong’s response to his accusers ignore the substance of their accusation and attack their credibility.  He claims that prior lies, personal vendettas and  financial conflicts-of-interest (books sales) delegitimize any statement they make.  I should not have to point out that the same logic applies to everything Armstrong claims; he has far greater financial and social risk, placing even greater pressure on him to refute (accurately or not) the doping allegations. So too, the majority of his supporters face great personal risk from the current FDA investigation.  By way of background, the investigation is NOT (repeat NOT) targeting Armstrong as a doper.   Novitsky is investigating illegal drug trafficking and organized distribution.  This includes governing bodies that may have facilitated drug use through covering-up tests (UCI, IOC, USOC) and the principals in those governing bodies.  I will exclude Armstrong’s paid spokesmen and attorneys from this list of his public supporters, as they have obvious conflict-of-interest and are essentially paid specifically to support him. Of the others (Johan Brunyeel (DS), Chris Carmichael (coach), Michele Ferrari (gynecologist/coach/Blood-doper-to-multiple athletes),  Bart Knaggs (President of Tailwind – owned US Postal Team), Kevin Livingston, Levi Leipheimer, Yaroslov Popovych (teammates during the TDF era), Bill Stapleton (former VP of USOC, CMO of Livestrong, Armstrong’s long-time agent), Thom Weisel (founding sponsor of Tailwind/USPostal, all around financial bad guy),  John Korioth (longtime “friend and confidant”, employed by Livestrong) and Mark MacKinnon (advisor and on Livestrong board), only Korioth and MacKinnon get a pass, and a weak one at that.  If Armstrong is found to have doped, they all stand to lose a great deal; some could face jail time if implicated in distribution.  The incentives  to protect Armstrong from allegations of doping are quite strong.

The bottom line is this: all the reasons not to believe the accusers are the same reasons not to believe Armstrong and his defenders.

Armstrong’s defense rests principally on two things: “I never failed a test,” and the outcome of the Tailwind suit.  The first is a laughable defense for this reason: we don’t know the sensitivity of antidoping testing, but it is VERY LOW. Virtually every cyclist who has ultimately admitted to doping (Landis, Hamilton, David Millar, Bernard Kohl, Jorge Jascke, Erik Zabel, Patrik Sinkewitz, Rolf Alstaag, Bjarne Ris) has related stories of beating drug tests multiple times.  WHILE DOPING! Indeed it is clear that the majority of dopers never test positive.  A history of negative test results has virtually no negative predictive value with such a low sensitivity.

In the “Tailwind Defense” Armstrong essentially extrapolates having negotiated  a favorable settlement (without a court judgment) to being vindicated and proved to have been clean. The argument is obviously invalid.  The basics of the case is that Armstrong had a contract that pain him a $5-million bonus if/when he won his fifth tour. The bonus was withheld, claiming he’d doped. Armstrong sued, and the case was settled out of court, with Armstrong being paid his bonus.  It was in this case that the Andreiu’s were supoena’d; Armstrong has used the outcome of the settlement as evidence they lied.  In reality, there was no finding of fact in the case.

Lance’s own actions have shown his character to be suspect.  His relationship with Michele Ferrari is an example: He openly worked with Ferrari, beginning in 1999. Prior to 2002 he defended the relationship, saying that despite rumors, Ferrari had never been convicted of doping and deserved the benefit of the doubt. Fair enough. But in 2002, Ferrari was banned by the Italian Federation for doping activities. And Armstrong continued to work with him.  In 2004 Armstrong finally stated he would stop working with Ferrari, but subsequent records, including documents seized in a 2010 raid on Popovych’s Italian home, have shown that this was a lie; he allegedly has continued t o work with Ferrari, meeting him as recently as the runup to the 2010 ToC.

Lance’s defense of Ferrari includes an incident involving Pippo Simeoni. In 2003 Simeoni  testified that Ferrari had previously prescribed doping products to him, testimony that contributed to Ferrari’s ban.  Armstrong took exception to this, despite no first-hand knowledge of the Simeoni-Ferrari relationship,  and retaliated, both in public statements and in by actions on the road during the tour in 2004.

Then there is the matter of Armstrong’s “donation” to the UCI, given while still a rider subject to UCI rulings and sanctions.  While not publicized at the time of the donation, it later came to light amidst some confusion. Given the apparently (according to UCI officials) clear rules prohibiting this, the charitable view is that Armstrong saw himself as above the law, and made the ethically dubious decision that the donation was justified by the intent to support antidoping efforts.  A more cynical view is that this was payment to help bury a positive test result.

None of the above is conclusive evidence. It  demonstrates that Armstrong is not as ethically pure as the image he tries to project. He is willing to bend and break rules as it suits his needs.  He has acted dubiously at times and is not scrupulous about the company he keeps.  His accusers are not just 2 or 3 has-been athletes, but are a variety of people who present plausible, if arguable, stories.  His supporters have the same motivations to lie as his accusers.  But that doesn’t mean he has doped.

What has me convinced that he must have doped, is the context of his Tour wins and the analysis I have read of the science and physiology behind his physical performances.  Let’s start with his competitors.  During the years 1999-2005 there were 21 podium spots for GC contention  With repeat winners, these were occupied by just nine individuals (Armstrong, Alex Zulle, Fernando Escartin, Jan Ullrich, Joseba Beloki, Raimondas Rumsas, Alexandre Vinokourov, Andreas Kloden, Ivan Basso), six of whom are dopers (convicted, admitted and/or sanctioned.)  Only Armstrong, Escartin and Kloden* slip through the stringent criteria used above.  If you look at the top eight in each year, on average 5 were dopers (6 if you include Armstrong.)  So Armstrong beat a field of dopers seven times in a row. Well, how much does doping in the Epo era help? About 54% improvement is seen in 13 weeks, according to this article by The Sports Scientists.  At the top levels of sport, we talk about a 1-2% difference separating first place from not-even-in-the-game. Let’s be generous and say that Armstrong is extraordinary, he’s naturally 20% better than everyone else.  That still doesn’t come close to the boost in physiology from Epo.  And in TT and climbing (Armstrong’s fortes) it’s all about physiology.

Just how good is Armstrong’s physiology? The standard measure of maximal workload is VO2max.  You and I have a VO2max between 40-60. Elite athletes are typically in the 80’s, a few in the 90’s. Armstrong’s is variously listed as 82  84 or 85. In cycling, the standard unit is watts produced per kg of body weight (watts/kg) over a given time interval.  In a very nice discussion of some SRM data from the Tourmalet climb in 2010, Ross Tucker calculates that Schleck and Contador climbed at about 5.9-6.0 watts/kg for a duration that makes this equivalent to 85% of power at VO2max. He then calculates at VO2max between 83-87  ml/kg/min (World class.)  A small bump to 6.3 watts puts VO2max into the 92-93 range – rarified air. Lance himself reported training under Ferrari to a goal of 6.7 watts/kg at threshold (about 85% of VO2max.) The corresponding VO2max is, well, unbelievable. Unless it was “aided.”

In the end, we have this picture:  Cycling, particularly European cycling, is a sport that with a long history of entrenched doping practices. Armstrong raced during a period widely regarded as The Epo Era, when, by all accounts, most riders and virtually all the contenders used Epo, a drug shown to provide substantial performance benefit.  Although he never officially tested positive, doping controls during that era were weak, and the predictive negative value of a test result is virtually zero.  Multiple people report first-hand knowledge that he doped and encouraged others to dope as well (I expect Novitzky is cross-referencing stories for consistency.)   Virtually all of his serious competitors between 1999 and 2005 have been found to have doped. The power output he himself claims is highly improbable without doping, based on our understanding of human physiology (I’m sorry, but neither cancer nor chemotherapy changed him from Peter Parker to Spiderman.)  I don’t know whether the evidence will legally “prove” that he doped (that will likely be decided by the Novitzky Grand Jury,) but when faced with the question myself, I find it very hard to support any position other than that Armstrong used prohibited performance enhancing drugs during his run of Tour de France victories.  I can’t wait to get to the important conversations.

My thanks to BikeMonk for providing me the space and forum for this essay.

Mudders

“Hit it! C’mon PeeWee you little %$!($!(%!* HIT IT!!!!!…now, now, now….doitdoitdoitdoitdoit…..”

I write this post in my head every third or tenth ride. Then I forget about it by the time I get home.

PeeWee was this kid on our cycling team, he showed up about two years behind my class. He absolutely LIVED for cycling. I mean, we had some pretty dedicated guys (KansasFuck and Crashby come to mind) and one or two with existing national reps as junior amateurs before they arrived at college. Even so, most everyone had some substantial signs of understanding that cycling wasn’t going to be a career (I count two, three if you include the independently wealthy guy). Not PeeWee. He seemed to think he was going pro….despite no evidence of talent any better than any of the rest of us journey men and women. Diet, structured workouts all the time, training logs and plans…..the works. Fancied himself a sprinter. Maybe even a track man.

It was a dreary race. Cold, wet, early season on the road. Way out on the plains with nary a tree in sight to block the wind, or driving rain. Two laps of a big rectangular course. It was the “B” race. For us no-talent wannabes. Cycling was a club sport in those days, just on the verge of having sustainable regional leagues and a national competition. Rules were loose. Road races can’t get too big so it was usually structured in breakdowns of something like 7-9 members in the A race, maybe a few extra if necessary in the B race…and we heard of conferences that went down to a C race. So anyway, we were in the B race. Everything from us USCF Cat IV-III types down through those that never rode a bike competition until college. The rules were strange though, if you are thinking Varsity / Junior Varsity structure….points were counted across all classes, including the women’s race(s) to determine the team winner of the weekend. So the B race counted….

Road races were not normally my strength. Mostly because they traditionally include a lot of hill climbing and I sucked at that…once you get dropped off the lead pack in a bike race, it is over. At the amateur and “B” level anyway. On real teams and the pros, you have dedicated duties and strategies. One guy might be the designated sprinter who is intended to try to win the race. So the team does what it can to keep that guy at the front. Even if it means waiting at the top of a hill and then burying themselves to drag his slow behind back up to the bunch.

We were not quite so organized in the collegiate Bs. Partially because half of the squad didn’t really understand teamwork. Partially because a large percentage of the team fancied themselves the finisher guy and wasn’t exactly looking to sacrifice his own chances for the team. So I don’t recall a whole lot of teamwork wins in those days. We fared okay, we had some talent even deep into our B squad. But we didn’t excel at teamwork.

But this course was flat. And it was raining. You know what a mudder is? Something about a racing horse that performs “well” on a muddy track. Under adverse conditions. Obviously not better than that horse would perform under ideal conditions, just relatively better. In pro cycling these are generally known as “Belgians”. Anyway, it was a flat course, the rain was coming down….and I found out I’m a mudder. Really, it makes no sense. I don’t like to get cold that much and back then I wore glasses to race and could barely see when it was super nasty. But for whatever reason, I was having a decent day and not getting shelled. Did I mention it was flat?

There was a crash or two on the first lap. I may have gone down or just gotten caught up in one of them. I don’t really recall. Might have been my tan-guy-in-crime who went down. That was early on, I think. We came through the first lap in good order, not too much in the way of prime shenanigans if I recall. Nobody split the group. Slight rise toward the finish line so that tends to keep things close.

I don’t remember a damn thing about the second lap until we neared the last corner of the rectangle.

The rain had been off, things had dried out a bit but I remember it was getting drippy again. The front pack was pretty decent sized and I was positioned okay. A bit too deep, maybe halfway back but at least I was on the outside. It started to string out at the front. Two, three guys across…..pace was banging. I was spinning it up and thinking about getting into better contact with the front before there was a split. If someone lets a gap open up in front of them at that pace, that close to the line you are lucky to pull it back. So I started working up the line of guys trying to stay in contention By the time we started on the long rise toward the finish (maybe 1,000 meters? 1,200?) I was in close enough contact to start thinking about the finish. Gearing up and I pull to behind..PeeWee. He’s doing his massive over-spin shit on the inside of the two abreast line. Maybe 15 back. But he’s making his move just as I get to him. Slips out into a lane somehow and I’m on his wheel….all I can think at this point is

“Hit it! C’mon PeeWee you little %$!($!(%!* HIT IT!!!!!…now, now, now, NOW….doitdoitdoitdoitdoit….NOW(%*&%!(%^&($#.”

He did. PeeWee spun it up. PeeWee’s effort must have let me nail in another two cogs, that was downtube shifter days. No gears for PeeWee, he was a spin man but he managed to pull past a few guys, maybe four…six? ..but things were really moving by then. The dudes on the front were trying to figure out what to do and the ones on their wheels were twitching, ready to sprint. PeeWee probably topped off or something, he usually did due to his gear aversion but I dunno. That’s when I touched off the boys….

It was getting close for one of my sprints. More like a proper sprint, really, well within 500m..but it was a slight slope all the way to the line and it was raining. And PeeWee gave me, accidentally no doubt, one of the best leadouts of my career. I don’t think I properly saw anything other than a free lane ahead of me and the finish line.

FTW.

Huh. I don’t think I can ever be President.

So Trump is getting a bunch of press for dragging up Birther crap again. And good old Fox news has

Gone Full Birther

this has been laid to bed. From 2009:
In an attempt to quash persistent rumors that President Obama was not born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, Hawaii’s health director reiterated Monday afternoon that she has personally seen Obama’s birth certificate in the Health Department’s archives:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….“

Factcheck.org laid this canard to rest too..in 2008:

FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as “supporting documents” to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.

Now, let’s not be stupid here. The Republican talking class promotes this stuff as a scurrilous attack on the legitimacy of Obama. That is there real goal….to undercut the President. So this is far beyond a matter of silly little trivialities like facts. They cannot be convinced with any evidence because they think they have a lie that resonates.

However, let us focus on the allegation. As far as I can tell the Birthers are obsessed that Obama has released a “Certificate of Live Birth”, not a “Birth Certificate”, and that it is apparently a copy and not an “original”.

So basically if you don’t have the precise document that was issued within weeks of when you were actually born, these birthers think you can’t qualify as President.

Yeaaaah. I don’t have that. And I suspect that any copy that I get from the County Hall that recorded my birth won’t be up to snuff either.

See…I was adopted as a child. The identity of my birth mother, due to existing state law at the time, is blocked from any records that are available to me and, presumably any future Fox News pundits and their lackies. So even the official record, such as it is, lists parents that any casual inspection would inform you are not my biological ones.

Jesus, how many fucking people can these teabagging Republicans declare as not really Americans? We know they hate any sort of minority, the nonreligious, immigrants, gays and libruls….now adoptees?

WTF, GOP, WTMFFRUBBQ?

Life’s Little Lessons in Corporate Douchehundery

People who insist on phone conversation, in preference to email, do so because they are preparing to tell you lies that they don’t want to be quoted on later.