Tag: 爱上海WC

first_imgWe are proud to present this vintage 1983 Ti-Raleigh team jersey as part of our 2011 line.  This Holland-based squad was the world’s dominant team for almost a decade,  winning innumerable races.Descente is proud to honor this iconic team by partnering with the Davis Phinney Foundation and is donating $5 from the sale of each Raleigh jersey to this important cause. Davis Phinney was a legendary member of team 7-Eleven, battling the Ti-Raleigh team throughout the 1980’s and is now facing his personal battle with Parkinson’s.The Davis Phinney Foundation was created in 2004 to support Parkinson’s disease research and improve the lives of those challenged by the disease. The Foundation raises vital dollars to help fund the research of curative therapies for Parkinson’s patients and investigations into the causes of the disease. These two classic jerseys from cycling’s past are being reproduced by their original maker, Descente, for their 2011 Spring/Summer line. Each will be produced in limited numbers, with a portion of the proceeds going to important causes. Check out the details and press release after the jump…Each jersey will feature:-Descente’s new Tempo fabric-Full-length zipper-Sublimated printing throughout-Soft-tension elastic at waist and pockets-Contoured set-in sleeve construction and a tapered collar for superior fit-Three back pocketsSIZING: SM-XXLMSRP $90.00PRESS RELEASE:In celebration of the 30th anniversary of the founding of the 7-Eleven team, we’re reproducing a limited number of 7-Eleven jerseys and will donate $5 from the sale of each 7-Eleven jersey to the Lance Armstrong Foundation. The Lance Armstrong Foundation is fighting to improve the lives of people affected by cancer. The 7-Eleven team was founded in 1981 and featured Eric Heiden, winner of five gold medals in the 1980 Winter Olympics, and many other top professionals. The team’s accomplishments are countless, including Andy Hampsten’s epic triumph in the 1988 Tour of Italy, stage wins in the Tour de France, world championship medals and several US Pro Championship titles.last_img read more

Read more

first_imgGet instant access to must-read content today!To access hundreds of features, subscribe today! At a time when the world is forced to go digital more than ever before just to stay connected, discover the in-depth content our subscribers receive every month by subscribing to gasworld.Don’t just stay connected, stay at the forefront – join gasworld and become a subscriber to access all of our must-read content online from just $270. Subscribelast_img

Read more

first_imgLast week’s High Court judgment that the Legal Services Commission’s family tender process was unlawful railroaded a process which would have reduced the number of family providers from 2,400 to 1,300 and led to the demise of many experienced firms.The ruling is undoubtedly a notable victory for the Law Society, but the big question for legal aid firms is: What happens now? The first thing to consider is whether the LSC will appeal. It would seem inconceivable that that the commission would seek to waste more public money. It has already squandered an undisclosed sum running an ‘unlawful’ tender exercise, then shelled out hundreds of thousands of pounds unsuccessfully contesting the Law Society’s challenge. But might the prospect of having to pay compensation to those which were awarded contracts – and who may now suffer financial detriment through their withdrawal – make it more likely that the LSC will appeal? If the LSC appeals and wins, that may not be the end of the matter, as those firms that have discontinued judicial review actions on discrete points in light of the Divisional Court’s ruling may re-issue those proceedings. If the LSC does not seek to appeal, there will need to be a fresh tendering exercise, presumably preceded by a fresh consultation and impact assessment, all of which will take time. All this uncertainty is set against a background of the spectre of deep legal aid cuts following the government’s spending review – with cuts likely to be made in the funding of private law family work. As Lord Justice Moses pointed out after giving judgment, the LSC’s best course of action would be sort the new contracts once the scale of the legal aid cuts and new fee regimes are known; rather than re-tender, only for those contracts to be terminated early to implement the changes. The Law Society’s view is similar – the LSC should extend the existing family contracts until April 2012, await the outcome of the spending review and re-tender on the basis of where legal aid funding stands at that time. Looking ahead though, one has to ask whether this challenge and re-tendering is worth the hassle, when the end result could be the same outcome achieved by the flawed tender process – ie a massive reduction in the number of family suppliers. Despite repeated assurances from the LSC that the family tender was not designed to reduce the number of providers, is that really the direction of travel in which it and the government is seeking to go? One only has to look at the plans for the delivery of criminal legal aid services to see it is probably not. Before the election, the then legal aid minister Lord Bach announced proposals to reduce the number of criminal providers by 75%. The coalition government has not dissented from this proposal. Would it not therefore seem likely that the government and the LSC seek to run both the criminal defence service and the community legal service in the same way? If the government believes that it can save money in the provision of criminal legal aid by contracting with fewer larger firms, it must surely have come to the same conclusion in relation to the delivery of other services. Visit the Gazette’s blogs page for more news blogslast_img read more

Read more