TRUE or FALSE
MagillaGorilla
current WADA/UCI code, he would have been stripped of his Tour title in
'88 for testing positive for probenecid - a masking agent used to mask
the use of anabolic steroids?
(scroll down for answer)
Thanks,
Magilla
Answer: TRUE
Carl Sundquist
"MagillaGorilla" <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote in message
news:kRmcnRopGKW...@ptd.net...
> True or false....had Pedro Delgado (aka Deldopa) been tested under the
> current WADA/UCI code, he would have been stripped of his Tour title in
> '88 for testing positive for probenecid - a masking agent used to mask the
> use of anabolic steroids?
>
> (scroll down for answer)
How many people would have been stripped of wins and titles if WADA decides
altitude beds are banned?
Under the current WADA/UCI code, how many people that were busted for
caffeine in the past would NOT have been busted?
MagillaGorilla
This is my point, Carl...the banned list is, for the most part,
arbitrary. So when people try to make it a good guys vs. bad guys, they
have no moral ground to stand on.
In fact, the biggest disadvantage of most athletes with respect to
others is genetics.
At least in NASCAR, the cars have to be equal. In cycling, guys with
naturally high VO2 max of 80+ line up next to guys who are in the low
70's. That's not fair either.
So I say fuck it, go ahead and dope. I want to see the fastest
motherfuckers win a race...I don't care how they got that fast, I just
want them fast. I love seeing guys climb 8% grades for 20 minutes at 18
mph. That stuff cracks me up.
Magilla
amit....@gmail.com
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> True or false....had Pedro Delgado (aka Deldopa) been tested under the
> current WADA/UCI code, he would have been stripped of his Tour title in
> '88 for testing positive for probenecid - a masking agent used to mask
> the use of anabolic steroids?
dumbass,
no shit. if he was found guilty he would've gotten a 10 min. penalty.
in fact I think that happened to theunisse in that same race for being
on steroids.
around the same time kim andersen tested positive so many times he was
given a lifetime ban ... that lasted only a few months.
MagillaGorilla
John Forrest Tomlinson
<Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
>This is my point, Carl...the banned list is, for the most part,
>arbitrary. So when people try to make it a good guys vs. bad guys, they
>have no moral ground to stand on.
Baloney. If the rules are known in advance, then it's wrong to break
them. For me it's that simple. It's like cutting a course. Isn't the
course arbitrary? So are you saying if someone rides a shorter course
intentionally and gets away with it, it's no big deal? Baloney.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
MagillaGorilla
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:15:16 -0500, MagillaGorilla
> <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>This is my point, Carl...the banned list is, for the most part,
>>arbitrary. So when people try to make it a good guys vs. bad guys, they
>>have no moral ground to stand on.
>
>
> Baloney. If the rules are known in advance, then it's wrong to break
> them. For me it's that simple. It's like cutting a course. Isn't the
> course arbitrary? So are you saying if someone rides a shorter course
> intentionally and gets away with it, it's no big deal? Baloney.
There's nothing inherently immoral about breaking rules that one does
not regard as fair or moral to begin with.
Breaking rules doesn't mean jack. Guys in NASCAR cheat on fuel
capacity, engine power output, etc., all the time. Baseball pitchers
scruff the ball. Baseball hitters cork their bats or lean into a pitch
to take a base. Basketball players intentionally foul or goaltend.
Hockey players check and use other dirty tactics. Boxers butt heads and
hold their opponents. And cyclists dope. All of these are rule violations.
Breaking rules is a part of every professional sport. And if you want
to win the Tour de France, you need to be on the juice. Otherwise, you
ain't doing no 7 watts/kg up the climbs.
Second, what separates most pro cyclists from your average Cat. 3 is not
training, but genetics. Why ban drugs when its totally legal to start a
race (or a career) with superior genetics? A rider with inferior
genetics can reason they need to "make themselves equal" just to
compete. And the top guys do it because they want to win. The rules
do not take into account that riders do not start witht he same
engines from a genetic standpoint, which makes the premise of fairness
and morals moot.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:15:16 -0500, MagillaGorilla
> <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>This is my point, Carl...the banned list is, for the most part,
>>arbitrary. So when people try to make it a good guys vs. bad guys, they
>>have no moral ground to stand on.
>
>
> Baloney. If the rules are known in advance, then it's wrong to break
> them. For me it's that simple. It's like cutting a course. Isn't the
> course arbitrary? So are you saying if someone rides a shorter course
> intentionally and gets away with it, it's no big deal? Baloney.
You mean bologna.
Certain rules can be broken and others should not be trespassed. Riding
a shorter course is gay and therefore no respectable cyclist does it.
But doping is regarded as copacetic at the pro level, so they all do it.
All top cyclists know the difference.
Magilla
William Asher
<snip>
> Second, what separates most pro cyclists from your average Cat. 3 is
> not training, but genetics. Why ban drugs when its totally legal to
> start a race (or a career) with superior genetics? A rider with
> inferior genetics can reason they need to "make themselves equal" just
> to compete. And the top guys do it because they want to win. The
> rules do not take into account that riders do not start witht he same
> engines from a genetic standpoint, which makes the premise of fairness
> and morals moot.
Dear Harrison Bergeron:
If what you say made any sense, it would be just as reasonable to handicap
all the riders with weights so that no matter what their absolute power
output they all had the same power per mass ratio.
Fairness in the context of athletic competition doesn't mean everyone has
an equal chance of winning, it means that the person with the best genetic
engine in terms of that particular sport is the most likely to win. That
"fairness" is governed by Nature and Nature isn't moral unless you believe
in a divinely guided universe.
--
Bill Asher
MagillaGorilla
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>Second, what separates most pro cyclists from your average Cat. 3 is
>>not training, but genetics. Why ban drugs when its totally legal to
>>start a race (or a career) with superior genetics? A rider with
>>inferior genetics can reason they need to "make themselves equal" just
>>to compete. And the top guys do it because they want to win. The
>>rules do not take into account that riders do not start witht he same
>>engines from a genetic standpoint, which makes the premise of fairness
>>and morals moot.
>
>
> Dear Harrison Bergeron:
>
> If what you say made any sense, it would be just as reasonable to handicap
> all the riders with weights so that no matter what their absolute power
> output they all had the same power per mass ratio.
Yeah, they should do that. I'll suggest it to the Mick next time I talk
to him.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>Second, what separates most pro cyclists from your average Cat. 3 is
>>not training, but genetics. Why ban drugs when its totally legal to
>>start a race (or a career) with superior genetics? A rider with
>>inferior genetics can reason they need to "make themselves equal" just
>>to compete. And the top guys do it because they want to win. The
>>rules do not take into account that riders do not start witht he same
>>engines from a genetic standpoint, which makes the premise of fairness
>>and morals moot.
>
>
> Dear Harrison Bergeron:
>
> If what you say made any sense, it would be just as reasonable to handicap
> all the riders with weights so that no matter what their absolute power
> output they all had the same power per mass ratio.
>
> Fairness in the context of athletic competition doesn't mean everyone has
> an equal chance of winning, it means <SNIP>
Yes it does.
Magilla
William Asher
> William Asher wrote:
>
<snip>
>> Fairness in the context of athletic competition doesn't mean everyone
>> has an equal chance of winning, it means <SNIP>
>
> Yes it does.
>
You sound like you grew up in a commune where the games were all non-
competitive things like bouncing on a parachute. Athletics is not about
everyone having an equal chance, no matter what they told you between
bong hits while sitting around the campfire.
--
Bill Asher
nobody
<usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:15:16 -0500, MagillaGorilla
><Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>>This is my point, Carl...the banned list is, for the most part,
>>arbitrary. So when people try to make it a good guys vs. bad guys, they
>>have no moral ground to stand on.
>
>Baloney. If the rules are known in advance, then it's wrong to break
>them. For me it's that simple. It's like cutting a course. Isn't the
>course arbitrary? So are you saying if someone rides a shorter course
>intentionally and gets away with it, it's no big deal? Baloney.
I think you could probably make three or four groups of of performance
enhancing things cyclists can and do use to get an advantage.
Outright rule bending or breaking
- Hitching a ride with the team car for too long
- Having a bike that's too light and hoping the officials don't check it.
- Adding weighted waterbottles during the downhill
- Getting pushes from a spectators
- Drafting a team car (works best in echelon position)
- Using durgs in the off season
- Using payoffs to get help from other teams during a race
- Excessive bumping, jostling, pinning in, changing your line at the finish
Getting around a rule
- Getting lots of handoffs of waterbottles going up a hard mountain, and
using them as push-offs.
- Questionable confidential exclusion certificates (inhalers, etc.)
- Masking techniques not prohibited - blood washing.
- Micro-dosing
Interpreting a rule strictly
- Rule is Hct must be under 50%. Prerace, dilute blood with saline.
- Tapering durg use to test negative the day of the comp
Doing things that are not prohibited yet or only available to wealthy teams
- Design a bike that's unusually aerodynamic (superman position)
- Designer durgs
- Skin suits
- Wind tunnel testing
- Hyperbaric chambers
- Cutting edge proprietary materials from a bike company
- Tents
- Filling the bike frame with helium. (j/k)
...and so on. There's probably more, including the support team spying on
competitors, using uppers, blocking riders with the team car, sabotaging
equipment (?), starting false rumors about another team.
That's just off the top of my head... ;-)
Mark VandenBerghe
John Forrest Tomlinson
<Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:15:16 -0500, MagillaGorilla
>> <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This is my point, Carl...the banned list is, for the most part,
>>>arbitrary. So when people try to make it a good guys vs. bad guys, they
>>>have no moral ground to stand on.
>>
>>
>> Baloney. If the rules are known in advance, then it's wrong to break
>> them. For me it's that simple. It's like cutting a course. Isn't the
>> course arbitrary? So are you saying if someone rides a shorter course
>> intentionally and gets away with it, it's no big deal? Baloney.
>
>
>There's nothing inherently immoral about breaking rules that one does
>not regard as fair or moral to begin with.
It certainly is immoral in a voluntary situation like sport. If the
athlete doesn't agree with the rules, don't participate.
MagillaGorilla
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 16:54:44 -0500, MagillaGorilla
> <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:15:16 -0500, MagillaGorilla
>>><Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>This is my point, Carl...the banned list is, for the most part,
>>>>arbitrary. So when people try to make it a good guys vs. bad guys, they
>>>>have no moral ground to stand on.
>>>
>>>
>>>Baloney. If the rules are known in advance, then it's wrong to break
>>>them. For me it's that simple. It's like cutting a course. Isn't the
>>>course arbitrary? So are you saying if someone rides a shorter course
>>>intentionally and gets away with it, it's no big deal? Baloney.
>>
>>
>>There's nothing inherently immoral about breaking rules that one does
>>not regard as fair or moral to begin with.
>
>
> It certainly is immoral in a voluntary situation like sport. If the
> athlete doesn't agree with the rules, don't participate.
Wrong. If the athlete doesn't like the rules s/he should break them,
and try to win as much money as s/he can before being DQ'ed. That's
what officials are for. If athletes didn't break rules there would be
no need for officials (or drug testers).
Athletes who break rules create jobs for officiala and drug testers
alike. Whereas athletes who play fair and never take drugs cause
unemployment and are therefore bad people.
Magilla
nobody
<markvand...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Interpreting a rule strictly
>> - Rule is Hct must be under 50%. Prerace, dilute blood with saline.
>> - Tapering durg use to test negative the day of the comp
>>
>> Doing things that are not prohibited yet or only available to wealthy
>> teams
>> - Design a bike that's unusually aerodynamic (superman position)
>> - Designer durgs
>> - Skin suits
>> - Wind tunnel testing
>> - Hyperbaric chambers
>> - Cutting edge proprietary materials from a bike company
>> - Tents
>> - Filling the bike frame with helium. (j/k)
>>
>> ...and so on. There's probably more, including the support team spying on
>> competitors, using uppers, blocking riders with the team car, sabotaging
>> equipment (?), starting false rumors about another team.
>>
>> That's just off the top of my head... ;-)
>>
>>
>
>Skin Suits?
Made from the skins of fellow competitors. You mean you haven't read
'Predator vs Alien, Dark Olympiad'?
Donald Munro
> - Adding weighted waterbottles during the downhill
I think its about time someone dropped some cyclists from the tower of
Pisa.
Davey Crockett
> There's nothing inherently immoral about breaking rules that one does
> not regard as fair or moral to begin with.
>
> Breaking rules doesn't mean jack. Guys in NASCAR cheat on fuel
> capacity, engine power output, etc., all the time. Baseball pitchers
> scruff the ball. Baseball hitters cork their bats or lean into a
> pitch to take a base. Basketball players intentionally foul or
> goaltend. Hockey players check and use other dirty tactics. Boxers
> butt heads and hold their opponents. And cyclists dope. All of these
> are rule violations.
>
> Breaking rules is a part of every professional sport. And if you want
> to win the Tour de France, you need to be on the juice. Otherwise,
> you ain't doing no 7 watts/kg up the climbs.
>
> Second, what separates most pro cyclists from your average Cat. 3 is
> not training, but genetics. Why ban drugs when its totally legal to
> start a race (or a career) with superior genetics? A rider with
> inferior genetics can reason they need to "make themselves equal" just
> to compete. And the top guys do it because they want to win. The
> rules do not take into account that riders do not start witht he same
> engines from a genetic standpoint, which makes the premise of fairness
> and morals moot.
>
>
> Magilla
Yeah
Best post Davey saw in a long time
--
Davey, sitting Shiva
Saying Kaddish for about a couple
of hundred million Turkeys
Ryan Cousineau
Donald Munro <fat-d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Cyclists descend in a vacuum?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobsleigh#Sleighs_and_crews
http://kiat.net/olympics/history/winter/w06oslo.html
It's a good thing I'm not book-smart,
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
Fred Fredburger
Taking bong hits is also a competitive event.
Krusty
<Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
This has nothing to do with your point...at least as far as cycling
goes, but in NASCAR the cars are not equal. Bending & breaking the
rules are commonplace.
e.g., in 2000 (?) Jeff Gordon won a race in Richmond and it was later
discovered that he had an illegal manifold in the car. Neither he,
nor any team member was suspended and he was not stripped of his win.
The only penalty he was assessed was a 100 (?) point deduction, which
was irrelevant, since he was not in any realistic competition for the
Winston Cup.
MagillaGorilla
So is doping in cycling. And the cars in NASCAR are suppose to be equal.
>
> e.g., in 2000 (?) Jeff Gordon won a race in Richmond and it was later
> discovered that he had an illegal manifold in the car. Neither he,
> nor any team member was suspended and he was not stripped of his win.
> The only penalty he was assessed was a 100 (?) point deduction, which
> was irrelevant, since he was not in any realistic competition for the
> Winston Cup.
So, not all penalties in cycling results in suspensions or
disqualifications. Gordon still got a sanction, and if his alteration
was significant enough, he could have been DQ'ed.
Turkey Gorilla
Krusty
Actually, no. The cars, like the bikes, must fit certain
specifications, but they are in no way supposed to be equal. A well
funded, well managed, and well engineered team such as Rick Hendrick
Racing will put a better car on the track than Team Petty every week.
Doping in cycling is commonplace, but when busted for cheating a
driver, or more likely a crew chief, might get a 3-4 race
suspension...as opposed to the two years to life ban that a cyclist
gets.
Now I'm not an expert on pro-cycling or NASCAR, so my argument may be
based on an incorrect interpretation of the rules, but there seems to
be a vast difference.
>
>>
>> e.g., in 2000 (?) Jeff Gordon won a race in Richmond and it was later
>> discovered that he had an illegal manifold in the car. Neither he,
>> nor any team member was suspended and he was not stripped of his win.
>> The only penalty he was assessed was a 100 (?) point deduction, which
>> was irrelevant, since he was not in any realistic competition for the
>> Winston Cup.
>
>So, not all penalties in cycling results in suspensions or
>disqualifications. Gordon still got a sanction, and if his alteration
>was significant enough, he could have been DQ'ed.
>
This is true, but IMHO using an illegal manifold should have gotten
him DQ'ed, as it significantly increased the efficiency of his
engine/car. The difference that I see between cycling & NASCAR is
that cheating in NASCAR is almost always resolved by a mere slap on
the wrist.
MagillaGorilla
So, there's a difference in sanctions between NASCAR and cycling. So what?
Doping will never be eradicated unless you give serious sanctions.
Those sanctions in NASCAR are obviously not deterrents of any kind.
And yes, the cars are suppose to be equal - at least in terms of engine
output.
Magilla
Howard Kveck
MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
> And yes, the cars are suppose to be equal - at least in terms of engine
> output.
No. There are no rules in NASCAR that say that engines may only create "x"
horsepower. There are rules about engine components, capacity and many other things,
but nothing at all about engine output. Perhaps you're thinking of IROC, where the
cars are (allegedly) equal.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
amit....@gmail.com
MagillaGorilla wrote:
Goddamn,
This is the most retarded line of argument I've seen on rbr.
fairness = sticking to a pre-determined set of rules.
period.
Krusty
<Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
Agreed on doping...and they'll never eliminate it, so I say just
sanction it and have a doctor administer the "medicine" in a safe
manner. This is probably not a new argument in this group.
As far as NASCAR goes...what Howard said...you're probably thinking
IROC.
MagillaGorilla
> In article <Z_ycncDu5P7...@ptd.net>,
> MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>And yes, the cars are suppose to be equal - at least in terms of engine
>>output.
>
>
>
> No. There are no rules in NASCAR that say that engines may only create "x"
> horsepower. There are rules about engine components, capacity and many other things,
> but nothing at all about engine output. Perhaps you're thinking of IROC, where the
> cars are (allegedly) equal.
>
I got 2 words for you: RESTRICTOR PLATE
Thanks,
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Rules do not necessarily equate to fairness. For example, the rules in
cycling allow for altitude tents but not EPO. Explain why one is legal
and one isn't? Many cyclists cannot afford an altitude tent.
The rules use to allow for blood doping, now they don't. The rules
permit cyclists to live at altitude, which is why many pros choose to
move to Colorado (to artificially increase their hematocrit).
Whoever told you rules = fairness is an idiot.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
The UCI has no regulatory control over what doctors can and cannot do as
they are not licensed throught he UCI in any way.
As for NASCAR, ever hear of something called a restrictor plate?
Magilla
Howard Kveck
MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
Nope. That was intended to slow *all* the cars down at certain speedways, such as
Daytona and Talledega, where they were thought to be going too fast. Everyone got
the same size plate. Some teams spent more time on their dynamometers playing with
plated engines and they got more power.
Here's the simple way to prove it: NASCAR does not dyno any of the cars. Ever.
Kurgan Gringioni
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >
> > Agreed on doping...and they'll never eliminate it, so I say just
> > sanction it and have a doctor administer the "medicine" in a safe
> > manner. This is probably not a new argument in this group.
> >
> > As far as NASCAR goes...what Howard said...you're probably thinking
> > IROC.
>
>
> The UCI has no regulatory control over what doctors can and cannot do as
> they are not licensed throught he UCI in any way.
>
> As for NASCAR, ever hear of something called a restrictor plate?
Dumbass -
I agree with your general premise regarding doping, but the restrictor
plate argument doesn't support it.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
MagillaGorilla
> In article <NeWcnUHxl8O...@ptd.net>,
> MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Howard Kveck wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <Z_ycncDu5P7...@ptd.net>,
>>> MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>And yes, the cars are suppose to be equal - at least in terms of engine
>>>>output.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No. There are no rules in NASCAR that say that engines may only create
>>>"x" horsepower. There are rules about engine components, capacity and many
>>>other things, but nothing at all about engine output. Perhaps you're thinking
>>>of IROC, where the cars are (allegedly) equal.
>>
>>I got 2 words for you: RESTRICTOR PLATE
>
>
> Nope. That was intended to slow *all* the cars down at certain speedways, such as
> Daytona and Talledega, where they were thought to be going too fast. Everyone got
> the same size plate. Some teams spent more time on their dynamometers playing with
> plated engines and they got more power.
>
> Here's the simple way to prove it: NASCAR does not dyno any of the cars. Ever.
>
NASCAR doesn't need to dyne the cars because the RESTRICTOR PLATE limits
the top speed of all NASCARS on all tracks. Horsepower is for the most
part irrelevant given the restrictor plate's function.
Magilla
Krusty
>
>Magilla
Yup...they're only used at Daytona & Tallagdega...and even then only
for safety purposes.
MagillaGorilla
Okay, Ricky Bobby.
Magilla
Howard Kveck
MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
> NASCAR doesn't need to dyne the cars because the RESTRICTOR PLATE limits
> the top speed of all NASCARS on all tracks.
Sorry, Grilla, they still only use plates at Daytona and Talledega.
> Horsepower is for the most
> part irrelevant given the restrictor plate's function.
The plate's function is to restrict airflow into the engine, thereby restricting
horsepower.
And this line of argument is sidestepping the issue you were stating earlier:
NASCAR engines are all equal. They aren't.
amit....@gmail.com
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Rules do not necessarily equate to fairness. For example, the rules in
> cycling allow for altitude tents but not EPO. Explain why one is legal
> and one isn't? Many cyclists cannot afford an altitude tent.
>
> The rules use to allow for blood doping, now they don't. The rules
> permit cyclists to live at altitude, which is why many pros choose to
> move to Colorado (to artificially increase their hematocrit).
dumbass,
these are all excellent points. in fact i think all the points you've
raised in this thread automatically qualify you for the nobel prize of
sports.
you are right, the tour de france should be a three week cancer ride
after which they decide the yellow jersey by a raffle.
that way everyone is sure to have an equal chance of winning.
MagillaGorilla
I don't want a Nobel Prize. I want a T-shirt that says "Magilla Gorilla
for Sale."
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> In article <kJidnWmKvqF...@ptd.net>,
> MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>NASCAR doesn't need to dyne the cars because the RESTRICTOR PLATE limits
>>the top speed of all NASCARS on all tracks.
>
>
> Sorry, Grilla, they still only use plates at Daytona and Talledega.
>
>
>> Horsepower is for the most
>>part irrelevant given the restrictor plate's function.
>
>
> The plate's function is to restrict airflow into the engine, thereby restricting
> horsepower.
>
> And this line of argument is sidestepping the issue you were stating earlier:
> NASCAR engines are all equal. They aren't.
>
Ricky Bobby,
The differences in horsepower between NASCARS is nothing like the
relative differences between cyclists' output (watts/kg). Do the math
(qualifying runs vs. time trials). For the most part, NASCARS are equal
in top end speed for any given track.
Magilla
#44 Chiquita Banana car
Howard Kveck
MagillaGorilla <Magilla...@zoo.com> wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
> > And this line of argument is sidestepping the issue you were stating
> > earlier: NASCAR engines are all equal. They aren't.
> >
>
> Ricky Bobby,
>
> The differences in horsepower between NASCARS is nothing like the
> relative differences between cyclists' output (watts/kg). Do the math
> (qualifying runs vs. time trials). For the most part, NASCARS are equal
> in top end speed for any given track.
By which you seem to be saying that any car can win on any race. Sadly, just like
in bike racing, that's not the case. Raw horsepower is only part of the equation in
car racing. Trying to compare it to bike racing is like trying to compare bananas to
apples. Which is why you must have brought it up.
Kurgan Gringioni
Howard Kveck wrote:
> >
> > The differences in horsepower between NASCARS is nothing like the
> > relative differences between cyclists' output (watts/kg). Do the math
> > (qualifying runs vs. time trials). For the most part, NASCARS are equal
> > in top end speed for any given track.
>
> By which you seem to be saying that any car can win on any race. Sadly, just like
> in bike racing, that's not the case. Raw horsepower is only part of the equation in
> car racing. Trying to compare it to bike racing is like trying to compare bananas to
> apples. Which is why you must have brought it up.
Dumbass -
Magilla had a good point about how NASCAR drivers aren't "evil" or
"dirty" when they push the boundaries. They just get penalized when
they get caught, then they're back in business. Which is the smart way
to run a sporting league. The UCI could learn a few things from NASCAR.
But: Magilla has managed to get sidetracked and torpedoed himself.
than ks,
K. Gringioni.
amit....@gmail.com
dumbass,
unfortunately for pro cycling the UCI is not a pro sports league,
instead it is set up as a pseudo government (which is not the way to
run a business). and i agree, the harsher the punishment, the more
likely the perception is that it is a serious offense.
in pro sports when they are faced with something they feel hurts the
integrity of the sport, and makes it lose value in the eyes of sponsors
(something that has already happened in cycling) they deal with it
quite effectively otherwise the penalty is minor.
when there were reports of pete rose gambling on baseball (this was
basball's equivalent to operation puerto) the commissoner gave him a
lifetime ban. there was a minor outcry, many felt the the treatment was
too harsh.
pete rose became an anti-hero of sorts and MLB looked like the bad
guys, but at least to outsiders it gave the appreance that there is no
longer a gambling problem in baseball. later on though baseball has
gotten into drug scandals, but it's been under a different (and lamer)
commissoner.
there are lots of examples where leagues have taken a unusually tough
stance on issues when it threatens the bottom line (ie. the uniform
rules in NFL).
the cycling bosses were stupid. they obviously knew what kinds of
abuses were happening during the 90s, even rbr reading schmucks knew
about dr. ferrari and mr.60%, but it was laissez-faire. the 50% rule,
that was smart; a pseudo doping test which could only lead to a 2 week
"suspension".
when festina happened (and police got involved) they should've realized
that this could become a PR fiasco. they could've come down extremely
hard on a few sacrifical lambs, like an evil despot ... and maybe that
would've somewhat stemmed the subsequent drug scandals.
fanboys like bill c would've had a meltdown about the injustice of it
all, but it would appease outsiders that the doping problem in cycling
is in control.
Howard Kveck
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Magilla had a good point about how NASCAR drivers aren't "evil" or
> "dirty" when they push the boundaries. They just get penalized when
> they get caught, then they're back in business. Which is the smart way
> to run a sporting league. The UCI could learn a few things from NASCAR.
>
> But: Magilla has managed to get sidetracked and torpedoed himself.
I agree with the point that was being made about the punishment of NASCAR drivers
when they get caught. I think that's a better way to deal with the situation than
the UCI has done, and particularly the way WADA has gone at it. But the idea that
the cars are "equal" is factually mistaken. If it were true, then there would likely
be a different winner at each race. But there are only a few winners in the course
of a season, and some teams win multiple times. All the teams may be working off the
same page, from a mechanical standpoint, but there are differences in skill and any
number of other factors that keep certain teams consistently at the front and some
consistently near the back.
So I definitely agree with your point.
Donald Munro
> But: Magilla has managed to get sidetracked and torpedoed himself.
I thought that was DA74 's job, or perhaps its the other way around.