Why do my hard earned tax dollars support a bike team?

Luigi de Guzman writes:

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 17:07:45 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

Of course, for the entire field to have to compete against Miguel
Indurain and then Lance Armstrong is also an issue, these guys have
been unusually dominant. I think in part that's due to having been
very specialized to compete in the Tour primarily, as the Tour
continues to outweigh the entire rest of the racing calendar in
importance. From 1986 to 2003, there were, what, 13 Tours won by
three racers (Lemond, Indurain, Armstrong) and a scattering of tours
won by Roche, Delgado, Pantani, Ullrich, Riis. If we start from
1990, there's been only 5 winners of the Tour.

True...but didn't Lemond used to race more of the classics back in
the day than Armstrong does now?

He did up until the gun shot wound and then after that had to narrow
his focus. He also did more races than Armstrong does; Armstrong
tends to do highly focused training rides rather than races, and
pretty much stops racing after the Tour. Lemond raced both the Spring
and Fall Classics campaigns, even when he wasn't in shape to be
competitive.

From the beginning of his career, though, Lemond excelled in stage
races- 3rd overall in the Tour de Tarn and 4th overall in the
Dauphine-Libere as a neo-pro in 1981, for example. He won the Tour de
l'Avenir in 1982 with 3 stage wins, 2nd overall in the Tour de
Mediteraneen, 3rd overall in Tirreno-Adriatico. 1983 was his
breakthrough year with the World Road Championship, overall in the
Dauphine-Libere, 4th overall in Tour de Suisse, 2nd in Grand Prix des
Nations, 4th in Blois-Chauville (Paris-Tours in reverse, IIRC) and 2nd
inthe Tour of Lombardy. At that point it looked like he could be at
the top in just about any type of race.

After he was shot on April 20th, 1987, Lemond's career changed. He
was out almost all of 1987 and much of 1988. 1989 was a good year-
winning the Tour de France and 3 stages, the World Road Champs- but
there is a drop-off in the quality of his other placings in major
races. He did manage a couple of top-10 placings in Paris-Roubaix (I
think taking 4th the first year that Duclos-LaSalle won), but in
general he was not at the top except in the Tour in 1990 and the
World's that year (4th). This trend continued, with his last victory
being in 1992 at the Tour DuPont. He retired in 1994 after spending
much of the year as a back marker when he did race. ISTR that he
dropped out of the Tour and did not in fact race again after that.

Armstrong, of course, was seen as a Classics rider in his early career
pre-cancer. He won several one-day races, the Worlds in 1993, Flech
Wallone in 1996 (?) and a couple of TdF stages- one dramatic one in
the wake of the death of Fabio Casartelli in 1995 (IIRC). Lance was a
hothead and a very emotional rider, but inconsistent. Armstrong's
body was too massive from his years of swimming and triathlon to be
competitive in the high mountains, though. He lost much of that mass
(something like 10 kg) during his episode with metastatic cancer, and
on his return to racing seemed to have lost something of his sprint
but gained in climbing, time trialling and perhaps most importantly in
emotional control and maturity.

Personally, I think Armstrong is a little too calculating. His
single-minded focus on the Tour de France is detrimental to the sport,
in my opinion, and he is not alone in that focus. The importance of
the Tour is highly over-rated (also IMHO) and this too is detrimental
to the sport as a whole. It creates two classes of riders, the Tour
contenders and everyone else. But perhaps the days of a Merckx, a
Hinault- riders able to win any race anywhere- are gone for reasons
beyond simply the racers. (Of course, this is all written as an
American; in the mainstream media, there is no coverage of
professional bicycle racing other than the Tour de France. And
without Lance Armstrong or some other charismatic American, there
wouldn't even be that).

(Bottom Posted)

Tim McNamara wrote in message ...
Luigi de Guzman writes:

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 17:07:45 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

Of course, for the entire field to have to compete against Miguel
Indurain and then Lance Armstrong is also an issue, these guys have
been unusually dominant. I think in part that's due to having been
very specialized to compete in the Tour primarily, as the Tour
continues to outweigh the entire rest of the racing calendar in
importance. From 1986 to 2003, there were, what, 13 Tours won by
three racers (Lemond, Indurain, Armstrong) and a scattering of tours
won by Roche, Delgado, Pantani, Ullrich, Riis. If we start from
1990, there's been only 5 winners of the Tour.

True...but didn't Lemond used to race more of the classics back in
the day than Armstrong does now?

He did up until the gun shot wound and then after that had to narrow
his focus. He also did more races than Armstrong does; Armstrong
tends to do highly focused training rides rather than races, and
pretty much stops racing after the Tour. Lemond raced both the Spring
and Fall Classics campaigns, even when he wasn't in shape to be
competitive.

From the beginning of his career, though, Lemond excelled in stage
races- 3rd overall in the Tour de Tarn and 4th overall in the
Dauphine-Libere as a neo-pro in 1981, for example. He won the Tour de
l'Avenir in 1982 with 3 stage wins, 2nd overall in the Tour de
Mediteraneen, 3rd overall in Tirreno-Adriatico. 1983 was his
breakthrough year with the World Road Championship, overall in the
Dauphine-Libere, 4th overall in Tour de Suisse, 2nd in Grand Prix des
Nations, 4th in Blois-Chauville (Paris-Tours in reverse, IIRC) and 2nd
inthe Tour of Lombardy. At that point it looked like he could be at
the top in just about any type of race.

After he was shot on April 20th, 1987, Lemond's career changed. He
was out almost all of 1987 and much of 1988. 1989 was a good year-
winning the Tour de France and 3 stages, the World Road Champs- but
there is a drop-off in the quality of his other placings in major
races. He did manage a couple of top-10 placings in Paris-Roubaix (I
think taking 4th the first year that Duclos-LaSalle won), but in
general he was not at the top except in the Tour in 1990 and the
World's that year (4th). This trend continued, with his last victory
being in 1992 at the Tour DuPont. He retired in 1994 after spending
much of the year as a back marker when he did race. ISTR that he
dropped out of the Tour and did not in fact race again after that.

Armstrong, of course, was seen as a Classics rider in his early career
pre-cancer. He won several one-day races, the Worlds in 1993, Flech
Wallone in 1996 (?) and a couple of TdF stages- one dramatic one in
the wake of the death of Fabio Casartelli in 1995 (IIRC). Lance was a
hothead and a very emotional rider, but inconsistent. Armstrong's
body was too massive from his years of swimming and triathlon to be
competitive in the high mountains, though. He lost much of that mass
(something like 10 kg) during his episode with metastatic cancer, and
on his return to racing seemed to have lost something of his sprint
but gained in climbing, time trialling and perhaps most importantly in
emotional control and maturity.

Personally, I think Armstrong is a little too calculating. His
single-minded focus on the Tour de France is detrimental to the sport,
in my opinion, and he is not alone in that focus. The importance of
the Tour is highly over-rated (also IMHO) and this too is detrimental
to the sport as a whole. It creates two classes of riders, the Tour
contenders and everyone else. But perhaps the days of a Merckx, a
Hinault- riders able to win any race anywhere- are gone for reasons
beyond simply the racers. (Of course, this is all written as an
American; in the mainstream media, there is no coverage of
professional bicycle racing other than the Tour de France. And
without Lance Armstrong or some other charismatic American, there
wouldn't even be that).

Well written Tim but I have to add my own cheap two cents.

Pro Racing in 2004 is not Pro Racing in 1994 or 1984.

Money influences so many decisions. Not Lance as you say.
Money sways top talent and GOOD for them who get it.
Sponsors want certain results and find the guys who can
deliver them.

2004 is more competitive thann 1994 and WAY MORE than 1984.

There are more Classics Specialists than there are Tour Specialists
these days.

The top 300 Pro Racers in the world is a Deep Pool of talent,
far deeper than the top 300 of ten or twenty years ago.

Of course my racing opinions are usually ****!
But I do believe them.

-Ken

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 17:07:45 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

there's already a French stage winner and Maillot Jaune.

I loved the expression on the interviewer's face when someone
pronounced that "Mellow Johnny".

Almost as funny as Bob Roll's "Two-er DAY Fraaaaance".

On 8 Jul 2004 17:57:47 -0700, Benjamin Weiner
wrote:

If they weren't such a bunch of cheese eating surrenderers
they never would have had to hand over the UP to Michigan
after the Great Michigan-Wisconsin War of 1928.

Hmm, on second thought, maybe the Wisconsinners knew what
they were up to.

Yaah, hey?

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

On 8 Jul 2004 15:41:16 -0700, (Chalo) wrote:

Arguably yes, unlike the much bigger taxpayer-funded bailout of
criminal S&Ls, allowed to run rampant by Ronnie Raygun

Now there is a remarkably inept characterization of the S&L crisis of
the 80s.

FWIW, I was involved in accounting and investments for a conservative
S & L that rode out the crisis while losing 60% of our net worth from
a situation where our cost of money was free to rise and most of our
investments were limited by stature, so that on many days we started
with a net negative interest rate margin of 2 % - on a billion in
money. Unless you sat between the investment desk and the accounting
for customer investments, you probably have no idea of what went into
that crisis. Cost of money started at about 6 % in the beginning and
was (counting fed funds and repos) pushing 21 % on some days, like
end-of-month payroll days and settlement days.

You seem to imply two things: that playing shell games with other
people's money is an OK thing to do, and that it is important for
those who do so to turn a consistent profit by it.

There are those who make money by making things of negotiable value,
and there are those who make money providing valuable services.

Then there are usurers, frauds and thieves.

Those who bled the S&Ls to death are in the latter category, even if
they were legally "allowed" to do so. The fact that our political
leaders condoned and encouraged such usury, fraud and theft
incriminates those leaders rather than somehow exonerating the Neil
Bushes who perpetrated it. The fact that they had the audacity to use
tax money to cover the debts, without having stripped the assets of
the perpetrators for that purpose first, makes the whole affair look
like a premeditated con game.

Chalo Colina

On 9 Jul 2004 20:36:12 -0700, (Chalo) wrote:

You seem to imply two things: that playing shell games with other
people's money is an OK thing to do, and that it is important for
those who do so to turn a consistent profit by it.

Nothing of the sort. And we (the S&L that I worked at) did nothing of
the sort. However, the second bail-out - led by House Democrats - gave
the S & Ls a set of rules that allowed them to stay legally solvent.
They also loosened the investment rules in ways that encouraged
specific risky investments. For the S & Ls that faced immediate
insolvency (at a lower level of exposure to both taxpayers and
investors), it gave them a chance to stay in business.

Parenthetically, the more sophisicated investment teams at the major
banks and investment houses had a field day with the less sophisicated
managers of small town S&Ls. They created mortgage and investment
securities that maxmimized their profit and minimized their risk by
spinning the riskier pieces of mortgage securities into their own set
of secondary securitized instruments. Many S&Ls were eventually left
with highly devalued securities while the banks and houses held the
actual income streams safely in their own hands. It was in many ways a
transfer of wealth from the local S&Ls to the major money market
banks.

Back to S&Ls, for some, they did a good job of it. Some were
realtively sophisicated and used the breather to raise actual net
worth. Others built a house of cards on bogus net worth elements
(which were completely controlling in banks and S & Ls) and made huge
numbers of loans to create securitized instruments out of the various
interest rate tranches. Whether or not the mortgage made sense was
less important than whether or not it could be bound and resold in
pieces immediately.

Then with little notice (we were literally required to submit federal
forms in December that weren't published until almost February), they
reversed the use of the liberal components of net worth. While
completely appropriate if they had never extended these elements to
begin with, to encourage these S & Ls to use this 'net worth' and then
remove it without warning was to lure them into greater risk and then
put them into immediate insovency.

I prsonally had little sympathy for the big investors. Most understood
that some of the major CDs were interest rate Ponzi schemes. But some
S & Ls, including some of the more 'notorious' examples, actually had
used the redefined net worth to correct their net worth problems to a
large extent. They were in better shape, but heavily exposed in
securities that lost heavily in value immediately after the rules
change. They tanked and those S&Ls were put into insolvency - again.
And the destruction of net worth was so precipitous that it increased
the losses to the Feds more than if the second bailout (actually a net
worth recalculation) had never taken place, and certainly worse than
if the process had been done in an orderly manner, with a gradual
reduction of inclustion in calculated net worth components.

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

"Luigi de Guzman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 13:51:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Mike wrote:


Also, I think the USPS is privatized and therefore not supported by the
US government.

Not exactly true. I don't know about their monetary support, but when
the USPS decided to take over some residentially-zoned land in our
village, they were definitely "supported by our government" - as in,
they came into town, laid the site plans on our mayor's desk, and said
"By the way, we know this violates your zoning, but your zoning laws
don't apply to us. we're an arm of the federal government."

They were much nicer in our town; in fact, we actually welcomed the
new post-office plan. The old post office in our town was erected in
the Eisenhower adminsitration, and was crumbly, and nasty. Now the
town will level that old pile and build a park.

In our town, the current problem is that the library is in a spot where it
would logically expand by taking over the old Eisenhower-era post office,
and maybe a paint store. So, let's compare how these two businesses are
being treated by the village:

The post office was offered a free, five-acre parcel along with compensation
for their current facility. However, the post office said they didn't want
to move. They can't be acquired by eminent domain.

The paint store is currently being acquired by eminent domain. They don't
like it at all. Nobody seems to have found an alternative spot as good (for
a similar price).

Ironically, the reason for keeping the library in the downtown area (rather
than have them use the 5 acre parcel) is to encourage business in the area.
Evidently, this doesn't mean the retail paint business.

The post office is in its own category, private but with special privileges.

Sort of like Haliburton, but with better profits


--
Mike Kruger
The U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it.
You have to catch up with it yourself.
[Benjamin Franklin]

"Mark Weaver" wrote in message
...

"Churchill" wrote in message news:VucHc.45732

Speaking as a non-American I would never have heard of the "USPS" if it
wasn't for the Tour, so their marketing worked in my case

USPS is smart to do this, they are getting all of Europe focused on
their
name, cycling 'I sense' is much more popular in Europe than North
America



But this is pointless because the USPS doesn't serve European customers.
That is, as I understand it, Europeans can't even use the USPS to send
mail
or packages from Europe to the US.

IIRC, USPS started sponsorship when they were getting into the international
package market. As such, they would have as much need for international
advertising as brown (UPS).

USPS pulled out of this market a few years ago, and so the original
justification for supporting the bike team has gone away.

Does any of this advertising work? It did for me. I wanted to drop my
Sprint phone contract (being charged $1000 for 3 calls, based on a rate not
published anywhere on their web site will make you angry). I probably would
not have dropped by the T-Mobile booth if I hadn't had familiarity with the
name from their racing sponsorship. They had a plan that fit my needs as
well as anybody else's plan seemed to, so I signed up.

So ... anybody think Zabel (T-Mobile) has one more stage win in his legs?

"Benjamin Weiner" wrote in message
news:40eded8b$1@darkstar...

On Wisconsin say i.

If they weren't such a bunch of cheese eating surrenderers
they never would have had to hand over the UP to Michigan
after the Great Michigan-Wisconsin War of 1928.

Hmm, on second thought, maybe the Wisconsinners knew what
they were up to.

Wrong war. Michigan was given the UP after the Toledo War with Ohio in
1835.
Yep. That's right. Michigan and Ohio fought a war and Wisconsin lost.

http://wiwi.essortment.com/toledowar_rzxq.htm

(K. J. Papai) writes:

snip

Well written Tim but I have to add my own cheap two cents.

Pro Racing in 2004 is not Pro Racing in 1994 or 1984.

Yes, that's true and is true from several perspectives.

Money influences so many decisions. Not Lance as you say. Money
sways top talent and GOOD for them who get it. Sponsors want
certain results and find the guys who can deliver them.

And- again this follows in the wake of Lemond- racers are paid almost
competitively with many other sports. Perhaps not the ridiculous
buckets of cash and fabulous prizes showered on NBA, MLB and NFL
players, but those sports are out of control. With that increase in
money comes an increase in pressure for results.

I think this has led to a significant increase in the sophistication
of doping. Doping used to be the purview of the soigneurs and is now
supervised by licensed physicians. The tools are more effective (as
Verbruggen stated almost 10 years ago, EPO was the first doping tool
that really worked reliably) and more dangerous.

2004 is more competitive than 1994 and WAY MORE than 1984.

Yes, for several reasons. The points system makes the individual
results of every rider important- in the days of Merckx, et al, the
gregarios didn't have to worry about where they finished in the race.
They buried themselves, limped home or even just dropped out of the
race. But now, every UCI point gained by every rider on the team is
important.

Second, the stratification of the teams is not as rigid as it was, and
teams tend to have multiple leaders. The Zulle-Jalabert combination
at ONCE was really quite something to watch in action. By comparison,
look at how Rik II did everything he could to squelch Merckx in the
latter's first couple of years as a pro. In the old days there was
one leader and one leader only. At the start of any given race, there
were maybe five contenders unless something weird happened. But the
social structure of Europe has loosened immensely and with it the
rigid structure of teams is not as pronounced as it was. Successful
directeurs sportifs have learned how to work with this to best
advantage: Saiz, Riis, etc.

Oddly enough, I don't think Bruyneel is in that mix; he is rather old
school and the team exists to serve the needs of one man in one race.
The result is a team that dminates one race and is merely somewhat
competitive in most others.

There are more Classics Specialists than there are Tour Specialists
these days.

Makes sense, doesn't it? There are few riders with the combination of
skills to win the Tour de France: Armstrong, Ullrich, maybe Hamilton.
Mayo doesn't yet but he is not yet mature. Julich did have the talent
but didn't have the head for it. Pantani's victory was a one-off.
The genetic sweepstakes are pretty selective for Tour winners. There
are many more riders with the abilities to win the Classics and the
smaller stage races. Luck is a greater factor in one-day races, too.

The top 300 Pro Racers in the world is a Deep Pool of talent, far
deeper than the top 300 of ten or twenty years ago.

I agree.