Is It Possible to be a Cycling Fan Without ...
Dave Lee
When I was riding regularly (90's) I really enjoyed buying video's of the
Tdf, Giro d'Italia, Paris-Roubaix, etc. and on late weekend nights plugging
one in with a glass of wine and just watching it for an hour or two.
I can't get enthused anymore - now it is all about hematocrits, testosterone
levels, etc.
Back to golf, I guess.
dave
Choppy Warburton
most will only admit to it in front of a grand jury.
Simply Fred
> Doping is to cyclists as masturbation is to men. We all do it, but
> most will only admit to it in front of a grand jury.
A porn movie involving a grand jury could be interesting.
--D-y
Fan, yes.
Rider, no.
Take a few minutes, there's some excellent "get real" material here,
free for the reading:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France>
I confess, I just scanned that one before bookmarking; they seem to
have omitted the "PDM incident" of 1991. Maybe I just missed it, among
the many stories?
Let us have a "complete" drug testing regimen, as seen in cycling,
with OOC surprise tests, compulsory 365 days/year notification of
location, blood profiles, the whole nine yards for any sport, most
assuredly including "golf", and see what we find!
BTW: Is it "cheating" to have eye surgery so you can see the course
and the ball better?
--D-y
Dave Lee
"--D-y" wrote in message
news:8bb6b086-1bbc-48b9...@35g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
SNIP
BTW: Is it "cheating" to have eye surgery so you can see the course
and the ball better?
--D-y
======================================================
The answer to your question is 'it depends'.
If everyone has free access to eye surgery then the answer is no.
If it is illegal to have the specified eye surgery but many golfers have
it anyway, then you are back to the cycling/doping problem.
There are many level playing fields (IMHO). I just want all the competitors
to be on the same one. And I am not so naïve as to think that this is
simple. But your example is too simple to be useful (IMHO).
dave
yirgster
Jimmy July
> If it is illegal to have the specified eye surgery but many golfers have
> it anyway, then you are back to the cycling/doping problem.
I disagree. Please consider this correction: "If it is illegal to have
the specified eye surgery but all contending golfers have it anyway,
then you are back to the cycling/doping problem."
It's not possible to demonstrate an unlevel playing field. There are
regulars here who used to assert that Ullrich, Floyd Landis, Hamilton,
Basso etc. were clean, but it was generally done to support their
contention that LA benefitted from an unfair advantage. Later events
proved these assertions incorrect.
Dave Lee
"Jimmy July" wrote in message news:4dee80f0$1...@news.x-privat.org...
----------------------------------------------------------------
It is also impossible to determine if all contending golfers
'have it anyway' (eye surgery).
Each 'fan' makes his own decision as to whether or not
the playing field is 'adequately level'.
dave
--D-y
> "--D-y" wrote in message
>
> news:8bb6b086-1bbc-48b9...@35g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
>
> SNIP
>
> BTW: Is it "cheating" to have eye surgery so you can see the course
> and the ball better?
> --D-y
> ======================================================
>
> The answer to your question is 'it depends'.
>
> If everyone has free access to eye surgery then the answer is no.
>
> If it is illegal to have the specified eye surgery but many golfers have
> it anyway, then you are back to the cycling/doping problem.
How about if "not all golfers can afford the eye surgery", which is
what I was getting at in the first place?
IOW, maybe "the field" is level, but all competitors are not created
equal. Nor do they "prepare" equally, aside from banned substances.
>
> There are many level playing fields (IMHO). I just want all the competitors
> to be on the same one. And I am not so naïve as to think that this is
> simple. But your example is too simple to be useful (IMHO).
I don't know, I think "they were all doping" is both simple and quite
useful.
--D-y
Jimmy July
> It is also impossible to determine if all contending golfers 'have it
> anyway' (eye surgery).
Really? If you follow it a while you get a feel for it. Let's try this:
I'll list the top finishers from 2005 and you tell me which ones you
think were clean. Here's the list:
1 Lance Armstrong
2 Ivan Basso
3 Jan Ullrich
4 Francisco Mancebo
5 Alexandre Vinokourov
6 Levi Leipheimer
7 Michael Rasmussen
It is completely without cynicism that I claim Armstrong was no dirtier
than the rest of these guys. I don't see any logical basis for disputing
that.
Dave Lee
"Jimmy July" wrote in message news:4dee...@news.x-privat.org...
==================================================
Sorry - I absolutely don't see the point here. You raised the
(totally stupid, IMHO) issue of eye surgery and golf. And now
I see this list of cyclists.
The very fact that there is a question
regarding your list while, OTOH, give me any list of golfers
and there would be EXTREMELY limited credibility about
whether there were clean or not is the point.
I don't have to be a pharmacology expert to watch a golf
tournament - and that was my point.
dave
Benjo Maso
"--D-y" schreef in bericht
news:8bb6b086-1bbc-48b9...@35g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 6, 5:18 pm, "Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
> ... an advanced degree in pharmacology?
>
> When I was riding regularly (90's) I really enjoyed buying video's of the
> Tdf, Giro d'Italia, Paris-Roubaix, etc. and on late weekend nights
> plugging
> one in with a glass of wine and just watching it for an hour or two.
>
> I can't get enthused anymore - now it is all about hematocrits,
> testosterone
> levels, etc.
>
> Back to golf, I guess.
Fan, yes.
Rider, no.
Take a few minutes, there's some excellent "get real" material here,
free for the reading:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France>
I'm afraid it's full of mistakes. For instance, Janssen, Pingeon, Ocaña and
Gimondi tested positive, Thévénet admitted using corticoids, not steroids,
the autopsy of Knut Enemark Jensen's body didn't show had taken amphetamine
and other drugs. etc.
Benjo
William Fred
news:x7ydnfiBHMP0AXPQ...@earthlink.com:
>
> I don't have to be a pharmacology expert to watch a golf
> tournament - and that was my point.
>
Did you hear something whistle past your ear just then?
Anyway, Tiger Woods used a doctor who was later indicted for providing
steroids to athletes. Rumors of steroid use in golf are plentiful. So I
agree, you don't have to be a pharmacology expert to watch golf any more
than you have to for cycling. You just have to adapt your golf mindset
to cycling. Alternatively, you could just admit that you secretly like
watching these juiced guys go at it because it is goddamned awesome, you
just don't want to know about it.
--
Bill Fred
Dave Lee
"--D-y" wrote in message
news:f730e003-3cb7-460b...@k3g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
========================================
OK, fine.
Some guys are stronger than others.
Some guys can afford better golf clubs than others.
Some guys can afford better instructors than others.
Some guys can were 'born into' circumstances that allowed them to play
better courses as kids
So if (therefore) the doping issues in cycling have no affect on your
interest level in the sport, fine w/me. I am not aware of ANY REASONABLE
person ever having raised these issues as being 'unlevel playing fields'
(other than maybe the most extreme of San Francisco politics, or Cuba, etc).
dave
ps. I think they were all doping is simple (and possibly correct). Useful -
not sure what to think of that.
Dave Lee
"William Fred" wrote in message
news:Xns9EFD981BD...@130.133.4.11...
--
Bill Fred
========================================
Let me get this straight. You are equating the TW encounter with Galea
with the situation with cycling. Is that your point?
dave
Dave Lee
"Benjo Maso" wrote in message news:957kmp...@mid.individual.net...
Fan, yes.
Rider, no.
Benjo
================================
If there was EVER a post that makes the point that I am making, then here it
is.
dave
Fredmaster of Brainerd
>
> If there was EVER a post that makes the point that I am making, then here it
> is.
>
What is it, this point that you are making?
That you liked watching when you didn't know they
were doping, and now that you know they were and are
doping, you don't like watching cycling, and prefer
to watch golf, where you don't know that they are
doping?
As it happens, I'm kind of on Ryan's side.
I prefer riding to watching.
Fredmaster Ben
Dave Lee
"Fredmaster of Brainerd" wrote in message
news:e20bfbef-e780-4a69...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com...
Fredmaster Ben
===============================================
I enjoy both watching and 'the evaluation of performance' aspect
of sports. Back in the 90's (right or wrong) I didn't have to be a
pharmacologist to evaluate cycling performance. I enjoyed that
even though it might have 'been wrong'.
It is similar WRT to golf (at least right now).
dave
ps. It isn't that I did or do prefer golf. It is simply a point
of comparison. I'm not claiming that golf 'is cleaner' than
cycling, although it probably is - IMHO - if for no other
reason than the edge to be gained is smaller.
Frederick the Great
"Benjo Maso" <benjo...@upcmail.nl> wrote:
> I'm afraid it's full of mistakes. For instance, Janssen, Pingeon, Ocaña and
> Gimondi tested positive, Thévénet admitted using corticoids, not steroids,
> the autopsy of Knut Enemark Jensen's body didn't show had taken amphetamine
> and other drugs. etc.
Technical point. Corticoids are steroids---corticosteroids.
Corticosteroids are catabolic steroids. When hand wringers
moan over the use of steroids it is the anabolic steroids
only that are at issue; though they do not know the difference.
--
Old Fritz
Dave Lee
"Frederick the Great" wrote in message
news:rubrum-DE5F41....@news.albasani.net...
--
Old Fritz
======================================
As I said elsewhere in this thread :-)
dave
Fred Flintstein
> Back in the 90's (right or wrong) I didn't have to be a
> pharmacologist to evaluate cycling performance. I enjoyed that
> even though it might have 'been wrong'.
And you don't need to be a pharmacologist now. You
just need to be honest with yourself. That's the
part that's giving you so much trouble.
F
Fred Flintstein
Gues the answer is, no, you didn't hear it.
F
--D-y
> "--D-y" schreef in berichtnews:8bb6b086-1bbc-48b9...@35g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Jun 6, 5:18 pm, "Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
>
> > ... an advanced degree in pharmacology?
>
> > When I was riding regularly (90's) I really enjoyed buying video's of the
> > Tdf, Giro d'Italia, Paris-Roubaix, etc. and on late weekend nights
> > plugging
> > one in with a glass of wine and just watching it for an hour or two.
>
> > I can't get enthused anymore - now it is all about hematocrits,
> > testosterone
> > levels, etc.
>
> > Back to golf, I guess.
>
> Fan, yes.
> Rider, no.
>
> Take a few minutes, there's some excellent "get real" material here,
> free for the reading:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France>
>
> Gimondi tested positive, Th v net admitted using corticoids, not steroids,
> the autopsy of Knut Enemark Jensen's body didn't show had taken amphetamine
> and other drugs. etc.
Thank you for reading and correcting.
I humbly admit I did just scan that material, and not critically, even
for my very limited "knowledge" of what's what.
I hope I would have caught the Thevenet mistake, from reading
Thevenet's quotes of years ago.
That link was a dud; however, the concept that the 90's were somehow
an era of clean & noble (etc. etc.) competition in bike racing is also
a dud.
--D-y
--D-y
> ps. I think they were all doping is simple (and possibly correct). Useful -
> not sure what to think of that.
It's useful in getting over the Lance Armstrong is Satan thing, for
one.
It's also useful-- speaking for myself, at least-- in coming to the
realization that athletes (meaning "bike racers", because they are the
worst affected) are scapegoats when their careers are taken away from
them for "doping".
Bad rules, bad enforcement ("the guy next to you being able to dope
without much fear of being caught"), a long history of lying and
deceit at all levels of the sport, from top to bottom-- that's *why*
they "were all doping".
--D-y
Fredmaster of Brainerd
> "Fredmaster of Brainerd" wrote in message
>
>
>
> That you liked watching when you didn't know they
> were doping, and now that you know they were and are
> doping, you don't like watching cycling, and prefer
> to watch golf, where you don't know that they are
> doping?
>
> As it happens, I'm kind of on Ryan's side.
> I prefer riding to watching.
>
> Fredmaster Ben
> ===============================================
> I enjoy both watching and 'the evaluation of performance' aspect
> of sports. Back in the 90's (right or wrong) I didn't have to be a
> pharmacologist to evaluate cycling performance. I enjoyed that
> even though it might have 'been wrong'.
>
> It is similar WRT to golf (at least right now).
>
> dave
>
> ps. It isn't that I did or do prefer golf. It is simply a point
> of comparison. I'm not claiming that golf 'is cleaner' than
> cycling, although it probably is - IMHO - if for no other
> reason than the edge to be gained is smaller.
I wish you would learn to quote properly (with the ">"
marks).
It sounds like we are talking about the state of
your knowledge of [doping in] cycling, not the
state of cycling. In the 90s, riders were
charging up like you wouldn't believe - "Mr 60%"
jokes, Gewiss-Ballan finishing 1-2-3, out of
nowhere riders winning the Giro and disappearing
equally quickly, Dutchmen dying in their sleep.
It was the early days of efficient blood
manipulation and there was no hematocrit threshold
or EPO test. So there were no limits and one didn't
know the extent of the pharmacology, until
Festina 1998 roughly.
Are races more determined by best-doping-strategy now
than in 1994? I actually doubt it, but the difference is
that we know, so we go around asking questions rather
than living in blissful ignorance. Of course, there
are some fans who have always known or suspected and
just don't care that much. Loosely, this corresponds
to an Anglo/American vs. Continental divide, although
there are occasional flashes of self-righteousness
from the continent - maybe I should stereotype it as
northern vs southern?
Anyway, I don't give a swing about golf either pro
or con, I'm just here to point out that every time
you justify it as probably more watchable, probably
cleaner, probably pharmacology isn't that important,
you're repeating blissful-ignorance history - your own,
sportswriters', this newsgroup's, whatever.
Organized sports are entertainment. If you aren't
entertained, fine, but recognize that this whole
business about pharmacology is your hangup and not
the business of the rest of the audience.
Fredmaster Ben
William Fred
news:eaqdnemLXOJTRnPQ...@giganews.com:
I tried telling this to him already. Maybe you'll have better luck. Or
at least more determination.
--
Bill Fred
p.s. He doesn't like golf analogies. Maybe try women's tennis? I guess
people still like to believe that Serena Williams isn't a doper.
Simply Fred
>> Let me get this straight. You are equating the TW encounter with Galea
>> with the situation with cycling. Is that your point?
Fred Flintstein wrote:
> Gues the answer is, no, you didn't hear it.
He's got a Phonak hearing aid.
Simply Fred
> I tried telling this to him already. Maybe you'll have better luck. Or
> at least more determination.
You need to recover some of the form you had when you were trolling
Kunich about climate change.
Dave Lee
"Fredmaster of Brainerd" wrote in message
news:99dc73a7-fc6d-4c52...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com...
SNIP
Fredmaster Ben
==========================================
I'll give you this. While RBR posts are dominated by
doping issues, at least it has relevance to cycling. At
RSG (rec.sport.golf) over 90% of the posts are
political crap having nothing to do w/golf.
And yeah the lack of ">'s" is irritating. Windows Live
Mail dropped that in their Newsreader and I just
don't use USENET enough to change Newsreaders
(or I am too inconsiderate to change Newsreaders -
your choice).
dave
A. Dumas
> (or I am too inconsiderate to change Newsreaders -
> your choice).
Yes.
Steven Bornfeld
Benjo--
Glucocorticoids are considered steroids, and unless I'm greatly
mistaken, they are banned. Yes, their use in cycling is primarily
anti-inflammatory rather than anabolic. I assume the rationale for the
ban is that they convey the ability to ride with less pain. It doesn't
explain why NSAIDS aren't banned. But I'm certainly not saying that
criteria for banning a particular pharmaceutical are rational.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Steven Bornfeld
Sorry, didn't mean to step on your post--I posted before reading this.
n I do thing that glucocorticoids are banned as well. I'm not sure that
overuse is any safer than anabolic steroids.
Benjo Maso
"Steven Bornfeld" schreef in bericht news:iso0nr$vfc$1...@dont-email.me...
Benjo--
Thanks! And yes, glucocorticoids are banned.
Benjo
William Fred
news:veu3c8-...@linux-205.tricom.co.za:
Would it help you to know I now realize I shouldn't have been trolling
Kunich? It's not that I'm wiser, or that I'm sorry exactly that he got
angry and left, it's just that I realize now I don't really care enough
about that either to be seriously trolling anyone about it.
When you get right down to it, there's no difference between zen and
depression.
--
Bill Fred
Frederick the Great
Steven Bornfeld <bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
I am sure over use is debilitating.
--
Old Fritz
Frederick the Great
<99dc73a7-fc6d-4c52...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com
>,
Fredmaster of Brainerd <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wish you would learn to quote properly (with the ">"
> marks).
Come on. All your recent replies
lack the required References header line.
--
Old Fritz
Fredmaster of Brainerd
The metadata in those posts are corrupted.
In Dave's posts without quote marks, the _data_
are corrupted.
There are people who will tell you that bad metadata
make data just as useless as bad data. These people
are wrong.
I believe I figured the bad Google Groups behavior
out, BTW. In the past few days, I started using the
"Try the new, more broken Google Groups interface!"
because the old one was not keeping up with recent
posts. That switch appears to be simultaneous with
the missing References: you complain about.
Furthermore, the text entry forms are different.
I bet that Ryan has been using the new, more borken
Google Groups, and that's why his posts have no
References and long, unwrapped lines.
Poor Usenet, killed by Google while it was saving
(or at least archiving) it.
Fredmaster Ben
Simply Fred
>> You need to recover some of the form you had when you were trolling
>> Kunich about climate change.
William Fred wrote:
> Would it help you to know I now realize I shouldn't have been trolling
> Kunich? It's not that I'm wiser, or that I'm sorry exactly that he got
> angry and left, it's just that I realize now I don't really care enough
> about that either to be seriously trolling anyone about it.
>
> When you get right down to it, there's no difference between zen and
> depression.
But rbr isn't part of human reality so its hard to say whether anything
really happened.
"Like all dreamers I confuse disenchantment with truth."
Simply Fred
>> I wish you would learn to quote properly (with the ">"
>> marks).
Frederick the Great wrote:
> Come on. All your recent replies
> lack the required References header line.
It seems to be infectious. Maybe its part of a Chinese plot against
google and the western world.
William Fred
@donaldm.homeip.net:
>
> "Like all dreamers I confuse disenchantment with truth."
>
Ben Franklin said that.
--
Bill Fred
William Fred
news:fcb5b26f-9002-41c8...@f2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>
> According to Dr. Melfi (and pop Freudians), depression is rage
> directed inward. When I first read about Tyler Hamilton`s depression,
> I wondered if it was exacerbated by a volcano of rage against the
> world that had no productive outlet. I hope he feels better now.
Whatever.
--
Bill Fred
Frederick the Great
William Fred <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Depressives replay the same morbid loop over and over and over;
and lash out at anyone who interferes with the loop.
--
Old Fritz
Jimmy July
Phoney, Phonak, something like that.
Jimmy July
>
>
> "Jimmy July" wrote in message news:4dee...@news.x-privat.org...
> On 06/07/2011 01:24 PM, Dave Lee wrote:
>
>> It is also impossible to determine if all contending golfers 'have it
>> anyway' (eye surgery).
>
> Really? If you follow it a while you get a feel for it. Let's try this:
> I'll list the top finishers from 2005 and you tell me which ones you
> think were clean. Here's the list:
>
> 1 Lance Armstrong
> 2 Ivan Basso
> 3 Jan Ullrich
> 4 Francisco Mancebo
> 5 Alexandre Vinokourov
> 6 Levi Leipheimer
> 7 Michael Rasmussen
>
> It is completely without cynicism that I claim Armstrong was no dirtier
> than the rest of these guys. I don't see any logical basis for disputing
> that.
> ==================================================
> Sorry - I absolutely don't see the point here. You raised the (totally
> stupid, IMHO) issue of eye surgery and golf.
Actually, I did not. This Usenet thingy is kind of confusing, so here's
a clue: we're not all the same person. I am, however, mildly flattered
to have been confused with Dusty. (<- I claim a NG first for that, by
the way)
> And now I see this list of
> cyclists.
Whom you've obviously never heard of. I know this because you believe:
> The very fact that there is a question
> regarding your list while,
There's only a question if you don't know who those guys are. If you
know who they are, the answer is unequivocal: They were ALL dopers. They
were ALL caught (except for Levi and Lance, who doped and got away with
it). When Mr. Bill asked if you'd heard anything whistling past your
ear, this is that thing he referred to.
OTOH, give me any list of golfers and there
> would be EXTREMELY limited credibility about whether there were clean or
> not is the point.
> I don't have to be a pharmacology expert to watch a golf
> tournament - and that was my point.
You have less need to be a pharmacology expert to watch cycling. In
cycling, you KNOW the top contenders are all doping. That's the bit that
keeps tripping you up. Quit worrying about it and enjoy the show.
Dave Lee
"Jimmy July" wrote in message news:4df00c02$1...@news.x-privat.org...
On 6/7/2011 2:47 PM, Dave Lee wrote:
>
>
SNIP
>> Sorry - I absolutely don't see the point here. You raised the (totally
>> stupid, IMHO) issue of eye surgery and golf.
>Actually, I did not. This Usenet thingy is kind of confusing, so here's
>a clue: we're not all the same person. I am, however, mildly flattered
>to have been confused with Dusty. (<- I claim a NG first for that, by
>the way)
SNIP
Yep - my apologies to one of you guys - I'm not around here
enough to know which.
dave
Fred Flintstein
> They were ALL caught (except for Levi and Lance, who doped and
> got away with it).
It was a long time ago but Levi lost a national championship
over an allergy med. At least he said it was an allergy med.
F
Frederick the Great
"Dave Lee" <Dave...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
> "Jimmy July" wrote in message news:4df00c02$1...@news.x-privat.org...
>
> On 6/7/2011 2:47 PM, Dave Lee wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Sorry - I absolutely don't see the point here. You raised the (totally
> >> stupid, IMHO) issue of eye surgery and golf.
>
> >Actually, I did not. This Usenet thingy is kind of confusing, so here's
> >a clue: we're not all the same person. I am, however, mildly flattered
> >to have been confused with Dusty. (<- I claim a NG first for that, by
> >the way)
>
> Yep - my apologies to one of you guys - I'm not around here
> enough to know which.
Not much of an apology.
"I won't exert the effort
to engage in dialogue."
--
Old Fritz
Jimmy July
We've got ignorant, inconsiderate and argumentative. If he were
obsessive-compulsive, he'd look awfully familiar.
Jimmy July
I blame stuxnet.
Jimmy July
> When you get right down to it, there's no difference between zen and
> depression.
>
That's the most depressing thing I've ever read in RBR.