Ganging Up On Poor Tyler

Howard Kveck wrote:

Let me say again, that as long as drug use it tolerated to some
extent
in society in general, it will also be be tolerated to some extent
in
sports.



K. Gringioni.

I think that, under the societal circumstances you mention, then
perhaps
it *should* also be be tolerated to some extent in sports.



Dumbass -

Well - ya.

Why should a sport be held to a higher standard than the culture in
which it resides?

This whole drug fixation is like Reagan's War on Drugs. It didn't work
because you can't legislate people's values.


K. Gringioni.

On 23 Oct 2004 15:00:04 -0700, (L. Seer) wrote:


Well, if he is suspended and officially deemed a doper, it's likely
that he's been doping the whole time, and doping significantly
enhanced those bigger pay-checks he's already received and gave him
the trophies he's won. It seems like there should be some kind of
penalty for doping offenses which involves past pay.

The suits from sponsors, especially those leaving the sport, would
destroy whatever image that cycling has left. You'd have another
recovery suit in the news, similar to the LA insurance thing, every
week. Even people that don't care if the cyclists are drugging would
get tired of more drug news than race results.

And the number of sponsors would decline because of the strengthened
association with drugs.

I'm guessing you wouldn't get through one season of that before the
UCI had to set rules the other way, just to survive at their current
level.

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

On 10/23/2004 11:27 PM, in article , "Robert
Chung" wrote:

B. Lafferty wrote:
IMO, the racing would be more like it was late 1980s and before. [...]
They would suffer more in the mountains and climb the mountains at
reduced speeds with fewer rider together as the cols progressed on
mountain stages. Average speeds for races would drop by 2 or 3 km
per hour.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/tdf.png

sarcasm

So, wait! Does this mean that one could assume that the higher average
speeds of the modern Tour are due to its shorter distances, rather than to
drug use?

/sarcasm


--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash

"Curtis L. Russell" wrote in message


And the number of sponsors would decline because of the strengthened
association with drugs.

While I agree with your comments, it does seem that there are serious
sponsorship problem presently. That may or may not be directly drug related
but there is a decline/payment problem. Quick Step's co-sponsor has not
paid since July. Domina riders haven't been paid since June. Rumors abound
that CSC is having difficulty. And that's just within the past 6 months or
so. If notheing else, it may indicate that the sport is drawing less
solvent sponsors than in desireable. Coast also comes to mind.

..

"Steven L. Sheffield" wrote in message
...
On 10/23/2004 11:27 PM, in article , "Robert
Chung" wrote:

B. Lafferty wrote:
IMO, the racing would be more like it was late 1980s and before. [...]
They would suffer more in the mountains and climb the mountains at
reduced speeds with fewer rider together as the cols progressed on
mountain stages. Average speeds for races would drop by 2 or 3 km
per hour.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/tdf.png

sarcasm

So, wait! Does this mean that one could assume that the higher average
speeds of the modern Tour are due to its shorter distances, rather than to
drug use?


That may be a factor but is more likely a factor comparing the 1950s to the
periods from late 1960s to the late 1980s. For a significant number of years
the speeds were all fairly well grouped, regardless of distance. It is only
in the 1990s with the advent of EPO and other preparations that the speed
jumps remarkably even though the distances aren't like those of the 1950s
and 1960s.

On 10/24/2004 07:00 AM, in article
et, "B. Lafferty"
wrote:


"Steven L. Sheffield" wrote in message
...
On 10/23/2004 11:27 PM, in article , "Robert
Chung" wrote:

B. Lafferty wrote:
IMO, the racing would be more like it was late 1980s and before. [...]
They would suffer more in the mountains and climb the mountains at
reduced speeds with fewer rider together as the cols progressed on
mountain stages. Average speeds for races would drop by 2 or 3 km
per hour.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/tdf.png

sarcasm

So, wait! Does this mean that one could assume that the higher average
speeds of the modern Tour are due to its shorter distances, rather than to
drug use?


That may be a factor but is more likely a factor comparing the 1950s to the
periods from late 1960s to the late 1980s. For a significant number of years
the speeds were all fairly well grouped, regardless of distance. It is only
in the 1990s with the advent of EPO and other preparations that the speed
jumps remarkably even though the distances aren't like those of the 1950s
and 1960s.



What about the advent of ultra-light 15-lb bicycles, better training
methods, and better diets?

How much (or little) of an effect do you think they have?

I'm not denying drug use in the peloton. I've gotten to the point where I
don't really care anymore, however ... It's just entertainment, after all.

But it's not ALL due to dope.


--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash

"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in message

Let me say again, that as long as drug use it tolerated to some
extent
in society in general, it will also be be tolerated to some extent
in
sports.

K. Gringioni.

I think that, under the societal circumstances you mention, then
perhaps
it *should* also be be tolerated to some extent in sports.

Dumbass -

Well - ya.

Why should a sport be held to a higher standard than the culture in
which it resides?


Denial via hero worship.

"Steven L. Sheffield" wrote in message
...

What about the advent of ultra-light 15-lb bicycles, better training
methods, and better diets?

AS to training and diet, that got better in the 1980s and you do see a
gradual rise in average speed. If you look at Lemonds book on cycling with
Kent Gordis which came out in 1988 you'll see much the same training
techniques of periodization that Friel, C.C. et al use and, in some cases,
promote as "new." Lemond got his training refined by Guimard and Cochlie
(sp?) so clearly that training infor was in the peloton and yet, speed,
while it did generally increase, did not dramatically increase over a short
period.


Machines in the 1980s were in the 17lb-18lb range. Remember, Lemond used
carbon in the Tour. Given that the average includes flatter stages where a
few pounds would not make much of a difference, I can't see that as
explaining in a significant way the dramatic increases in speed seen in the
1990s. Lucho has been quoted as saying that in the early 1990s, he knew it
was time to retire because of the drug use when he saw fat assed
non-climbers going past him on climbs like he was a club rider. Herrara
retire in 1992. One assumes they were riding similar machines.


How much (or little) of an effect do you think they have?

I'll guess 15% to 20%.


I'm not denying drug use in the peloton. I've gotten to the point where I
don't really care anymore, however ... It's just entertainment, after all.

But it's not ALL due to dope.

Not all. I agree that it has become more "just entertainment." I'd like to
see it as more of a legitimate sporting competition. Unless things change
for the better, I won't be following the 2005 season with the level of
interest I've had in the past. So it goes.

B. Lafferty wrote:
"Steven L. Sheffield" wrote

How much (or little) of an effect do you think [better bicycles,
training,
and diets] have?

I'll guess 15% to 20%.

How interesting. r(km,kph) = -.79 == r^2 = .62

--
A proud member of the reality-based community.

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:46:25 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
wrote:

Machines in the 1980s were in the 17lb-18lb range.

That was not typical, most top-level racing bikes were heavier..

JT



****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************