|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"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. .. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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 **************************** |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|