1. You've got to consider being a bike marshal or a course monitor on this ride. Not only does it get you in for free, but it gives you a reason to enjoy the great diversity of bike riders on this ride.
1a. If you do take on one of these responsible positions, ride a bike with a kickstand and bring a floor pump. I aired up six tires today (four presta valved, two schraeder valved), and stopped off at two flat tire parties that were well in hand because bike marshals or course monitors had floor pumps at the ready.
1b. The downside of the diversity is that even if you bring spare tubes, they might not be the right size. I was packing 26" tubes in shraeder and presta, but who knows what I'd do with a massively blown out 20" tube on a trail-a-bike.
2. SAG and on course mechanical support weren't exactly omnipresent, but they were a visible and welcome presence!
3. Second year in a row I've helped a bonked cyclists snack attack before we even got to Glorietta Bay. I gotta buy more raisins....
4. OOPS -- forgot sunscreen.
5. Had a wonderful time directing traffic after we figured out folks were missing the turn from Cesar Chavez Pkwy onto whatever street that is. Gotta remember the cowbell for next year.
6. Gotta remember the sidewalk chalk for next year, too.
7. Rider behavior can be surprising -- I thought I was with the last two people, and we were engulfed by a gang of four who'd gone off route for beers.
8. Black t-shirts? Really? I'm going to try to militate for hi-viz yellow for 2013, but that may mean going with just black for the screen.
On Sunday, August 26, 2012 7:34:32 PM UTC-7, Robert in San Diego wrote:
> Dear San Diego Cyclists:
> <snip>
> How was your ride?
Unfortunately I didn't get to ride, Paul and I put out and then retrieved the directional signs. I was amazed at the number of people that seemed totally unprepared to do the ride. On the other hand the first riders we saw were about 8:00 AM, about the same time the last riders were leaving, and we were placing the last 2 turn markers.
Anybody have a cargo bike we can borrow next year? :)
I saw only two accidents, I hope that was all. If so, I call that a success.
>3. Second year in a row I've helped a bonked cyclists
>snack attack before we even got to Glorietta Bay. >I gotta buy more raisins...
She eventually made it all the way to 32nd Street before having to pack it in and flag down the SAG wagon. The incredible part was that her front brake was stuck ... for the entire ride! Her husband had told her that it was always like that.
Having the security folks at the bottom of the bridge really helped flag down the scofflaws. It also helped that Timor (sp?) has the eyes of a hawk.
The only grumblings I heard were because we ran out of all the sizes of tee shirts except for XX-large and people could not be convinced to use their tee shirt as an emergency tent. Also, we had to turn away some riders. That is really a tragedy. Next year, 10,000!
All in all, it was Yet Another Spectacular Bike-the-Bike! Promotions All Around!
My personal take on the Lance Armstrong debate is that he probably did what everyone else did, and frankly I really do not care either way. However, I strongly resent the misappropriation of our hard-earned tax dollars on this witch hunt to line the pockets of a bunch of overpaid attorneys and to build the resumes of a bunch of self-aggrandizing bureaucrats.
> My personal take on the Lance Armstrong debate is that he probably did what everyone else did, and frankly I really do not care either way. However, I strongly resent the misappropriation of our hard-earned tax dollars on this witch hunt to line the pockets of a bunch of overpaid attorneys and to build the resumes of a bunch of self-aggrandizing bureaucrats.
> John E.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "San Diego Bicyclist Forum" group.
> To post to this group, send email to San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum?hl=en.
> So, we shouldn't have an an anti-doping agency in the USA?
> Serge
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 27, 2012, at 16:53, John Eldon <j.el...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > My personal take on the Lance Armstrong debate is that he probably did what everyone else did, and frankly I really do not care either way. However, I strongly resent the misappropriation of our hard-earned tax dollars on this witch hunt to line the pockets of a bunch of overpaid attorneys and to build the resumes of a bunch of self-aggrandizing bureaucrats.
> > John E.
> > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "San Diego Bicyclist Forum" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "San Diego Bicyclist Forum" group.
> To post to this group, send email to San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum?hl=en.
I don't understand this. The justice department launched a legal probe. After it was finished, the USADA simply re-interviewed the US riders who would cooperate (Armstrong didn't) to establish evidence in its own case, and then sent a letter to the six it charged, giving each a certain time to respond (accept or challenge the charges) per the standard process.
It was Armstrong who dragged this needlessly into a federal court with expensive lawyers and mostly idiotic motions that were all ultimately dismissed.
Besides Armstrong's frivolous foray ... where is the waste? How is the USADA not simply (and efficiently) doing its job?
Other than what it had to do to respond to Armstrong's suit in federal court, all the USADA did was collect evidence and write a letter. How is that too much?
There are many inherent problems with drug testing that simply can't be fixed. First, they mostly test for specific substances, so that can only work if you know what to test for. So that can't work for newly developed substances that are not yet known by the testers. Even when they're known, it can take years to develop a test, as it did for EPO and blood doping. There are more complicated tests that look at blood levels over time and unnatural indicators. In fact, that is some of the evidence they have against Armstrong from his "comeback" period.
Second, it's practically impossible to test everyone for everything. So a big part of it is a numbers game.
Third, most everyone who takes part in testing has an income that depends on the success and popularity of the sport and so is motivated to make it appear as if the testing is effective while minimizing the numbers of those caught. There's no telling how this affects the testing consciously and subconsciously. The tales of bribes and payoffs certainly seem plausible.
Finally, I don't think the USADA has any control over how the testing is done in Europe.
Serge
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 27, 2012, at 21:01, <smcne...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> Perhaps the USADA should invest its money on finding better testing methods or drug tests instead of feeding the deep pockets of suit-happy lawyers.
> --Steve McNeil
> ---- Serge Issakov <serge.issa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> So, we shouldn't have an an anti-doping agency in the USA?
>> Serge
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> On Aug 27, 2012, at 16:53, John Eldon <j.el...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> My personal take on the Lance Armstrong debate is that he probably did what everyone else did, and frankly I really do not care either way. However, I strongly resent the misappropriation of our hard-earned tax dollars on this witch hunt to line the pockets of a bunch of overpaid attorneys and to build the resumes of a bunch of self-aggrandizing bureaucrats.
>>> John E.
>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "San Diego Bicyclist Forum" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum?hl=en.
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "San Diego Bicyclist Forum" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "San Diego Bicyclist Forum" group.
> To post to this group, send email to San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum?hl=en.
> How is the USADA not simply (and efficiently) doing its job?
>> So, we shouldn't have an an anti-doping agency in the USA?
No, we should not have an agency if it can not do its job effectively nor efficiently and then they decide after-the-fact who they are going to take down because they can't take down everyone. If and when they can figure out how to do their job correctly and stop the illegal use of performance-enhancing drugs beforehand, then fine, let's have such an agency. Otherwise, it appears to the casual observer that it is politically and economically motivated.
Serge, you can't fool us! We are on to your little scheme! You plan to enter the Tour de France yourself. You will come in 33rd out of 33. BUT you will not use any performance-enhancing drugs. You will then rat out all the 32 gentleman in front of you and voila! you will have won the Tour de France.
So we should shut down the FBI because they catch some but not all bank robbers? Close down the Special Victims Unit because they catch only some rapists... sometimes years and even decades later!
I don't understand why so many are holding the USADA to such an impossible standard.
Serge
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2012, at 1:35, "Frank Paiano" <wondern...@juno.com> wrote:
>> How is the USADA not simply (and efficiently) doing its job?
>>> So, we shouldn't have an an anti-doping agency in the USA?
> No, we should not have an agency if it can not do its job effectively nor efficiently and then they decide after-the-fact who they are going to take down because they can't take down everyone. If and when they can figure out how to do their job correctly and stop the illegal use of performance-enhancing drugs beforehand, then fine, let's have such an agency. Otherwise, it appears to the casual observer that it is politically and economically motivated.
>I don't understand why so many are holding the >USADA to such an impossible standard.
What we have here is a fundamental difference of opinion. I don't think years of testing -- the number of over 500 drug tests was reported widespread in the media, not by the Lance Armstrong™ Propaganda Machine -- and not being able to detect any chemical abuse is an impossible standard. It sounds as if they could not find a Catholic in the Vatican! (And if that pisses anyone off, how 'bout a Mormon in Utah? Or a Muslim in Riyadh?)
All I am saying (and I am getting sick of saying it) is that if the drug usage was widespread and the drug tests were considered a joke -- You yourself used the word joke, not me -- then because of the tremendous rewards for the victors, the authorities were essentially saying, "Go ahead and use drugs. We know it is going on. Our tests are a joke." To then go back and say, "Ahem. We now are going to strip you of your awards because we have to admit to the world that there was widespread drug usage and we did not do anything about it."
Your analogy of rape and murder would be complete if the FBI agents were standing there watching the rape when it happened and then 20 years later said, "Oh, yeah! I saw him rape that woman. I think we better do something about it, don't you, Fred? Let's bring him in for questioning. Call the reporters so they can be there when we bring in him for the perp walk."
As I said, it is a fundamental difference of opinion and we can just leave it at that. By the way, you did not deny your little scheme, did you? Aha! We knew it!
Great bit of writing from Shaun Wallace (on his Facebook Page).
> Sh*t, Sh*t, Sh*t. Court Summons
> For years, at least 500 times, local cop who hates me keeps setting up speeding traps near my house. Must think I'm stupid as i know they are there (just don't know when). Anyhow I always pass, but now it turns out some other drivers who DID speed, or who he's threatened, have agreed to testify they saw ME speeding years ago in exchange for a smaller ticket and no "points". This just doesn't seem fair.
My analysis?
Lance is betting that the UCI won't strip him of his titles because if they did so, they would have to pull the titles from pretty much every tour winner, even Eddy. ONLY the UCI can remove the titles.
I don't know how this gets fixed. Pro racing has had drug use for decades. We need better testing ... but frankly there needs to be a discussion on what macro things can be done to restore the sport.
My complaint is that the abuse has killed strategy, reduced the role of the team (domestiques etc.), reduced the role of specialists etc. It diminishes the sport when you have time trialists wining mountain stages etc.
If I had to pick reasons for opposing the use of performance-enhancing drugs, I would lead with --
The stuff can kill. Tommy Simpson isn't alone.
The stuff can hurt. Just ask any doctor who's treated tendon damage on a steroid-using high school athlete.
The stuff flows downhill. It's not only the "Pro" athletes using (see above).
The stuff corrupts. I don't have the references, but I recall cases where coaches and trainers in school and youth leagues were either the paid providers, or were getting kickbacks from the paid providers.
Robert "none of that 'they're adults, they know what they're doing' sophistry, please" Leone
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Frank Paiano <wondern...@juno.com> wrote:
> >I don't understand why so many are holding the
> >USADA to such an impossible standard.
> What we have here is a fundamental difference of opinion. I don't think
> years of testing -- the number of over 500 drug tests was reported
> widespread in the media, not by the Lance Armstrong™ Propaganda Machine --
> and not being able to detect any chemical abuse is an impossible standard.
> It sounds as if they could not find a Catholic in the Vatican! (And if
> that pisses anyone off, how 'bout a Mormon in Utah? Or a Muslim in Riyadh?)
I'm going to assume you don't know much more about drug testing than I do.
But if you know it's as easy as finding a Catholic in the Vatican, then
maybe you should be in charge of drug testing. All of the evidence I know
of contradicts this notion.
> All I am saying (and I am getting sick of saying it) is that if the drug
> usage was widespread and the drug tests were considered a joke -- You
> yourself used the word joke, not me -- then because of the tremendous
> rewards for the victors, the authorities were essentially saying, "Go ahead
> and use drugs. We know it is going on. Our tests are a joke." To then go
> back and say, "Ahem. We now are going to strip you of your awards because
> we have to admit to the world that there was widespread drug usage and we
> did not do anything about it."
It's not their fault the tests are a joke. It's not anyone's fault. It's
a very difficult problem, perhaps impossible to solve. Thankfully, testing
is not the only means to catch them.
By the way, part of what the USADA is saying agrees with you. The USADA
agrees that the authorities - the UCI - *is* essentially saying, "Go ahead
and use drugs. We know it is going on. Our tests are a joke." The USADA
is trying to change that - but they only have authority to do something
when there is an actual case. Here they did not have a case against
Armstrong until Landis blew the whistle and others testified in the federal
investigation. Some theorize that one of the reasons there has been no
case is because of unusual payments from Armstrong to the UCI for hundreds
of thousands of dollars.
> Your analogy of rape and murder would be complete if the FBI agents were
> standing there watching the rape when it happened and then 20 years later
> said, "Oh, yeah! I saw him rape that woman. I think we better do something
> about it, don't you, Fred? Let's bring him in for questioning. Call the
> reporters so they can be there when we bring in him for the perp walk."
> As I said, it is a fundamental difference of opinion and we can just leave
> it at that. By the way, you did not deny your little scheme, did you?
> Aha! We knew it!
> Frustratingly submitted,
> Frank Paiano
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:44 AM, William D. Volk <william.v...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Great bit of writing from Shaun Wallace (on his Facebook Page).
> > Sh*t, Sh*t, Sh*t. Court Summons
> > For years, at least 500 times, local cop who hates me keeps setting up
> speeding traps near my house. Must think I'm stupid as i know they are
> there (just don't know when). Anyhow I always pass, but now it turns out
> some other drivers who DID speed, or who he's threatened, have agreed to
> testify they saw ME speeding years ago in exchange for a smaller ticket and
> no "points". This just doesn't seem fair.
This presumes that guys like Hincapie and others would lie about being
encouraged to use drugs by Armstrong.
A more accurate analogy is when the FBI gives 10 drug users a break on
sentencing for testifying consistently against the dealer and his cohorts.
By the way, the original testimony from Hincapie *et al* came in the
federal criminal grand jury investigation, not to avoid sanctions.
I just read a 2008 article from Scientific American by Michael Shermer about doping; it pretty much convinced me that *all* athletes at that level are doping, and that detection is always about five years behind. Its salient points (and a bit of an update) are on his blog at <http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/07/13/doping-in-cycling/>.
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Frank Paiano <wondern...@juno.com
> <mailto:wondern...@juno.com>> wrote:
> >I don't understand why so many are holding the
> >USADA to such an impossible standard.
> What we have here is a fundamental difference of opinion. I don't
> think years of testing -- the number of over 500 drug tests was
> reported widespread in the media, not by the Lance Armstrong
> Propaganda Machine -- and not being able to detect any chemical
> abuse is an impossible standard. It sounds as if they could not
> find a Catholic in the Vatican! (And if that pisses anyone off, how
> 'bout a Mormon in Utah? Or a Muslim in Riyadh?)
> I'm going to assume you don't know much more about drug testing than I
> do. But if you know it's as easy as finding a Catholic in the Vatican,
> then maybe you should be in charge of drug testing. All of the evidence
> I know of contradicts this notion.
> All I am saying (and I am getting sick of saying it) is that if the
> drug usage was widespread and the drug tests were considered a joke
> -- You yourself used the word joke, not me -- then because of the
> tremendous rewards for the victors, the authorities were essentially
> saying, "Go ahead and use drugs. We know it is going on. Our tests
> are a joke." To then go back and say, "Ahem. We now are going to
> strip you of your awards because we have to admit to the world that
> there was widespread drug usage and we did not do anything about it."
> It's not their fault the tests are a joke. It's not anyone's fault.
> It's a very difficult problem, perhaps impossible to solve.
> Thankfully, testing is not the only means to catch them.
> By the way, part of what the USADA is saying agrees with you. The USADA
> agrees that the authorities - the UCI - /is/ essentially saying, "Go
> ahead and use drugs. We know it is going on. Our tests are a joke."
> The USADA is trying to change that - but they only have authority to
> do something when there is an actual case. Here they did not have a
> case against Armstrong until Landis blew the whistle and others
> testified in the federal investigation. Some theorize that one of the
> reasons there has been no case is because of unusual payments from
> Armstrong to the UCI for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
> Your analogy of rape and murder would be complete if the FBI agents
> were standing there watching the rape when it happened and then 20
> years later said, "Oh, yeah! I saw him rape that woman. I think we
> better do something about it, don't you, Fred? Let's bring him in
> for questioning. Call the reporters so they can be there when we
> bring in him for the perp walk."
> As I said, it is a fundamental difference of opinion and we can just
> leave it at that. By the way, you did not deny your little scheme,
> did you? Aha! We knew it!
> Frustratingly submitted,
> Frank Paiano
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:44 AM, William D. Volk <william.v...@gmail.com
> <mailto:william.v...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Great bit of writing from Shaun Wallace (on his Facebook Page).
> > Sh*t, Sh*t, Sh*t. Court Summons
> > For years, at least 500 times, local cop who hates me keeps
> setting up speeding traps near my house. Must think I'm stupid as i
> know they are there (just don't know when). Anyhow I always pass,
> but now it turns out some other drivers who DID speed, or who he's
> threatened, have agreed to testify they saw ME speeding years ago in
> exchange for a smaller ticket and no "points". This just doesn't
> seem fair.
> This presumes that guys like Hincapie and others would lie about being
> encouraged to use drugs by Armstrong.
> A more accurate analogy is when the FBI gives 10 drug users a break on
> sentencing for testifying consistently against the dealer and his cohorts.
> By the way, the original testimony from Hincapie /et al/ came in the
> federal criminal grand jury investigation, not to avoid sanctions.
> Serge
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "San Diego Bicyclist Forum" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum?hl=en.
-- Fulton Martin
__=o&o>__
pub...@exwis.com
San Diego, CA
N32 43.950, W117 05.867
Outside Magazine got to see a pre-release copy of Tyler Hamilton's new
book. KA-BOOM!
Here are some excerpts, but I highly recommend reading the whole article
(linked below), and am very interested in hearing what others think.
First, there is this, on how the book (Hamilton's words but written by
Daniel Coyle, author of Armstrong's War) is based on not only Hamilton, but
also corroboration from nine teammates:
What ultimately makes the book so damning, however, is that it doesn’t
> require readers to put their full faith in Hamilton’s word. In the book’s
> preface, which details its genesis, Coyle not so subtly addresses
> Armstrong’s supporters by pointing out that, while the story is told
> through Hamilton, nine former Postal teammates agreed to cooperate with him
> on *The Secret Race,* verifying and corroborating Hamilton’s account.
> Nine teammates. That fact is the first punch thrown at Armstrong’s
> supporters—and it might be the most damaging one. Next Wednesday, when *The
> Secret Race *comes out, backers will probably make the familiar claim
> that Hamilton is a disgruntled, bitter ex-rival who got popped for doping
> and is now looking to cash in. But that doesn’t explain why nine former
> teammates agreed to cooperate.
On how the drug tests are a joke:
Here’s the reality: *The Secret Race *isn’t just a game changer for the
> Lance Armstrong myth. It’s the game ender. No one can read this book with
> an open mind and still credibly believe that Armstrong didn’t dope. It’s
> impossible. That doesn’t change the fact that he survived cancer and helped
> millions of people through Livestrong, but the myth of the clean-racing
> hero who came back from the dead is, well, dead.
Where to start? It’s hard to describe the impact of *The Secret Race* by
> boiling it down to seven or eight shocking anecdotes. The book delivers
> them—make no mistake—but its real power comes from Hamilton’s unprecedented
> attempt at full disclosure. And I mean full. The book is the holy grail for
> disillusioned cycling fans in search of answers. In a taut 268 pages,
> Hamilton confidently and systematically destroys any sense that there was
> ever any chance of cleaning up cycling in the early 2000s, revealing the
> sport’s powerful and elaborate doping infrastructure. He’s like a retiring
> magician who has decided to let the public in on the profession’s most
> guarded techniques.
Beginning with his first doping experiences as a member of the U.S Postal
> Service team<http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/celebrities/Lance-Arms...> in
> 1997, Hamilton reveals not only what he and other riders were doing and
> taking<http://www.outsideonline.com/blog/outdoor-adventure/biking/tyler-hami...> (EPO,
> steroids, testosterone, Actovegin, blood transfusions, and on and on), but
> also how they were taking it (in the case of EPO, intravenously—and
> Hamilton has the scar to prove it). He tells us how most riders evaded
> detection (one trick: French laws bar testers from showing up between 10
> P.M. and 6 A.M., so cyclists “microdosed” EPO at ten and the drug was gone
> by morning) and how the game was rigged in a way that made testing nearly
> irrelevant (“If you were careful and paid attention,” writes Hamilton, “you
> could dope and be 99 percent certain that you would not get caught”).
> Supporters still clinging to the claim that Armstrong passed more than 500
> drug controls will be shocked to learn how insignificant those tests really
> were.
Demolishing the level-playing-field argument:
The drugs are everywhere, and as Hamilton explains, Armstrong was not just
> another cyclist caught in the middle of an established drug culture—he was
> a pioneer pushing into uncharted territory. In this sense, the book
> destroys another myth: that everyone was doing it, so Armstrong was, in a
> weird way, just competing on a level playing field. There was no level
> playing field. With his connections to Michele Ferrari, the best dishonest
> doctor in the business, Armstrong was always “two years ahead of what
> everybody else was doing,” Hamilton writes. Even on the Postal squad there
> was a pecking order. Armstrong got the superior treatments.
