CONI seeks 2 year ban for Valverde

On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 20:51:21 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

Am I the only person who watched the original version of "Rollerball"
and thought hey, this is nothing more than a Madison on steroids?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Maybe because the original roller derbies were based on cycling and in
the early days were, in some cases, a way to use smaller and nearly
abandoned cycling venues.

It apparently had its time of being a sport, albeit a rough one, until
it went the way of wrestling, although they rationally focused on real
female breasts than augmented male ones...

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

"Keith" wrote in message
...
It's worth pointing out that cycling is also less popular than in the
past because it's less popular.

I know, I know, but my working theory is that 5-hour road races work
well as background radio broadcasts, and they work really well when
summarized in newspapers, but they aren't great TV. The awful truth is
that in a typical bike race, there's probably five or ten minutes of
really decisive and visually appealing racing, surrounded by several
hours of fairly uninteresting-looking racing. The fact that the
boring-looking work in those hours set up the ten crucial minutes
means
nothing to a TV camera.

The scenery is part of the fun really, during the Giro or Tour, I
generally grab my laptop and work on the couch. Granted, I'm more
excited when it's a mountain race but it's sill entertaining to me.

As will all sports it's an acquired test, I never managed to get
interested in the least in American football or Baseball during the 5
years I lived in the Silicon Valley.

Glad you brought up baseball, an example of a sport that can drone on
for needless hours, and yet there is something mildly (very mildly)
intoxicating about it. Something that can make a boring 2-1 game still
keep you going, the chance that something *could* happen at any moment,
or thinking (too long) about the strategy involved (ridiculous
statistical analysis).

But that's only 2-3.5 hours or so, and that may explain why coverage of
most bicycle races runs... 2-3.5 hours or so.

As for entertainment, I think it's more than that. There's also that
you-are-there feeling, or that you *could* be there. It's accessible.
You can get out on your bike and pretend, and (hopefully) not blow your
back or make too much of a fool of yourself diving for an underthrown
ball (guess the equivalent would be thinking you could attack that
overpass and die halfway up).

Plus you can pretend that you see something the announcers don't, or
maybe even the other teams. A strategy developing, alliances forming,
somebody unexpected who appears remarkably strong and in control on a
given day.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 01:18:52 GMT, Ryan Cousineau
wrote:

I know, I know, but my working theory is that 5-hour road races work
well as background radio broadcasts, and they work really well when
summarized in newspapers, but they aren't great TV. The awful truth is
that in a typical bike race, there's probably five or ten minutes of
really decisive and visually appealing racing, surrounded by several
hours of fairly uninteresting-looking racing. The fact that the
boring-looking work in those hours set up the ten crucial minutes means
nothing to a TV camera.

I disagree if you can presume an informed audience (yeah, I know, you
can't at the levels needed for TV). The small nucleus of people at
even crits (which often only poorly overlaps the actual racers*1) that
know tactics find the process entertaining and there is constant
speculation on what or why riders are doing what they do (cat 3 and
above - there is no such wasted presumption for the cat 4s and 5s).
Admittedly, the girlfriends, boyfriends and many of the lower cats
wander away, having no interest in what appears to be meaningless
circling about until the final sprint (did I mention anything about
cat 4 and 5?), but if you are involved and there is informed
commentary, I think race development can be interesting.

Even the uninformed can get into it when you have a really good
announcer, like Joe Saling (my opinion, although I've only heard him
ten or so times). All that said, I admit that bringing all that
together is a calculation of diminishing probability.

OK, maybe some John Tesh music...

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

*1 - Attentive cycling mothers often know more about cycing tactics
than cat 4 and 5 riders. Some Cat 4 and 5 riders should listen more to
their mothers. Sorry about being so down on cat 4s and 5s, but I used
to 'enjoy' being at a race site since 5 am and hear some lower cat
complain about having to get up at 6 am to make their race. All
organizers must have equally fond spots in their hearts...

curtis wrote:
*1 - Attentive cycling mothers often know more about cycing tactics than
cat 4 and 5 riders. Some Cat 4 and 5 riders should listen more to their
mothers.

First you got to live in your mothers backyard trailer to make the 12K
dream and now she has to be your DS too.

In article
],
Ryan Cousineau wrote:

In article ,
Keith wrote:

I never get this type of approach, not being able to catch everyone
who cheated doesn't mean you shouldn't put the hammer on the guys you
are able to catch !

There remains an issue of "fairness" in terms of media play and
sponsorship (the only way cycling gets $$$). Because we're less
organized, because we have less $$$ than other major sports, we're
easier to pick on. Because our fans are fewer in number, we don't get
the critical mass of folk who really don't care about much beyond the
spectacle. Instead we get the critical mass of generic sports "fans" who
want to believe that we're the bad apples in sport and the fact that
cyclists are caught and others generally aren't is an indication that
the other sports are more pure or whatever. And because doping goes on
in other sports and generally isn't exposed to the extent that it is in
cycling, the competitive cyclist may feel that part of the formula for
success is cheating without consequences, because that's what goes on
elsewhere.

There are all manner of reasons why doping in cycling shouldn't be
treated as if cycling is an island and not connected with sporting
endeavors in general.

I see your point, I was thinking more along the lines of cylcling
internally, i.e. putting the hammer on Valverde and not the others who
possibly doped.

You raise good points as to why other sports haven't been involved so
much, although they have had their share of scandals (Maradona at 94
Soccer World Cup) for instance.

It's worth pointing out that cycling is also less popular than in the
past because it's less popular.

I know, I know, but my working theory is that 5-hour road races work
well as background radio broadcasts, and they work really well when
summarized in newspapers, but they aren't great TV. The awful truth is
that in a typical bike race, there's probably five or ten minutes of
really decisive and visually appealing racing, surrounded by several
hours of fairly uninteresting-looking racing. The fact that the
boring-looking work in those hours set up the ten crucial minutes means
nothing to a TV camera.

The starts of bicycle races are critical, and usually
disregarded by those who report on racing. All the
attempted breaks, who went and went again. Who was
dragged back. Who sent somebody up the road to cover
a break. Who missed a break and paid the price, and why.

Then there is the chase. Watching a pack howling
after the day's breakaway is exhilarating. About
as much fun as the race for the finish line,
because sometimes they do not catch the break. Laughter all around.

I am mostly speaking of stage racing.

Cycling is different from other sports because it's different from other
sports. I can't figure out why several track events haven't turned into
TV spectaculars, because if there's a more visually appealing event than
a Madison, I don't know what it is.

Come on, it's NASCAR! And a 90-minute Madison is a pretty viable time
duration.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:

"Keith" wrote in message
...
It's worth pointing out that cycling is also less popular than in the
past because it's less popular.

I know, I know, but my working theory is that 5-hour road races work
well as background radio broadcasts, and they work really well when
summarized in newspapers, but they aren't great TV. The awful truth is
that in a typical bike race, there's probably five or ten minutes of
really decisive and visually appealing racing, surrounded by several
hours of fairly uninteresting-looking racing. The fact that the
boring-looking work in those hours set up the ten crucial minutes
means
nothing to a TV camera.

The scenery is part of the fun really, during the Giro or Tour, I
generally grab my laptop and work on the couch. Granted, I'm more
excited when it's a mountain race but it's sill entertaining to me.

As will all sports it's an acquired test, I never managed to get
interested in the least in American football or Baseball during the 5
years I lived in the Silicon Valley.

Glad you brought up baseball, an example of a sport that can drone on
for needless hours, and yet there is something mildly (very mildly)
intoxicating about it. Something that can make a boring 2-1 game still
keep you going, the chance that something *could* happen at any moment,
or thinking (too long) about the strategy involved (ridiculous
statistical analysis).

But that's only 2-3.5 hours or so, and that may explain why coverage of
most bicycle races runs... 2-3.5 hours or so.

Two ways to enjoy baseball.

Have it on the radio while doing something worthwhile
such as home repair, or drinking at a picnic.

Go to the park and keep score. Keeping score keeps your
head in the game. Sometimes the game seems to go too fast.

Usually at the park I will see something I never saw
before. Once they decided to give Dave Parker an intentional
walk. Dave watched the first pitch go high and outside.
Next pitch he took his stance then took the bat off his
shoulder, put the end of the bat on the ground, and leaned
on it like Tom Wolfe. The pitcher lost it, and only because
he was coming out of his crouch anyway did the catcher
save a wild pitch.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 01:18:52 GMT, Ryan Cousineau
wrote:

I know, I know, but my working theory is that 5-hour road races work
well as background radio broadcasts, and they work really well when
summarized in newspapers, but they aren't great TV. The awful truth is
that in a typical bike race, there's probably five or ten minutes of
really decisive and visually appealing racing, surrounded by several
hours of fairly uninteresting-looking racing. The fact that the
boring-looking work in those hours set up the ten crucial minutes means
nothing to a TV camera.

I disagree if you can presume an informed audience (yeah, I know, you
can't at the levels needed for TV). The small nucleus of people at
even crits (which often only poorly overlaps the actual racers*1) that
know tactics find the process entertaining and there is constant
speculation on what or why riders are doing what they do (cat 3 and
above - there is no such wasted presumption for the cat 4s and 5s).
Admittedly, the girlfriends, boyfriends and many of the lower cats
wander away, having no interest in what appears to be meaningless
circling about until the final sprint (did I mention anything about
cat 4 and 5?), but if you are involved and there is informed
commentary, I think race development can be interesting.

Even the uninformed can get into it when you have a really good
announcer, like Joe Saling (my opinion, although I've only heard him
ten or so times). All that said, I admit that bringing all that
together is a calculation of diminishing probability.

OK, maybe some John Tesh music...

*1 - Attentive cycling mothers often know more about cycing tactics
than cat 4 and 5 riders. Some Cat 4 and 5 riders should listen more to
their mothers. Sorry about being so down on cat 4s and 5s, but I used
to 'enjoy' being at a race site since 5 am and hear some lower cat
complain about having to get up at 6 am to make their race. All
organizers must have equally fond spots in their hearts...

Really. Thanks. If it is not worth getting up a six to do,
it is not worth doing.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
Donald Munro wrote:

curtis wrote:
*1 - Attentive cycling mothers often know more about cycing tactics than
cat 4 and 5 riders. Some Cat 4 and 5 riders should listen more to their
mothers.

First you got to live in your mothers backyard trailer to make the 12K
dream and now she has to be your DS too.

Sign of maturity is doing the right thing even if Mom said so.

--
Michael Press

On Apr 1, 6:29*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

In case you missed it - Contador was trying to get them to run DNA tests to
prove that he had nothing to do with any of that.

dumbass,

apparently the entire cycling media missed it. when puerto happened
only two riders offered their dna: davis and quesada.

"Amit Ghosh" wrote in message
...
On Apr 1, 6:29 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

In case you missed it - Contador was trying to get them to run DNA tests
to
prove that he had nothing to do with any of that.

apparently the entire cycling media missed it. when puerto happened
only two riders offered their dna: davis and quesada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Contador

"Contador was kept out of the 2006 Tour de France due to alleged connections
with the Operación Puerto doping case. However, he and four other members of
his team at the time, Astana-Würth, were eventually cleared of all charges
on July 26, 2006 by the Spanish courts and later two out of the five
(including Contador) were cleared by the UCI. Each received a written
document signed by Manuel Sánchez Martín, secretary for the Spanish court,
stating that "there are not any type of charges against them nor have there
been adopted any type of legal action against them.""

Do the words, "two out of the five (including Contador) were cleared by the
UCI" mean anything to you?