plant lover, cookie monster, shoe fiend
16859 stories
·
20 followers

My family’s past, and Germany’s, weighs heavily upon me. And it’s why I feel so strongly about Gaza | Eva Ladipo | The Guardian

1 Share

I don’t usually talk about my great-uncle Walter. Gen Walter Warlimont, as my grandfather’s brother was formally known, was head of the national defence department in the high command of the Wehrmacht, the armed forces of Nazi Germany. Only two people were between him and the Führer in the chain of command. Walter worked so closely with Hitler that the failed assassination attempt in July 1944 injured his arm. The orders he signed during wartime – about who to shoot to kill, about how to treat prisoners – meant he had hundreds of thousands of lives on his conscience.

Not that Uncle Walter was the only one in the family who facilitated the Third Reich and the Holocaust. My paternal grandparents were very proud to have been among the very earliest members of Hitler’s party. My maternal grandfather – Walter’s brother – was the head of a factory in Vienna that made the guidance systems for the V2 rocket, a factory that was staffed by Russian and Ukrainian slave labourers.

I’ve never really felt a need to write about my family history before. But Walter’s life and crimes feel uncomfortably relevant right now. As I watch how the debate and discussion over the war in Gaza have played out in Germany, in the months since the horrific attacks of 7 October, I worry that even as we constantly invoke the Nazi past, we are forgetting some crucial lessons from our history.

Support for Israel is sacrosanct in Germany. That’s for good reason. It is entirely natural for Germany to feel burdened by guilt when it comes to the Jewish people; like most Germans, I believe solidarity with the Jewish state that was created after the Holocaust is a sacred obligation. But unlike many in my country, I don’t believe that support for Israel alone fulfils the responsibility placed upon us by the horrors of the past. Instead, I fear that for the sake of the superordinate desire to stand by Israel’s side – a desire that has landed Germany with the accusation at the international court of justice of aiding genocide – we are inadvertently repeating mistakes that have been made before.

What about the lesson that all people’s lives are of equal value? At the peak of Uncle Walter’s career, Germany divided the world between Übermenschen and Untermenschen, superior people and the subhuman. The horrible outcome of that division should imbue Germans with an understanding of the importance of considering all humans as equal – regardless of racial, ethnic or religious background. And yet as I follow discussion of the war in the Middle East and the matter-of-factness with which the number of victims in Gaza has been accepted, I frequently get the impression that this lesson is being forgotten.

Observing it can no longer help the Palestinians who have died in Gaza. But it might help people living in my own country. Germany is now a multi-ethnic, multi-religious nation. It is estimated that there are about 200,000 people of Palestinian origin in our country and millions of other people drawn from across the Middle East. When they see how the war in Gaza is discussed, many of them perceive a world in which Jewish lives appear to matter far more than Arab ones. It is as though the war allows a long suppressed view of the world to resurface in Germany, in which there are superior “western” cultures on the one hand and inferior, less sophisticated ones on the other.

Debate is stifled not just for Palestinian or Muslim protesters, but for everyone. A defensive climate prevails in which simplistic concepts of good and evil are privileged above nuanced analysis. Critics of Israel’s military campaign are routinely defamed as antisemitic.

When Masha Gessen wrote an essay in the New Yorker about the aggressive dogmatism of Germany’s pro-Israel stance, much of the German media reacted with outrage. The essay was reduced to one headline-grabbing comparison – between Gaza and the Nazi-era ghettoes – that appeared in it, which German critics used to accuse the author of downplaying the Holocaust. The Israeli film-maker Yuval Abraham faced similar outrage after he decried Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and called for a ceasefire in a speech at the Berlin film festival. Many other critical voices, especially in the arts and academia, have been disinvited and defunded and find themselves persona non grata almost overnight.

Besides being the great-niece of one of Hitler’s generals, I am also a journalist in London. The reporting on the war in Britain has struck me as freer and more historically grounded than in Germany. Immediately after the Hamas massacre, the German vice-chancellor, Robert Habeck, was widely praised for warning that “contextualisation” of the atrocities could lead to their “relativisation”. The fateful events that led to the redemptive foundation of Israel and the tragedy of the Palestinian Nakba, which are illuminated and argued about in the English-speaking world, are discussed much more timidly in Germany, almost as though looking too closely could undermine the moral certainty of being on the right “side”.

And yet such simplistic thinking appears to be leading my country into forgetting yet another lesson of the Nazi era: the danger of falling prey to rightwing fanatics. I have no doubt that good intentions – fuelled by repentance – underpin the unconditional German support for Israel. But in our desire to paint the world in black and white – with the role of victim reserved for Israelis, who are seen as westerners, and the role of perpetrators assigned to Arabs, seen as other – we find ourselves in perverse alignment with authoritarians: with Benjamin Netanyahu’s rightwing nationalist government, with white nationalists in the US and with the far-right AfD party at home.

The final – and possibly most acute – lesson, which many Germans seem to be suppressing, stems from our own extraordinary postwar experience. After the second world war, and after centuries of atrocities, the vicious circle of revenge was broken in Europe. This was a truly historic achievement from which the Nazi perpetrators benefited more than anyone else.

Look at my family: for all his crimes, Uncle Walter did not face the death penalty. Instead, after six years, the life sentence imposed on my great-uncle in the Nuremberg trials was lifted and he was released in 1954. He died in the 1970s as a wealthy, respected man on the shores of one of Bavaria’s prettiest lakes. His brother, my grandfather Paul Warlimont, was sentenced to only two years in prison for his mistreatment of factory workers. He was later awarded Germany’s Order of Merit. My paternal grandparents, the very early Nazis, were also granted a rich and free postwar life. The clemency extended to all my forebears was clearly not in the service of justice. But it did serve the interests of peace.

In short, during the past eight decades, postwar Europe has prospered thanks to an extraordinary willingness by Germany’s enemies to forgive her crimes and to let the desire for conciliation trump the desire for justice. This experience should obligate us. It should make Germans always and for ever opponents of vengeance and retribution, whether by Palestinians or Israelis. We should not be fanning the flames in the Middle East by committing ourselves to one beleaguered community over another, let alone exporting weapons to the Netanyahu government and backing it at the United Nations. Instead, we should speak humbly of the miracles that abjuring revenge can bring about. We owe it to our history.

  • Eva Ladipo is a German journalist and novelist based in London

  • Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
15 minutes ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Budget 2024 pushes new climate action down the road | The Monitor

1 Share

After announcing $63 billion in new climate-related spending in Budget 2023, the federal government’s climate ambitions dropped off significantly in Budget 2024.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’ initial analysis finds that the latest federal budget includes about $14 billion in net new climate-related spending, but that money is spread out over 11 years and is heavily backloaded. This budget announces only $2 billion in net new climate spending over the next five years.

That’s a pittance in the context of Canada’s $100 billion per year clean economy investment gap—the additional amount we need to be spending to put the economy on a path to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century.

And while housing affordability was deservedly front and centre in this budget, we can’t afford to lose sight of the climate crisis and the urgency of transitioning away from the production and consumption of fossil fuels in the Canadian economy.

Via Rail headlines new climate spending

The largest chunk of new climate-related spending in this budget is for the expansion of the clean electricity investment tax credit at an anticipated additional cost of around $6 billion. Ironically, however, the program is “reprofiled” such that it will cost the government $1.5 billion less over the next five years than initially expected. The lion’s share of the tax credit won’t kick in until at least 2029.

The second biggest new announcement—$3.1 billion over 11 years—is for nuclear science research and environmental remediation. It’s not immediately clear how this funding will help with emissions reductions since the money is not intended for new generating capacity.

More promising are the announcements related to transportation and buildings.

Via Rail receives $462 million over five years for sorely needed operational funding. That money will be put to work immediately to deliver better rail service across the country.

The feds are also allocating $372 million over six years to a crown corporation—the confusingly named VIA HFR-VIA TGF Inc.—to continue development of high-frequency rail (HFR) in the Toronto-Quebec corridor. This is the first time we’ve seen the government commit to delivering the HFR project through a publicly owned corporation after initially entertaining the idea of selling it off to a private consortium. That’s a big win for advocates who have fought to defend the integrity of public passenger rail.

On the buildings side, the budget introduces a new Canada Greener Homes Affordability Program at a cost of $800 million over five years. The program will help lower-income households in particular—who have the most to gain from reduced energy bills—to improve the energy efficiency of their homes through retrofits.

The new program does represent a funding cut. The recently expired Greener Homes Grant, which this new program replaces, disbursed $2.6 billion over the past three years. However, the targeted design of the new program means it may have a bigger impact.

Other new climate-related spending in Budget 2024 includes an electric vehicle supply chain investment tax credit, an extension of the Clean Fuels Fund for biofuels, an extension of the carbon pricing rebate to small businesses, and some miscellaneous funding for research, administration and minor tax incentives.

The budget also includes new details about projects funded through the Canada Infrastructure Bank and Canada Growth Fund, although all of that money was accounted for in previous budgets.

Climate movement earns some policy wins

In a recent co-publication with Climate Action Network – Réseau action climat (CAN-Rac) Canada, the CCPA made three specific recommendations for Budget 2024. Did it deliver?

First, our call for energy efficiency retrofits for low-income housing was realized in part through the Greener Homes Affordability Program. The actual funding on offer is about a third of what we said was necessary, but it’s a step in the right direction for addressing climate and affordability concerns in tandem.

Second, our call for a Youth Climate Corps was specifically acknowledged in the budget. The federal government “intends to launch consultations” on the potential program, which is another step in the right direction and a big win for climate advocates. But with no specific budget or timeline it will be hard to hold the government to account.

Third, our call for an excess profits tax on the oil and gas sector did not come through. Indeed, the oil and gas sector escapes any scrutiny whatsoever in this budget. Increasing the capital gains inclusion rate is a monumental and progressive tax measure in general—another big win for advocates, this time for the tax fairness movement—but it does not specifically address the egregious profitability of the fossil fuel industry.

Of the longer list of climate-related asks included in the CCPA’s latest Alternative Federal Budget, the federal budget’s new funding for passenger rail comes closest to meeting expectations. Even on that front, however, the less than $200 million per year on offer pales in comparison to the $2 billion per year we argue is needed.

Budget 2024 also comes up empty-handed in crucial areas such as increasing international climate finance, eliminating outstanding fossil fuel subsidies and delivering a just transition for fossil fuel workers and communities.

All eyes on 2025

Despite the limited new climate spending announced in Budget 2024, backloaded funding from previous budgets means the federal government is still expected to spend about $19 billion on climate action in the current fiscal year. That number is slated to rise to $22 billion by 2027/28, which is equivalent to about 0.7 per cent of GDP.

It’s a positive trajectory, but it’s still well short of the two per cent of GDP we need to be spending on decarbonization. In other words, it is too soon for the federal government to rest on its climate laurels.

Things may change in 2025 in the lead-up to a crucial federal election. The climate crisis remains a top concern for voters, and it will no doubt be front of mind after yet another summer wracked by extreme weather events.

But every year we wait to act is a year we don’t have. This budget was a small step forward when a bold stride was needed.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
20 minutes ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Are We FLiRTing With A New Covid Wave? - by Eric Topol

1 Share

I’d rather not have to write about it, and haven’t for awhile. More than four years in, we’re all sick of Covid stuff and hope it’s behind us. And recent months have been good with a steady drop in hospitalizations and wastewater SARS-CoV-2 to their lowest levels since the summer of 2023. That’s great. But we’ve got to keep an eye on the constantly evolving virus, by natural selection to bypass our immune response and/or potentiate its infectivity—anything to find more hosts or repeat hosts. That’s why I will continue to stay on this important topic, even when it’s in the background like it is for most people right now.

We saw the arrival of the hyper-mutated BA.2.87 show up in late 2023, with the look of an Omicron-like event by its sequence, that gave reason for concern. But it fortunately did not pick up new mutations enabling its ability to spread. On the other hand, we saw how the JN.1 variant (a descendant of BA.2.86 with added key functional mutations), became globally dominant, and induced a wave of infections this past winter. Now it has evolved further.

Jay Weiland, my friend and data scientist, who has been accurately forecasting the Covid dynamics for some time, posted the graph below earlier this week extrapolating from wastewater data, an inflection point starting later this month.

You may recall that JN.1 had a huge growth advantage over co-existing variants, like BA.2.86 and many others, that enabled its path to global dominance. The projected inflection now is tied to a decided growth advantage of new variants that are derivatives of BA.2.86/JN.1, as posted by Ben Murrell, as seen below (KP.3, KP.2, KS.1, KP.1.1), all with double or more advantage. (Thanks to Federico Gueli for bringing it to my attention.)

What accounts for the advantage of these new variants to ultimately crowd out JN.1? It’s largely attributed to 2 added spike mutations: F for L at position 456 and R for T at position 346, which has been nicknamed the FLiRT group of variants. You can see those spike mutations compared with JN.1 for KP.3 and KP.2 below

Here is the updated convergence map from Daniel Focosi showing the new variants, such as KP.2, KP.1.1, KS.1 variants) in the top right corner.

The real question now is whether this takeover by FLiRT mutations, a replacement in the works for JN.1, will translate to a new wave. My impression is that it won’t since they are mutations we’ve been exposed to before (specifically F456L and R346T). It’s hard to know for sure, since the context is quite different, now in a BA.2.86 framework rather than preceding major variants, and there are other mutations outside the spike, and changes in secondary and tertiary structure of the virus that are not taken into account. My projection is that we could see a wavelet but not a significant new wave of infections as a result of the FLiRT variants in the next couple of months. I think it will take a much bigger challenge of our immune response than what we see with the FLiRTs. We can’t necessarily count on that optimistic perspective. Time will tell.

Higher risk individuals, which includes people age 65+ and immunocompromised, are eligible to get a second monovalent XBB.1.5 shot. There haven’t been any lab studies yet to determine how well that updated vaccine will fare against the FLiRT variants, but we’ll probably see some soon..

Here’s a bit more on other Covid news.

Two new reports tackled both ends of the age spectrum for susceptibility to Covid.

An elegant study published in Science Translational Medicine looked at mulit-omics and the immune response (innate and adaptive) in participants age 18 to 96 years old who were hospitalized. The major findings were much reduced clearance of the virus with advanced age, along with dysfunctional immune signaling (both via interferons and cellular), and untoward, maladaptive pro-inflammatory (via multiple genes and chemokine, cytokine proteins) activation. There was also evidence of reactivation of herpes simplex and cytomegalovirus in older aged individuals in the upper airway.

The other publication in Nature Microbiology focused on changes in the nasal cell lining (epithelial) as a function of age, advanced through cultures of these cells. There were marked differences in children (goblet cells) for the affinity of SARS-CoV-2 virus (tropism) to the nasal lining, with high Type 1 interferon gene expression which helps to prevent infections. On the other hand, in older aged individuals, the nasal cells facilitated spread of the virus, increasing the chance for both infection and its severity.

These 2 studies help illuminate mechanisms not previously known or refined on the striking differences in outcomes for young and old.

Parenthetically, one pet peeve of mine is exemplified in the 2 graphics above—ageism. Look how they characterize older adults as crippled, needing a walker. That’s not right!

Today there was a publication on a self-amplifying mRNA Covid booster shot vs Omicron Phase 2 and 3 randomized trial. The advantage of these sam vaccines is a much lower mRNA dose, which essentially making xerox copies of itself once it gets into the cell, thus potentially reducing side effects of the mRNA per se, and its self-sustaining feature may promote longer duration of the immune protection. The results look encouraging in the newly reported trial (Figure), at least as good at the conventional booster shots of immune response. It is injected into the skin, not muscle, with a needle-free injection system.

While that publication was just for immune response and safety, there was a recent self-amplifying mRNA Covid shot approved in Japan, the first one to get a regualtory green light. Instead of 30 ug of mRNA it only uses 5 ug and had a superior immune response to the conventional (Pfizer) shot.

A recent paper in Cell briefly reviewed the bench to bedside story of the first

approved self-amplifying vaccine, that took well over a decade. It seems well worth the wait and development. I’m in favor of the alternatives, like the protein vaccine (e.g. Novavax) and self-amplifying mRNA to eke out more protection and less side effects. The US Project NextGen has invested in one of the self-amplifying vaccine programs, along with the pan-coronavirus (universal), and nasal vaccines.

There are good current summaries of the state of these new vaccines, here for nasal/mucosal and next generation by Hilda Bastian. I remain confident that we’ll ultimately have a nasal vaccine here, and it would have already been available had we made it a priority like shots were for Operation Warp Speed. But 2 nasal spray vaccines are moving along well in US-backed clinical trials. Maybe we’ll see at least one in 2025, but certainly not this year. We absolutely need a way to block infections—shots won’t do it. The new nasal epithelial cell study again reinforced how critical this entry site is for infections and adverse outcomes.

Covid’s not going away, but I don’t think there is a significant short-term threat of the emerging FLiRT variants. High-risk people should continue to take precautions, keeping up with boosters, and all forms of protection. Even if FLiRT doesn’t kick in, there’s plenty more ways that SARS-CoV2 can reinvent itself and find new ways or better ways to evade our immune response. We’ve seen that movie before. That’s the longer term worry, that it hasn’t and won’t just “burn out.” And why we need better vaccines to be prepared for that potential.

Thanks for reading Ground Truths. If you haven’t subscribed, now is a good time. It’s free. And please consider sharing the post.

Share Ground Truths

Thankful to all the scientists who stay on the Covid watch, a few mentioned in the post and many, many more that I haven’t cited who don’t let up. I don’t like to think where we’d be without them.

Any voluntary paid subscriptions go to support Scripps Research.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
9 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

For its next trick, Ottawa must unload the $34B Trans Mountain pipeline. It won't be easy | CBC News

1 Share

In her budget speech to the House of Commons on Tuesday, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland took a moment to celebrate the finishing touch on expansion of the Trans Mountain oil pipeline.

The controversial project has been plagued by delays and massive cost overruns, but Freeland instead focused on its completion, highlighting the: "talented tradespeople and the brilliant engineers who, last Thursday, made the final weld, known as the golden weld, on a great national project."

For all the difficulties with developing and building TMX, Freeland still faces another major hurdle that is sure to prove contentious — choosing when to sell it, who gets to buy it, and for how much.

An upcoming election and more than $34 billion in construction costs are raising the stakes.

Ottawa bought the project when it was on the verge of falling apart — before there was ever a shovel in the ground — in the face of legal, political and regulatory challenges. 

The federal government has long vowed to sell the project (including at least a partial ownership stake to Indigenous groups) once construction was complete. That milestone has now been reached.

But the move will no doubt open a Pandora's box, says Daniel Béland, the director of the McGill University Institute for the Study of Canada and a professor in the department of political science.

He says any potential deal will face intense scrutiny considering the election is due before the fall of 2025 and, most notably, because the actual sale price is expected to be far lower than the cost to actually build the pipeline. 

"They were in a hot spot when they bought it back in 2018. They are still in a hot spot," said Béland.

How the governing Liberals handle Trans Mountain could impact how voters view the Liberal party's handling of financial, economic, Indigenous, and environmental issues. 

"There's risk either way. If you sell it really fast, but you sell it at the price that is considered to be quite low, then you might be accused of just getting rid of it for political reasons but not having the interest of taxpayers in mind," he said.

"But, if you wait and you don't sell it, then you might be accused of being basically permanently involved or trying to be permanently involved in that sector of the economy in a way that many people, even people who are more conservative, may find inappropriate."

There has always been interest in buying it, including from Stephen Mason, the managing director of Project Reconciliation, a Calgary-based organization which aims to use a potential ownership stake to benefit Indigenous communities.

Nearly five years ago, Mason walked into then-federal finance minister Bill Morneau's office in Ottawa and made an offer to purchase Trans Mountain before construction had even begun on its expansion, which will transport more oil from Alberta to the British Columbia coast.

Morneau was interested, he says, but the project wasn't for sale until the new pipeline was built.

Much has changed since that meeting in July 2019, including the ballooning cost of Trans Mountain to more than $34 billion (compared to an original estimate of about $7.3 billion) and numerous delays in construction.

Mason is still pursuing ownership. He won't discuss numbers, but suspects Trans Mountain is worth far less than $34 billion.

"My intuition is telling me that it's going to be a fairly significant writedown," he said. "I'm not sure the Liberal government wants to get into a public recognition of what the writedown is ahead of the election, but that is just … my speculation." 

A critical factor in the timing and price of a potential sale is a dispute over how much oil companies will have to pay to actually use the new pipeline.

Several large oil producers signed long-term contracts to use 80 per cent of the pipeline. However, as construction costs have soared, so too have the tolls that companies will have to pay.

Those companies have balked at the higher rates arguing they shouldn't have to bear the "extreme magnitude" of construction overruns. The Canada Energy Regulator has scheduled a hearing for September, at the earliest, to resolve the issue.

For now, the regulator has set an interim toll of $11.46 for every barrel of oil moved down the line. That price includes a fixed amount of $10.88 and a variable portion of $0.58. The fixed amount is nearly double what Trans Mountain estimated it would be in 2017.

"There's no way that you can have tolls high enough on TMX to cover a $34 billion budget," said Rory Johnston, an energy researcher and founder of the Commodity Context newsletter, who describes the cost overruns on the project compared to the original estimates as "gigantic."

WATCH | The climbing costs of TMX: 

Lessons could be learned on how the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline was developed and built, says company CFO Mark Maki.

He doesn't expect the final tolls to be much higher than the interim amount because, otherwise, the pipeline could become too expensive for oil companies to want to use. Based on the interim tolls, Johnston expects the federal government to likely only recover about half of the money it spent to buy and build Trans Mountain.

"There's no way anyone would pay the full cost of the pipeline because the tolls don't support it. You're going to need to discount it. You're going to need to take a haircut of at least 50 per cent of this pipeline," he said.

The federal government currently owns the original Trans Mountain pipeline, built in 1953, the now-completed expansion and related facilities including storage tanks and an export terminal.

The federal government has looked at offering an equity stake to the more than 120 Western Canadian Indigenous communities whose lands are located along the pipeline route, while finding a different buyer to be the majority owner.

Besides Project Reconciliation, other potential buyers include a partnership between the Western Indigenous Pipeline Group (WIPG) and Pembina Pipelines. 

The group has the support from about 40 Indigenous communities and hopes to purchase the project within the next year, said Michael Lebourdais, an WIPG director and chief of Whispering Pines/Clinton Indian Band, located near Kamloops, B.C.

Those communities have to live with the environmental risk of a spill, so they should benefit financially from the pipeline, he says. 

Pension funds and other institutions could pursue ownership too.

"There will be buyers. I'm not sure that they'll be willing to pay the full cost of construction but I think there'll be buyers for sure," said Jackie Forrest, executive director of the ARC Energy Research Institute.

The federal government will likely highlight the overall economic benefits of the new pipeline and the expected role of Indigenous communities in ownership, experts say,  as a way to defend against criticism if the eventual sale price is low. 

In her Tuesday speech, Freeland was already promoting the pipeline's expected financial boost by highlighting the Bank of Canada's recent estimate that the new Trans Mountain expansion will add one-quarter of a percentage point to Canada's GDP in the second quarter. 

Read the whole story
sarcozona
17 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

COVID-19 caused 21% excess of respiratory infections last winter, analysis finds

1 Share
Read the whole story
sarcozona
20 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Anna Shackley forced to retire aged 22 because of heart condition

1 Share

Anna Shackley, one of Britain's most talented young cyclists, has been forced to retire aged 22 because of heart issues.

The Scot is the reigning British Under-23 road race champion and won bronze in the under-23 event at last year's World Championships in Glasgow.

She was diagnosed with cardiac arrhythmia in January and after further tests has been advised to retire.

"To say I'm devastated would be a huge understatement," Shackley said.

"Cycling has been my entire life for as long as I can remember and unfortunately it has come to a premature ending."

Shackley competed for Team GB at the Tokyo Olympics as a 20-year-old and won under-23 silver at the European Championships.

Further notable results include finishing 13th in the general classification at the Giro d'Italia and seventh overall at the Tour de Romandie.

"I had many plans and ambitions for the future and that being taken away from me has been very hard," she said.

"However, I count myself lucky to have had the unique experience of being a professional in [my] hobby. Wee Anna would never have believed that."

Danny Stam, sports manager for Shackley's SD Worx-Protime team, said: "We are very sorry to see Anna's cycling career end like this.

"She was one of the bigger talents in the women's peloton.

"We saw in recent years that she was making good progress and we believed she could grow to the world top."

Read the whole story
sarcozona
20 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories