Landis seem shy, and shy people are not able to lie
novice
get out and speak is that he is innocent.
Tim McNamara
"novice" <seatos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That is why I believe Landis. The only that gives him the strength to
> get out and speak is that he is innocent.
96.375% of people tell a lie at least once a day. The other 3.625%
aren't telling the truth about it.
RonSonic
Mark Twain was asked to recall and write about his first lie. He said he
couldn't remember the first lie, but he clearly recalls the second; he was nine
days old .....
Ron
Jim Flom
news:timmcn-953F5D....@news.iphouse.com...
I think you're talking about males and masturbation.
--
Jim Flom
"There's more in you than you think."
sal bass
and two kids and lied to the cops, telling them they were on vaction.
the title of this thread has got to be up there with deadly bread!
1. 90% of the people doing hard time in prison for serious crimes
such as murder, armed robbery and rape admit to consuming bread within
12 hours of committing the crime which put them in prison.
2. More than 98% of all the people incarcerated in mental hospitals
for uncontrolled violent behavior admit to using bread on a regular
basis.
3. In the 1850s when bread was routinely baked in most family homes,
there was a high incidence of heart disease, cancer, tuberculosis,
short lifespan in general, high infant mortality and low birth weight.
these diseases were more prevalent in poorer homes where the bread was
baked on site, and less prevalent in richer homes, where the drug was
bought in bakeries.
4. Conversely, in primitive jungle tribes where bread is rarely if
ever consumed, there is a much lower rate of heart attack, arthritis,
hardening of the arteries, cancer and diabetes. the scientific evidence
is just too massive to ignore.
5. Bread has been proven to be fatal to infants and small children,
even in small doses. Babies have been known to suffocate on as little
as a single slice.
6. Bread has been proven to be addictive. When addicts are deprived
of it and fed only water, they soon begin to beg for it, often in as
little as 12-24 hours. This is not scare propaganda; it is true fact
anyone can duplicate in the laboratory.
7. Yeast, the active ingredient in bread, releases ethyl alcohol and
carbon dioxide gas as it reacts to make the bread rise. This gas can be
fatal if breathed in high enough conmcentration, and ethanol is a
proven narcotic drug, which causes liver damage, brain damage, drug
dependency and death.
8. Plain white bread is the mildest form of the drug, and not
considered too harmful; however, this subsance can be "spiked" with
wheat flour, corn flour, raisins, sugar and many other additives to
give the drug an added "kick" and get the user addicted more quickly.
9. The use of bread inevitably leads to the additional use of more
powerful substances, such as jam, jelly and peanut butter, which are
routinely added to the bread by unscrupulous pushers to keep the
customers hooked.
10. The gangsters in the wheat, corn, oats and baking industry
routinely lobby congress and donate millions of dollars annually to
assure no laws will be passed prohibiting their noxious practice. This
is a billion-dollar industry, organized crime on a national scale.
11. 99% of all bread abusers are so badly brain-damaged, they cannot
tell the difference between scientifically derived truth and random
collections of facts presented in a misleading fashion.
wate...@financier.com
twice?
no i'm not on the jury, but come on
the odds are way way against him
the possible reason?
to save face
1. if he admits it, where does that put him?
an everyday cheat & liar
2. if he denies & denies forever?
he's always going to have some people believing him
ps: i'm a reformed shy cheat, crook & liar
waterboy
Bill Sornson
I knew that.
carl...@comcast.net
>That is why I believe Landis. The only that gives him the strength to
>get out and speak is that he is innocent.
(And I never thought that I'd use Sheldon's internet style!)
Here's the Twain piece that Ron mentioned:
http://www.mtwain.com/My_First_Lie,_And_How_I_Got_Out_Of_It/0.html
Elsewhere, Twain mentions a colossal lie told by a shy man:
"MR. JOEL CHANDLER HARRIS ('Uncle Remus') was to arrive from Atlanta
at seven o'clock Sunday morning; so we got up and received him. We
were able to detect him among the crowd of arrivals at the
hotel-counter by his correspondence with a description of him which
had been furnished us from a trustworthy source. He was said to be
undersized, red-haired, and somewhat freckled. He was the only man in
the party whose outside tallied with this bill of particulars. He was
said to be very shy. He is a shy man. Of this there is no doubt. It
may not show on the surface, but the shyness is there. After days of
intimacy one wonders to see that it is still in about as strong force
as ever. There is a fine and beautiful nature hidden behind it, as all
know who have read the Uncle Remus book; and a fine genius, too, as
all know by the same sign. I seem to be talking quite freely about
this neighbor; but in talking to the public I am but talking to his
personal friends, and these things are permissible among friends."
"He deeply disappointed a number of children who had flocked eagerly
to Mr. Cable's house to get a glimpse of the illustrious sage and
oracle of the nation's nurseries. They said--"
"'Why, he 's white!'"
"They were grieved about it. So, to console them, the book was
brought, that they might hear Uncle Remus's Tar-Baby story from the
lips of Uncle Remus himself--or what, in their outraged eyes, was left
of him. But it turned out that he had never read aloud to people, and
was too shy to venture the attempt now. Mr. Cable and I read from
books of ours, to show him what an easy trick it was; but his immortal
shyness was proof against even this sagacious strategy, so we had to
read about Brer Rabbit ourselves."
--Life on the Mississippi, Chapter 47
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
data...@yahoo.com
its not a question of innocence!
the question is: pass or fail the urine test
Bill Sornson
> its not a question of innocence!
> the question is: pass or fail the urine test
pass the urine; fail the test?
(he asked innocently)
Mark Hickey
>synthetic testoserone?
>twice?
>no i'm not on the jury, but come on
>the odds are way way against him
Thing is, no one can say that the sample wasn't tainted after being
delivered by Floyd, either. It's certainly within the realm of
possibility.
To me, there should be a second testing body in place to collect
samples at the same time the primary samples are collected. They
wouldn't have to DO anything with 99.9% of them, but it would
certainly quell any chance of post-collection mischief by the testers.
Will we ever know definitively in Floyd's case? I doubt it. And
that's sad, no matter what the facts.
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
Mark Hickey
Only if you can't comment accurately on its vintage and aftertaste.
novice
a high probability that there might be synthetic testosterone.
Doug Taylor
wrote:
>
>Will we ever know definitively in Floyd's case? I doubt it. And
>that's sad, no matter what the facts.
In cases like this, facts are secondary to prejudice and bias. Certain
people KNOW the whole pro peloton is doped, and have zero doubts that
a confirmed positive sample is accurate. Others who might be fans of
a particular rider or citizens of that rider.
,s country will not believe their lying eyes no mater how convincing
the evidence, and will cling to all sorts of lame excuses to
exonerate their hero.
I again bring up the example of O.J. Simpson's trial for murder, and
rest my case. He was found "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" in
his criminal trial, and there is scarcely a single white American who
believed it. He was found liable by a preponderance of evidence in
his civil trial, and there is nary a black American who bought it. The
facts be damned.
Ron Ruff
novice wrote:
> Landis seem shy, and shy people are not able to lie
... and to that I would add "well". He is a lousy lier.
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much of an incentive to tell
the truth when a doping test comes up positive, so he might as well lie
for the benefit of the few who will continue to "believe" in him. *I*
would think much more highly of him if he told the truth (if he is
guilty... and the evidence is certainly leaning that way)... but lying
is better PR.
I think there is good body of evidence suggesting that most of the GC
hopefuls in the Grand Tours dope to the extent of their ability to get
away with it... and sometimes beyond. The dope works... so if you don't
dope, you probably aren't even in the game. Apparently, it isn't
possible to reliably detect which riders are doping. Instead every once
in awhile someone will screw up and fail a test, or just as often they
will find EPO, blood bags, etc in their rooms or at their doctors
office, and these unfortunate (and maybe careless) riders will be
severly punished and humiliated. The press pretends that they are
horrible cheaters... but instead they are just the unlucky ones.
Stage 17 in the Tour this year was the most impressive performance I've
ever seen. Floyd's positive test... even if he is guilty... doesn't
change that.
The system sucks... but I don't know how to fix it. I'm leaning towards
having more frequent and more extensive tests mostly to ensure rider
health and safety, with shorter suspensions for violations (like 2
months rather than 2-4 years). Make the punishment match the actual
nature of the "crime", and quit pretending that doping is the exception
rather than the rule.
Blair P. Houghton
Ron Ruff wrote:
> The system sucks... but I don't know how to fix it. I'm leaning towards
> having more frequent and more extensive tests mostly to ensure rider
> health and safety, with shorter suspensions for violations (like 2
> months rather than 2-4 years). Make the punishment match the actual
> nature of the "crime", and quit pretending that doping is the exception
> rather than the rule.
If doping is the rule, then the riders and their sponsors and
everyone presenting this farce owes the viewing public
compensatory and punitive damages. My time and the money
I spend on sponsors' products are valuable to me, and I don't
appreciate being defrauded of it.
--Blair
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Blair,
What products do you buy, based on the company's willingness to sponsor
a team in the Tour de France? Hearing aids from Phonak? Financial
services from Caisse d'Epargne?
What bicycle parts do you plan to buy that Floyd used and Oscar didn't?
Is there a particular tubular tire that you favor? A brand of brake
pads that you wish you hadn't bought?
Like the Olympics, it's entertainment. You might as well talk about
suing Walt Disney. No one made you watch the Tour de France.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Blair P. Houghton
carl...@comcast.net wrote:
> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> > If doping is the rule, then the riders and their sponsors and
> > everyone presenting this farce owes the viewing public
> > compensatory and punitive damages. My time and the money
> > I spend on sponsors' products are valuable to me, and I don't
> > appreciate being defrauded of it.
>
>
> What products do you buy, based on the company's willingness to sponsor
> a team in the Tour de France? Hearing aids from Phonak? Financial
> services from Caisse d'Epargne?
Discovery from the Discovery Channel. Berries from Floor.
> Like the Olympics, it's entertainment.
Horseshit. It's advertising. Wall to fucking wall. If you think
it's just "entertainment" then you're exactly the sort of mindless
drone that they want to buy into the scam.
> You might as well talk about
> suing Walt Disney. No one made you watch the Tour de France.
No one makes me breathe, either, but if you give me fake oxygen
I'm going to sue you until you're not breathing.
--Blair
carl...@comcast.net
<blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Blair,
Actually, you're the one who sounds as if you're throwing a tantrum,
spouting obscenities, and holding your breath until you turn blue.
Listen to yourself, equating cheating in a French bicycle race with
"fake oxygen"--do you really need to watch the Tour de France to live?
Splash some cold water on your face and grow up.
Or entertain us with a list of the people and corporations you plan to
sue for your poor, damaged illusions. Did you know that Santa Claus is
not really--
Never mind.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Ron Ruff
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> Horseshit. It's advertising. Wall to fucking wall. If you think
> it's just "entertainment" then you're exactly the sort of mindless
> drone that they want to buy into the scam.
Your sort of attitude is actually the biggest problem. That is why the
sport cannot come clean and admit that they can't keep riders from
doing things that will boost their performance. It's because people
like you cannot accept reality. We admit that equipment makes a small
though significant difference, and that diet and nutrition are
important as well... but using EPO to boost your HC to 50% can help
even more... or boosting your testosterone to acceptible levels... or
using whatever trick you can think of to improve your performance and
recovery during a grueling 3 week stage race.
We *know* that riders receive fluid (and whatever else) replacement
after each stage via IV. I guarantee you that the medical *legal* side
of this sport is extremely important to the riders. Does that upset you
as well?
> No one makes me breathe, either, but if you give me fake oxygen
> I'm going to sue you until you're not breathing.
The only thing fake about it is your attitude. Floyd is likely not more
doped than Oscar or anybody else in the top 10.
Sandy
>
> No one makes me breathe, either, but if you give me fake oxygen
> I'm going to sue you until you're not breathing.
>
> --Blair
>
>
Tempting ...
Tim McNamara
"Blair P. Houghton" <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
You're a very strange fellow. Perhaps someone has already given you
fake oxygen, as you don't seem to be thinking clearly.
G.T.
> carl...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>>
>>>If doping is the rule, then the riders and their sponsors and
>>>everyone presenting this farce owes the viewing public
>>>compensatory and punitive damages. My time and the money
>>>I spend on sponsors' products are valuable to me, and I don't
>>>appreciate being defrauded of it.
>>
>>Dear Blair,
>>
>>What products do you buy, based on the company's willingness to sponsor
>>a team in the Tour de France? Hearing aids from Phonak? Financial
>>services from Caisse d'Epargne?
>
>
> Discovery from the Discovery Channel. Berries from Floor.
>
>
>>Like the Olympics, it's entertainment.
>
>
> Horseshit. It's advertising. Wall to fucking wall. If you think
> it's just "entertainment" then you're exactly the sort of mindless
> drone that they want to buy into the scam.
>
Who's a mindless drone? I don't watch Discovery and I've never bought
anything I've noticed advertised in the Tour. Speak for yourself.
Greg
--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
Diablo Scott
> What products do you buy, based on the company's willingness to sponsor
> a team in the Tour de France?
Personally, I chose my cell phone provider based on their sponsorship -
of pro cycling - both teams and events (after verifying that the
available carriers were pretty much all the same).
I have purchased a certain brand of mineral water for no other reason
than their sponsorship.
Granola, coffee, that's about all that comes to mind. If I were in the
market for an expensive watch I'd look at Festina and Tag-Heuer. And I
do have one old bike that was especially appealing because of its
relationship to 7-Eleven... which is still my first choice of
convenience stores.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Diablo,
But not postage stamps or television channels?
:)
And you must have forgotten the literally yellow French newspaper that
started it all--surely you subscribed to L'Auto and now to L'Equipe?
"The Tour de France started as nothing more than a publicity stunt to
sell some newspapers. At its heart, the Tour remains just that, a
vehicle to sell tires, shoes, bikes, telephones and countless other
items that the eager sponsors of the teams and the race want to
promote."
http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfhistory.html
I'm not clear if the old bike was especially appealing because of its
relationship to 7-Eleven, or if 7-Eleven was especially appealing
because of its relationship to the bike, or if both were confused with
someone who rode in a bicycle race.
The art of training a dog lies in getting the dog to confuse the noise
"Good dog!" with getting a dog biscuit.
I like to think that most posters on RBT are smarter than--
Well, you get the idea.
Time to submit another Coca-Cola bottle-cap code to the internet
sweepstakes that the company is running. A dozen bottle-caps entitles
me to a free movie rental. I don't rent movies, but I can send the
email codes to my sister, who finds the promise of movies useful for
keeping my niece and nephew in line.
I like to think that my niece and nephew are smarter than--
Well, you get the idea.
Cheers,
Henri Desgrange
russell...@yahoo.com
>
> > What products do you buy, based on the company's willingness to sponsor
> > a team in the Tour de France?
I don't think I've bought anything specifically because the company
sponsored a cycling team. That is not to say I do not use products
made by companies that sponsor pro cycling. Coca Cola is the drink
sponsor for the Tour de France. It would be curious to know if the
person who claims to never watch Discovery Channel also claims to never
drink Coca Cola. And I do occassionally watch the Discovery Channel
when visiting people who own TVs. And of course I buy postage stamps
and ship my Nashbar and Performance returns using the Post Office. Of
course I used the Post Office and watched Discovery Channel
occassionally before they sponsored cycling teams. So I don't think
their sponsorship has changed my habits.
Maybe the biggest influence on me from cycling sponsors would be in
buying jerseys. If I bought team jerseys I would only get ones that
use my preferred component maker, Campagnolo.
As already mentioned advertising is the purpose of cycling and its
sponsors. Jelly Belly candy sponsors a US team. I did not know about
this company until I saw the team sponsorship. I have not bought any
of their candy, but I know they exist now. Toyota sponsored a team
that competed in the Tour of California. I and everyone else already
knew about Toyota. And I have owned a Toyota car since 1992. Long
before they sponsored cycling in the US. And would definitely buy
another one when the current model can no longer be repaired
economically if/when it breaks. But their cycling sponsorship has
nothing to do with me driving a Toyota car or acquiring another one.
James Fitch
guilty because the jury decided he couldn't be proven guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. There's a huge difference.
-JF
"Doug Taylor" <dta...@dreamscape.com> wrote in message
news:916ld2deuklmou4ol...@4ax.com...
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Blair P. Houghton
Ron Ruff wrote:
> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> > Horseshit. It's advertising. Wall to fucking wall. If you think
> > it's just "entertainment" then you're exactly the sort of mindless
> > drone that they want to buy into the scam.
>
> Your sort of attitude is actually the biggest problem.
No, my attitude is that chemically enhancing human bodies
does not provide an honest athletic competiton.
The bad attitude is the one that hold that it's valid for
Smith Kline Beecham to overtake Eddie Merckx in
the record books.
> That is why the
> sport cannot come clean and admit that they can't keep riders from
> doing things that will boost their performance. It's because people
> like you cannot accept reality.
Wait. You're blaming ME because criminals won't admit
they cheat? You're blaming ME because an entire sport
is no longer a sport but has become an uncontrolled
pharmaceutical trial?
It's you who doesn't get reality.
> We admit that equipment makes a small
> though significant difference, and that diet and nutrition are
> important as well... but using EPO to boost your HC to 50% can help
> even more... or boosting your testosterone to acceptible levels... or
> using whatever trick you can think of to improve your performance and
> recovery during a grueling 3 week stage race.
>
> We *know* that riders receive fluid (and whatever else) replacement
> after each stage via IV. I guarantee you that the medical *legal* side
> of this sport is extremely important to the riders. Does that upset you
> as well?
All should be banned. If you have to put a needle in your body to
continue in the race, then you have exceeded your physical capacity
and are no longer actually competing in an athletic event.
> > No one makes me breathe, either, but if you give me fake oxygen
> > I'm going to sue you until you're not breathing.
>
> The only thing fake about it is your attitude. Floyd is likely not more
> doped than Oscar or anybody else in the top 10.
If all of them are doped, ban all of them. Stop defrauding the public.
--Blair
Blair P. Houghton
G.T. wrote:
> Who's a mindless drone? I don't watch Discovery and I've never bought
> anything I've noticed advertised in the Tour. Speak for yourself.
You're a mindless drone, and you have bought products
advertised by sporting events.
If you like cheaters, go start a league where it's allowed in the
rules and admitted to the public.
--Blair
Blair P. Houghton
If all it did was validate your prior choices and keep you from making
exploratory purchases of competing products, even once, then the ad
has succeeded.
--Blair
G.T.
> G.T. wrote:
>
>>Who's a mindless drone? I don't watch Discovery and I've never bought
>>anything I've noticed advertised in the Tour. Speak for yourself.
>
>
> You're a mindless drone, and you have bought products
> advertised by sporting events.
>
You're funny. And an idiot.
Blair P. Houghton
carl...@comcast.net wrote:
> Actually, you're the one who sounds as if you're throwing a tantrum,
> spouting obscenities, and holding your breath until you turn blue.
Do you have nothing but fallacy to add?
> Listen to yourself, equating cheating in a French bicycle race with
> "fake oxygen"--do you really need to watch the Tour de France to live?
Your false dilemma is your own. I'm merely pointing out that
fraud is fraud.
> Splash some cold water on your face and grow up.
Stop supporting frauds and grow up.
> Or entertain us with a list of the people and corporations you plan to
> sue for your poor, damaged illusions. Did you know that Santa Claus is
> not really--
I've known that for decades. You still think that fraud in
sports is a good thing.
> Never mind.
I don't mind. The world is full of little children making pointless
noise and needing basic education; you're just one more.
--Blair
Bill Sornson
> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>> G.T. wrote:
>>
>>> Who's a mindless drone? I don't watch Discovery and I've never
>>> bought anything I've noticed advertised in the Tour. Speak for
>>> yourself.
>>
>>
>> You're a mindless drone, and you have bought products
>> advertised by sporting events.
>>
>
> You're funny. And an idiot.
With reading comprehension AND anger management issues.
(IOW, entertaining!)
carl...@comcast.net
<blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Blair,
Er, you're the one talking about:
"My time and the money I spend on sponsors' products are valuable to
me, and I don't appreciate being defrauded of it."
It sounds as if you're the one fooled by the tenuous connection
between who finishes first at the Tour de France and what labels or
badges are plastered on their equipment.
You did know, didn't you, that the badges often fail to match the
underlying equipment?
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Tim McNamara
"Blair P. Houghton" <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> G.T. wrote:
> > Who's a mindless drone? I don't watch Discovery and I've never
> > bought anything I've noticed advertised in the Tour. Speak for
> > yourself.
>
> You're a mindless drone, and you have bought products advertised by
> sporting events.
Good grief, man. Where do you get the meth you've been smoking? Do you
really think you know what Greg has orf hasn'tbought better than he
does? LOL! Every post you write further exposes the idiot that you
are. You should consider stopping while you are behind.
Tim McNamara
"Blair P. Houghton" <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ron Ruff wrote:
> > Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> > > Horseshit. It's advertising. Wall to fucking wall. If you
> > > think it's just "entertainment" then you're exactly the sort of
> > > mindless drone that they want to buy into the scam.
> >
> > Your sort of attitude is actually the biggest problem.
>
> No, my attitude is that chemically enhancing human bodies does not
> provide an honest athletic competiton.
Dude, nobody's disagreeing with that.
> If all of them are doped, ban all of them. Stop defrauding the
> public.
Nobody makes the public watch sports.
Tim McNamara
"Blair P. Houghton" <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
Then it hasn't succeeded in my case. On the bikes I ride most, there
are currently zero products advertised through bike racing. Hmmm.
Unless Cinelli cork tape is advertised through bike racing. That might
be the exception.
I buy the products I use based on their suitability for the type of
riding I do. Since that's not racing, there are few products advertised
through bike racing that are suitable for me to begin with.
russell...@yahoo.com
Then I guess they have failed. I have done some returns of my mail
order bike stuff through UPS and I'm definitely going to try FedEx
next. Post Office is convenient, but they charge a lot for shipping
boxes. UPS is just as expensive. As for Discovery Channel, I have
watched other channels when visiting people who own TVs. So Discovery
failed too. I also drink and prefer Pepsi products over Coca Cola
products. Even though Coca Cola is the drink sponsor for the Tour.
russell...@yahoo.com
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <1155318049....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Blair P. Houghton" <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > So I don't think their sponsorship has changed my habits.
> >
> > If all it did was validate your prior choices and keep you from
> > making exploratory purchases of competing products, even once, then
> > the ad has succeeded.
>
> Then it hasn't succeeded in my case. On the bikes I ride most, there
> are currently zero products advertised through bike racing.
Your bikes do not contain any Shimano products? Are you using Suntour
friction shifters with a Suntour rear derailleur? What shifting
system/method do you use? Are your cogs from Shimano or SRAM? Is your
frame/fork made from Columbus or Reynolds tubing? Do you use a
Brooks-Selle Royal saddle?
data...@yahoo.com
there's a public landis discussion forum at yahoo sports
Ron Ruff
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> No, my attitude is that chemically enhancing human bodies
> does not provide an honest athletic competiton.
Of course we would all prefer that all the racers were "clean"... but
if the dope works and there is no reasonable way to keep the riders
from doping, then many (most... nearly all?) of them will do it!
> The bad attitude is the one that hold that it's valid for
> Smith Kline Beecham to overtake Eddie Merckx in
> the record books.
Eddy doped. Riders have been doing it since the Tour started. Heck it
was probably common back in the Greek Olympic days.
> Wait. You're blaming ME because criminals won't admit
> they cheat? You're blaming ME because an entire sport
> is no longer a sport but has become an uncontrolled
> pharmaceutical trial?
The biggest thing that has changed is the effort by Wada and the UCI to
catch and punish bike racers... which mostly just screws up the sport
by sensationalizing every positive drug test, and making it out to be
some horror.
> If all of them are doped, ban all of them. Stop defrauding the public.
Until an Omniscient Being is appointed to determine who is and who
isn't, we simply don't know. Heck, maybe Floyd is actually innocent,
and the others were really doping but didn't get caught!
Tim McNamara
russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <1155318049....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Blair P. Houghton" <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > So I don't think their sponsorship has changed my habits.
> > >
> > > If all it did was validate your prior choices and keep you from
> > > making exploratory purchases of competing products, even once,
> > > then the ad has succeeded.
> >
> > Then it hasn't succeeded in my case. On the bikes I ride most,
> > there are currently zero products advertised through bike racing.
>
> Your bikes do not contain any Shimano products? Are you using
> Suntour friction shifters with a Suntour rear derailleur? What
> shifting system/method do you use?
No Shimano or Campagnolo products on either of those bikes. Yes to the
Sun Tour friction shifter levers and derailleurs on my Rivendell
All-Rounder, no shifting at all on the other.
> Are your cogs from Shimano or SRAM?
No to the cogs- one bike has a 1938 Bendix coaster brake hub, the Riv
has Phil Wood hubs with a Sachs ARIS freewheel.
> Is your frame/fork made from Columbus or Reynolds tubing?
The Bendix-equipped bike has a home-made frame made from Reynolds 501
tubing, not exactly advertised in racing; the other is a Rivendell
All-rounder made 10 years ago from Reynolds 753, which was once
advertised in racing but not in many years. Here's the history of the
single speed:
http://www.frostybobs.org/bikebuild.html
> Do you use a Brooks-Selle Royal saddle?
The Bendix equipped bike is equipped with a Lepper Voyageur saddle,
which if any racing team uses those I will be quite shocked. The
All-Rounder has a ca. 1976 Brooks Pro which hasn't been advertised for
racing in probably 35-40 years. I have a number of Brooks saddles, all
purchased long before Selle Royal bought them.
I would argue for differentiating between *products* and *brands* for
this discussion. I personally wouldn't buy a single bicycle product
because of it's use in racing or by Some Famous Racer. I don't race any
more, have no pretensions of racing, and have particular needs for bike
equipment. I took up riding brevets three years ago, so the stuff I buy
is biased towards that application and racing stuff is often completely
inappropriate. Either it's just unsuitable or inadequately durable.
There are randonneurs who make do with racing equipment, but I
personally really don't want to be trying to fix an Ergo lever or a
broken aero spoke on the side of the road in deepest darkest Iowa at
2:45 AM. I saw one guy have to drop out of a 200 km brevet because he
was out of inner tubes and patches and nobody else had one with a stem
long enough to use with his Ksyrium rims.
I do have a Ritchey fillet brazed road bike with 1999 Campy Chorus 9
speed, which I used to race on but haven't ridden in a couple of years.
So you could say I drank the pro cycling Kool-Aid on that one! The
original cassette is still on that bike, with probably 20,000 miles on
it, and worked perfectly well with the brand new chain I last installed.
I was amazed. Durable stuff, unlike the ARIS cogs that wear out
rapidly. And our new-six-years-ago Burley tandem has Shimano stuff all
over the place, which works adequately at best.
Blair P. Houghton
Irrelevant.
Fraud is all about making people do things they wouldn't
do if they knew the truth.
--Blair
Blair P. Houghton
carl...@comcast.net wrote:
> It sounds as if you're the one fooled by the tenuous connection
> between who finishes first at the Tour de France and what labels or
> badges are plastered on their equipment.
You think only the winner is earning his pay?
> You did know, didn't you, that the badges often fail to match the
> underlying equipment?
You DO think only the winner is earning his pay.
Boy, you know jack shit about product placement.
--Blair
Blair P. Houghton
Ron Ruff wrote:
> Until an Omniscient Being is appointed to determine who is and who
> isn't, we simply don't know. Heck, maybe Floyd is actually innocent,
> and the others were really doping but didn't get caught!
That's not a justification for allowing the cheating to continue,
it's just a denial mechanism.
Why care about the sport if you know that you have no idea
whether you're cheering for an athlete or a pill?
--Blair
Blair P. Houghton
He's a mindless drone, and he has responded to advertising
in a way that the advertiser wanted.
--Blair
Blair P. Houghton
Tim McNamara wrote:
>[....long digression about racing products advertised at races....]
Whatever gave you the impression I was only talking about
the components on the participants' bicycles? Or yours?
I'm talking about every product advertised in connection with
atheletes or sporting events. Coke commercials during the
pre-game show, for instance.
Sports are the draw. You are the product. Your eyeball
time is sold to the advertiser. The advertising has its
effect.
Anyone attempting to deny that is attempting to deny the
tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars flowing through the
sports sponsorship chain every year.
The money is large enough and the people involved are dirty
enough that it's almost inevitable that they would juice anything
to make more people watch.
Unless someone makes it against the rules to do that, they will.
And until they do, your mind is being manipulated and your time
is being sold and you're not even getting an honest afternoon's
fandom in return.
--Blair
Sandy
Or the plonkermatic. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Blair P. Houghton
Sandy wrote:
> Blair P. Houghton a écrit :
> > time is sold to the advertiser. The advertising has its
> > effect.
>
> Or the plonkermatic. Yeah, that's the ticket.
If you like being duped, that's your problem.
--Blair
RonSonic
wrote:
>
Not only do pills not ride bikes, there is no pill that will make an ordinary
person ride like Landis.
Ron
RonSonic
wrote:
>
Who's being duped? Are you saying that the TdF didn't really comprise a 150 some
guys racing around France like we saw on TV? Are you saying that Floyd didn't
delivery an extraordinary performance to get back into contention after a
painful collapse the day before?
That all didn't happen?
This is worse than the Apollo program.
Ron
Tim McNamara
"Blair P. Houghton" <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
Then don't watch. That should be simple enough, even for you. No one
has a gun to your head forcing you to watch professional bike racing,
or any other sport for that matter.
Tim McNamara
And you're either delusional, semi-literate, an idiot or a troll.
Which is it?
Tim McNamara
"Blair P. Houghton" <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> carl...@comcast.net wrote:
> > It sounds as if you're the one fooled by the tenuous connection
> > between who finishes first at the Tour de France and what labels or
> > badges are plastered on their equipment.
>
> You think only the winner is earning his pay?
Non sequitor. What drugs are you on?
> > You did know, didn't you, that the badges often fail to match the
> > underlying equipment?
>
> You DO think only the winner is earning his pay.
Continuing the non-sequitor. What drugs are you on?
> Boy, you know jack shit about product placement.
Well, you are getting a lot of attention for your ignorance.
Back in 1993 when Armstrong won the world championship road race, he won
it on an Eddy Merckx. Except it really wasn't- it was a Lightspeed
painted to look like a Merckx. Ditto when Andy Hampsten won on
l'Alpe-d'Huez. Greg Lemond rode frames built by Roland Della Santa and
painted to match the team colors, later in his career was rumored to
have ridden frames by Pegoretti painted to match the team bikes. In the
80s many teams rode Vitus 979s repainted to look like the sponsoring
manufacturers' bikes, even though it was quite obvious.
Teams ride tires that aren't made by their tire sponsor, covering over
the label (or sometimes not even bothering). I've even seen photos of
Shimano sponsored teams using Campagnolo equipment and vice versa, just
with the names removed. Helmets, shoes, saddles, etc.- the rider's
preference often takes precedence over the sponsorship. All that
matters is that the average spectator is fooled, the cogniscenti (who
are the main market after all) are not so susceptible.
That's the sort of thing to which Carl alludes, and has been normal in
bike racing for many decades.
Tim McNamara
"Blair P. Houghton" <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <1155317633.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Blair P. Houghton" <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > If all of them are doped, ban all of them. Stop defrauding the
> > > public.
> >
> > Nobody makes the public watch sports.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> Fraud is all about making people do things they wouldn't do if they
> knew the truth.
And nobody makes the public watch sports. Having trouble with your
comprehension?
Blair P. Houghton
Tim McNamara wrote:
> And you're either delusional, semi-literate, an idiot or a troll.
> Which is it?
It's the fallacy of false dilemma, or in this case false choice.
I'm none of those. You're several of them, though.
--Blair
Blair P. Houghton
Tim McNamara wrote:
> And nobody makes the public watch sports. Having trouble with your
> comprehension?
Take a class in psychology.
And one in criminal justice.
You get zero marks for both so far.
--Blair
Blair P. Houghton
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <1155361667.3...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Blair P. Houghton" <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > carl...@comcast.net wrote:
> > > It sounds as if you're the one fooled by the tenuous connection
> > > between who finishes first at the Tour de France and what labels or
> > > badges are plastered on their equipment.
> >
> > You think only the winner is earning his pay?
>
> Non sequitor. What drugs are you on?
You're the illogical one.
> > > You did know, didn't you, that the badges often fail to match the
> > > underlying equipment?
> >
> > You DO think only the winner is earning his pay.
>
> Continuing the non-sequitor. What drugs are you on?
Your reading comprehension is as sad as your logical facilities.
> > Boy, you know jack shit about product placement.
>
> Well, you are getting a lot of attention for your ignorance.
>
> Back in 1993 when Armstrong won the world championship road race, he won
> it on an Eddy Merckx. Except it really wasn't- it was a Lightspeed
> painted to look like a Merckx. Ditto when Andy Hampsten won on
> l'Alpe-d'Huez. Greg Lemond rode frames built by Roland Della Santa and
> painted to match the team colors, later in his career was rumored to
> have ridden frames by Pegoretti painted to match the team bikes. In the
> 80s many teams rode Vitus 979s repainted to look like the sponsoring
> manufacturers' bikes, even though it was quite obvious.
You're making exactly the mistake Carl made.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THEY'RE RIDING.
IT ONLY MATTERS WHAT REACHES VIEWERS' EYEBALLS.
That's how advertising works.
It also doesn't matter who wins.
All the losing teams are still making money just putting their
sponsors' logos in the public's face for three weeks.
Here's a clue: how many races has the average billboard won? And yet,
there they are, covered in advertising, making money for the person who
owns the 800 square feet of land under them.
--Blair
Blair P. Houghton
Landis may only ride like Landis because he's on a pill, needle,
whatever.
If that's the case, you were cheering for his drug, not his talent.
And fans of an honest rider (Pereiro? Maybe.) were totally cheated
out of something they deserved.
--Blair
Blair P. Houghton
You're an illogical moron.
Nobody has a gun to your head when you buy a defective product that's
advertised falsely, either.
Do you think you shouldn't be compensated for the fraud? For your time
and effort getting the item?
Of course you don't. You're a moron. You love getting cheated.
You're proving it every time you try to defend the cheaters in sports.
--Blair
Blair P. Houghton
RonSonic wrote:
> Who's being duped? Are you saying that the TdF didn't really comprise a 150 some
> guys racing around France like we saw on TV? Are you saying that Floyd didn't
> delivery an extraordinary performance to get back into contention after a
> painful collapse the day before?
Floyd may or may not have delivered an extaordinary performance.
If he didn't, a vial of artificial testosterone did.
> That all didn't happen?
Why even hold the competition if it might as well have been
a cartoon? You could have the racers go at 250 mph and
never sleep.
You think that'd be way cool, wouldn't it? Yes you do. Because
you're defending essentially the same thing by saying it's okay for
athletes to get juiced up instead of competing on their merits.
You should've been cheering for the guy on the lead camera motorcycle.
He's the one who finished first.
That's all you care about, right? Who finishes first? Not about
fairness and athletics and human ability, certainly. Not if you try
to convince anyone it's right for any rider to use drugs to improve
his performance.
--Blair
John Forrest Tomlinson
<blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You could have the racers go at 250 mph
There are no drugs that would make that possible.
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Less than one minute of web searching reveals that Tim McNamara is
licensed to practice psychology by the State of Minnesota. One
suspects, therefore, that Tim McNamara has had at least one class in
psychology.
--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Impact is not a synonym of affect or effect
Blair P. Houghton
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> > Tim McNamara wrote:
> > > And nobody makes the public watch sports. Having trouble with your
> > > comprehension?
> >
> > Take a class in psychology.
> >
> > And one in criminal justice.
> >
> > You get zero marks for both so far.
>
> Less than one minute of web searching reveals that Tim McNamara is
> licensed to practice psychology by the State of Minnesota. One
> suspects, therefore, that Tim McNamara has had at least one class in
> psychology.
Then his school and the State of Minnesota are responsible
for foisting an idiot on the public.
His diploma is false advertising.
--Blair
Blair P. Houghton
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 12 Aug 2006 10:15:06 -0700, "Blair P. Houghton"
> <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >You could have the racers go at 250 mph
>
> There are no drugs that would make that possible.
Here is the entire paragraph you misquoted:
"Why even hold the competition if it might as well have been
a cartoon? You could have the racers go at 250 mph and
never sleep."
Having the racers average 28 mph instead of 27.8 mph is enough
to make viewers think it's more exciting, which entices them
to watch more.
--Blair
carl...@comcast.net
<blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Blair,
What did the vast majority of fans do to deserve anything? Apart from
turning on television sets?
Or are you talking about a very special fan, one who's very different
and very upset?
Curiously,
Carl Fogel
carl...@comcast.net
<blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On 12 Aug 2006 10:15:06 -0700, "Blair P. Houghton"
>> <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >You could have the racers go at 250 mph
>>
>> There are no drugs that would make that possible.
>
>Here is the entire paragraph you misquoted:
>
>"Why even hold the competition if it might as well have been
>a cartoon? You could have the racers go at 250 mph and
>never sleep."
>
>Having the racers average 28 mph instead of 27.8 mph is enough
>to make viewers think it's more exciting, which entices them
>to watch more.
>
>--Blair
Dear Blair,
Are you claiming that fans watch the Tour de France according to the
average speed of the peloton in tenths of a mile per hour?
If so, what channel was showing this information to enthrall the
audience? What magazine articles led with such crucial speed data?
Possibly you're thinking of the America's Cup, where the screen
continually shows the speed of the yachts in excruciating detail as
they bob along toward the next buoy?
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Sandy
Internet."
Tim McNamara
"Blair P. Houghton" <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
LOL! Talking with you is like talking with PeeWee Herman.
Blair P. Houghton
carl...@comcast.net wrote:
> What did the vast majority of fans do to deserve anything? Apart from
> turning on television sets?
They cared. They watched. They were bathed in advertising.
They tolerated the intrusion because they believed they were
being presented an honest sporting event. They were lied to.
You like being lied to. That's sad.
--Blair
Blair P. Houghton
carl...@comcast.net wrote:
> Are you claiming that fans watch the Tour de France according to the
> average speed of the peloton in tenths of a mile per hour?
I'm claiming there must be a correlation.
Are you claiming there must not be one?
If I was the Tour's marketing director, I'd sure as hell
be using average speed to help sell sponsorship space.
You might not, but then, you've shown yourself to have
zero sense of what advertising or sports are.
--Blair
Tim McNamara
"Blair P. Houghton" <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
LOL. Your strategy is to baffle with bullshit since you can't dazzle
with brilliance. Orthogonal responses get you nowhere and just prove
that you're a moron.
As for your former suggestion, I have a graduate degree in psychology,
so I've got that covered. And I haven't even addressed the
psychological aspect, which is the falsity of the OP's premise. Shy
people can lie just as well as extroverts.
As for your second suggestion, criminal justice is irrelevant as Landis
is facing civil not criminal proceedings. Time for you to put the crack
pipe down.
If you're foolish enough to get defrauded a second time, that's your
problem for failing to learn. If it bothers you that cheating in
professional sports is endemic, then don't watch professional sports.
Every sport has a doping problem. Ain't nobody making you watch. If
you're getting "defrauded," it's your own fault.
And if you're too dumb or myopic to grasp that, I have some real estate
I'd like to discuss with you.
Blair P. Houghton
Sandy wrote:
> O won't be waiting for Blair's Chapter Two of "Making Friends on the
> Internet."
You're aiming that the wrong direction.
I attacked cheating athletes and the advertisers and race promoters
who love them.
Tim, Carl, and you attacked me.
--Blair
Tim McNamara
"Blair P. Houghton" <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
ROTFL! Jeez, you're entertaining as all get-out.
Tim McNamara
"Blair P. Houghton" <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <1155361667.3...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Blair P. Houghton" <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > carl...@comcast.net wrote:
> > > > It sounds as if you're the one fooled by the tenuous connection
> > > > between who finishes first at the Tour de France and what
> > > > labels or badges are plastered on their equipment.
> > >
> > > You think only the winner is earning his pay?
> >
> > Non sequitor. What drugs are you on?
>
> You're the illogical one.
>
> > > > You did know, didn't you, that the badges often fail to match
> > > > the underlying equipment?
> > >
> > > You DO think only the winner is earning his pay.
> >
> > Continuing the non-sequitor. What drugs are you on?
>
> Your reading comprehension is as sad as your logical facilities.
Unfortunately there is not much to comprehend in your puerile
commentaries. It's not even a high school level challenge.
> > > Boy, you know jack shit about product placement.
> >
> > Well, you are getting a lot of attention for your ignorance.
> >
> > Back in 1993 when Armstrong won the world championship road race,
> > he won it on an Eddy Merckx. Except it really wasn't- it was a
> > Lightspeed painted to look like a Merckx. Ditto when Andy Hampsten
> > won on l'Alpe-d'Huez. Greg Lemond rode frames built by Roland
> > Della Santa and painted to match the team colors, later in his
> > career was rumored to have ridden frames by Pegoretti painted to
> > match the team bikes. In the 80s many teams rode Vitus 979s
> > repainted to look like the sponsoring manufacturers' bikes, even
> > though it was quite obvious.
>
> You're making exactly the mistake Carl made.
>
> IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THEY'RE RIDING.
>
> IT ONLY MATTERS WHAT REACHES VIEWERS' EYEBALLS.
>
> That's how advertising works.
That's where you're wrong. Well, you're partially right. Trek is not
marketing the Madone to Joe and Jane Everedge. They're marketing to Bob
Lecoureur, who's educated enough to spot the discrepancies and to figure
out what's what.
> It also doesn't matter who wins.
>
> All the losing teams are still making money just putting their
> sponsors' logos in the public's face for three weeks.
Yup. Not making as much money, but making money nonetheless. So? You
seem to think there is something wrong with that.
See, perhaps unlike you, the public knows these guys dope. They've
known that these guys dope for 100 years. It's understood- not that
that is a good thing, BTW. But because it's known, understood and
basically accepted by the general public (or they'd have stopped
watching long ago), the public is not being defrauded.
It's like the post-tour criteriums in which the finishing order is known
before the race ever starts. Everybody knows that's how it works, that
it's an entertainment rather than a sporting event. The local rider
generally gets to win, edging out the maillot jaune or the maillot vert
to the cheers of his friends, families and neighbors. It's not fraud
because everyone knows what's up.
Now, if you want to say that doping is ethically wrong, I'll agree. If
you want to say that doping is pernicious and destructive to the riders,
I'll agree with you there too. If you say that doping should be stopped
for the sake of the health of the riders, I'm with you. But fraud?
Nah. It's not fraud. We already know they dope.
Did Floyd dope? Yup. Did Peirerro dope? Yup. Kloden? Yup. And
right down the GC. On my cynical days, I have no doubt that every pro
bike racer dopes. I might be wrong and that'd be a good thing.
> Here's a clue: how many races has the average billboard won? And
> yet, there they are, covered in advertising, making money for the
> person who owns the 800 square feet of land under them.
Good grief. Keep going, you'll be at the left field bleachers soon.
Tim McNamara
"Blair P. Houghton" <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <1155361854....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Blair P. Houghton" <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Ron Ruff wrote:
> > > > Until an Omniscient Being is appointed to determine who is and
> > > > who isn't, we simply don't know. Heck, maybe Floyd is actually
> > > > innocent, and the others were really doping but didn't get
> > > > caught!
> > >
> > > That's not a justification for allowing the cheating to continue,
> > > it's just a denial mechanism.
> > >
> > > Why care about the sport if you know that you have no idea
> > > whether you're cheering for an athlete or a pill
> >
> > Then don't watch. That should be simple enough, even for you. No
> > one has a gun to your head forcing you to watch professional bike
> > racing, or any other sport for that matter.
>
> You're an illogical moron.
>
> Nobody has a gun to your head when you buy a defective product that's
> advertised falsely, either.
I don't watch infomercials or the Home Shopping Network.
> Do you think you shouldn't be compensated for the fraud? For your
> time and effort getting the item?
I can't remember the last time I got "defrauded" in that way.
> Of course you don't. You're a moron. You love getting cheated.
No, I just have due diligence about the purchases I make.
> You're proving it every time you try to defend the cheaters in
> sports.
I'm not defending them. I'm just pointing out that your attempts at
polemic are pathetic, riddled with illogic, inaccuracy and a fatal lack
of self-responsibility.
carl...@comcast.net
<blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Blair,
Er, yes, if you were the marketing director, I agree that you'd
probably be talking about the average speed of the peloton.
That's why you're not the marketing director for the Tour.
Please provide a link to an article that prominently features the
average speed of the Tour peloton that bears a remote resemblance to
marketing:
"Watch the 2006 Tour de France! A thrill a minute! Average speed back
down to 25 mph from last year's 27 mph!"
If Floyd is disqualified for chearting and Oscar declared the honest
winner, then the average winning speed will change like this:
Floyd Landis (USA), Phonak, 3657.1km in 89:39:30 (40.784kph)
Oscar Pereiro Sio (Sp), Caisse d'Epargne-I.B., 00:57
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10554.0.html
That works out to Floyd at a sizzling 25.18436 mph, trailed by Oscar
at a snail-like 25.17967 mph, 0.00469 mph slower.
Racing snails have been timed at 0.0028 m/s on a 13-inch course, which
is 0.0063 mph, 50% faster:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/AngieYee.shtml
(There are ugly rumors that the winning snail was lightly salted, but
the popularity of snail-racing has not suffered noticeably and the
French still eat the winners.)
Both Floyd and Oscar were woefully behind Armstrong's record 27 mph
pace in 2005, but then average speed is not very important to the fans
or the marketers of a three-week endurance race run over a different
course every year.
From 1930 to 1939, the Tour used generic bicycles, emphasizing the
advertising sponsors equivalent to Phonak hearing aids over any
bicycle nonsense.
And from 1905 to 1912, the Tour winner was determined by a golf-style
points system instead of time, with the winner having the fewest
penalty points from each stage. We do have the overall distance and
time, but the average speed didn't determine the outcome:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/history/tdfhistory.html
Amusingly, the points system was supposed to stop the cheating that
marred the second Tour in 1904:
"After the end of the [1904] tour, the French cycling union UVF formed
an investigative committee, which heard testimony of dozens of
competitors and witnesses. In December 1904, they announced the
disqualification of Maurice Garin, Lucien Pothier, César Garin, and
Hippolyte Aucouturier, because of illegal agreements. The 20-year old
Henri Cornet profitted of this decision, as he became the youngest
winner of a Tour ever."
http://www.answers.com/topic/1904-tour-de-france
"During this year [1905] they found the winner based on a points
system, not on overall time. The goal was to make cheating obsolete."
http://www.answers.com/topic/1905-tour-de-france
People are still getting excited about the cheating and ranting and
frothing a century later. They must enjoy it.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
carl...@comcast.net
<blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Blair,
Please tell us about your desperate unhappiness when you discovered
that the marriage of Prince Charles and Princess Diana was not all
that you had been led to believe.
We know that you deserved better and wish to share your pain.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
John Forrest Tomlinson
<blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>If I was the Tour's marketing director, I'd sure as hell
>be using average speed to help sell sponsorship space.
That's idiotic.
John Forrest Tomlinson
>Are you claiming that fans watch the Tour de France according to the
>average speed of the peloton in tenths of a mile per hour?
>
>If so, what channel was showing this information to enthrall the
>audience? What magazine articles led with such crucial speed data?
There was such data transmitted by certain riders live or nearly live
to some websites, and also to German television I think.
Bill Sornson
> ROTFL! Jeez, you're entertaining as all get-out.
I said that two days ago.
Bill "looking for a little recognition here" S.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear John,
Aha!
That's why this stuff is fun--if I stick my nose out far enough or
often enough, sometimes someone taps it lightly to teach me something.
So there was an onscreen current-speed indicator on some broadcast of
the Tour for certain riders, perhaps not as detailed as the yacht
racing weirdness, but enough to catch the eye.
This reminds me of something I've let slip. I noticed that Floyd's
trainer Lim had stats from the PowerTap (or whatever brand was used)
on many stages, but I didn't see a maximum speed in the articles:
http://www.bicycling.com/tourdefrance/article/0,6802,s1-7-123-14949-1,00.html
(Godawful slow to load, which is one reason I let it slip. The
printable link below is much faster.)
http://www.bicycling.com/tourdefrance/article/0,6802,s1-7-123-14949-1-P,00.html
Lim mentions a maximum 51.9 mph on the stage 17 descent, but just in
passing, not as part of his regular data.
Do you know of any site that has maximum speed readings from TdF
riders on particular stages? It would settle the previous and future
annual arguments about how fast they really go downhill, which for
some reason didn't surface this year.
Thanks again for pointing out that I was wrong about average TdF speed
displays being unlikely on television.
I still doubt that the fans are enthralled by the average being 0.1
mph higher here or there (overall it was about 2 mph slower than
2005), but I was wrong.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Jay Beattie
The snails were doping! I saw the story in the French newspaper
L'Escargot. I was defrauded by the doped snails! I am cancelling my
subscription to the Garden Pest Racing Network. -- Jay Beattie.
carl...@comcast.net
<jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>carl...@comcast.net wrote:
[snip non-snail stuff]
>> "Watch the 2006 Tour de France! A thrill a minute! Average speed back
>> down to 25 mph from last year's 27 mph!"
>>
>> If Floyd is disqualified for chearting and Oscar declared the honest
>> winner, then the average winning speed will change like this:
>>
>> Floyd Landis (USA), Phonak, 3657.1km in 89:39:30 (40.784kph)
>> Oscar Pereiro Sio (Sp), Caisse d'Epargne-I.B., 00:57
>>
>> http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10554.0.html
>>
>> That works out to Floyd at a sizzling 25.18436 mph, trailed by Oscar
>> at a snail-like 25.17967 mph, 0.00469 mph slower.
>>
>> Racing snails have been timed at 0.0028 m/s on a 13-inch course, which
>> is 0.0063 mph, 50% faster:
>
>The snails were doping! I saw the story in the French newspaper
>L'Escargot. I was defrauded by the doped snails! I am cancelling my
>subscription to the Garden Pest Racing Network. -- Jay Beattie.
Dear Jay,
L'Escargot did indeed publish anonymous accounts of incredible salt
levels in the winner's post-competition slime levels.
And some observers argue that the winner's constant detours to creep
through raindrops were a desperate effort to maintain hydration in the
face of near-certain shrivelling.
But there are questions about whether the high salt levels detected at
the French laboratory might have come from the salted garlic butter
used for basting--
Er, testing the winner.
In any case, we beg you to reconsider and to re-subscribe.
The purity of the sport has been questioned before, but always the
spirit of the snail has survived.
As 7-time winner Gastropod Footstrong of the U.S. Postal team remarked
in a still undelivered letter, it's not about the shell.
Cheers,
Herte Robranchia
carl...@comcast.net
<blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Blair,
Such modesty!
A couple of other posters were also amused enough by your fevered
self-pity to post replies that were less than admiring, including a
couple of Ron's and a Greg.
What initially attracted my scorn was this apparent over-estimate of
the value of your time:
> If doping is the rule, then the riders and their sponsors and
> everyone presenting this farce owes the viewing public
> compensatory and punitive damages. My time and the money
> I spend on sponsors' products are valuable to me, and I don't
> appreciate being defrauded of it.
Out of curiosity, how much money will you claim to have spent on the
TdF sponsors' products in your suit for compensatory damages? Are we
talking, as Calvin Trillin put it, in the high two-figures?
Then you entertained us all with some obscenities and spittle,
culminating in this gem:
> No one makes me breathe, either, but if you give me fake oxygen
> I'm going to sue you until you're not breathing.
Admittedly, we're having a hard time breathing, but it's due to
laughter at your inflation (sorry, couldn't resist it) of your sense
of injury upon learning that there may be cheating in the Tour to the
status of the very air we breathe.
Since then, you've flailed around, alternately accusing us of being
gullible marketing victims who endorse cheating because we aren't
throwing tantrums and complaining that the Tour dopers have practiced
upon your credulous innocence and caused you to spend time and money
on something or other (Floyd Landis Genuine Testosterone Patches?
Official Tour de France Chains? Phonak Hearing Aids?) that you would
otherwise have refused to purchase.
I admit that your abrupt hysterics puzzle me. Previously, I wouldn't
have expected them from you, but now I know better. I doubt that you
were using testosterone in an effort to pump up your posts, but the
evidence of sudden rage cannot be discounted.
Hmmm . . . if posters are cheating and using drugs to type faster
replies at later hours with more obscenities, then perhaps I should
sue RBT. My time and the money I spend my internet connection are
valuable to me, and I don't appreciate being defrauded of them!
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
John Forrest Tomlinson
>Do you know of any site that has maximum speed readings from TdF
>riders on particular stages?
I don't know.
Michael Press
<1155402190.1...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"Blair P. Houghton" <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RonSonic wrote:
> > On 11 Aug 2006 22:50:54 -0700, "Blair P. Houghton" <blair.h...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >Why care about the sport if you know that you have no idea
> > >whether you're cheering for an athlete or a pill?
> >
> > Not only do pills not ride bikes, there is no pill that will make an ordinary
> > person ride like Landis.
>
> Landis may only ride like Landis because he's on a pill, needle,
> whatever.
>
> If that's the case, you were cheering for his drug, not his talent.
>
> And fans of an honest rider (Pereiro? Maybe.) were totally cheated
> out of something they deserved.
Omigod! Drugging in sports?
--
Michael Press
Bill Sornson
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 14:16:47 -0600, carl...@comcast.net wrote:
>> Do you know of any site that has maximum speed readings from TdF
>> riders on particular stages?
> I don't know.
Very helpful and informative.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Mr. Michael Press,
Totally!
I can't believe what I paid for Floyd's autograph!
So now I'm, like, the biggest fan of Oscar (he's super-clean and
honest!) and all my friends in the club have become big fans of Oscar,
too, and we think that dopers are a real downer, and we were totally
cheated out of something that we _so_ deserved!
If this happens again--ever!--I'm going to disband the whole club and
drop my plans to become a podium girl in France when I grow up!
I mean, I feel like my pet kinkajou has bitten me!!!
Rilly sadly,
P. Hilton
Michael Press
<1155402906....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"Blair P. Houghton" <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RonSonic wrote:
> > Who's being duped? Are you saying that the TdF didn't really comprise a 150 some
> > guys racing around France like we saw on TV? Are you saying that Floyd didn't
> > delivery an extraordinary performance to get back into contention after a
> > painful collapse the day before?
>
> Floyd may or may not have delivered an extaordinary performance.
>
> If he didn't, a vial of artificial testosterone did.
>
> > That all didn't happen?
>
> Why even hold the competition if it might as well have been
> a cartoon? You could have the racers go at 250 mph and
> never sleep.
>
> You think that'd be way cool, wouldn't it? Yes you do. Because
> you're defending essentially the same thing by saying it's okay for
> athletes to get juiced up instead of competing on their merits.
>
> You should've been cheering for the guy on the lead camera motorcycle.
>
> He's the one who finished first.
>
> That's all you care about, right? Who finishes first? Not about
> fairness and athletics and human ability, certainly. Not if you try
> to convince anyone it's right for any rider to use drugs to improve
> his performance.
I am going to demonstrate my lack of a degree in
psychology by observing that someone in your life is not
treating you fairly, and you should be seeing to that
relationship. Notice that I did not put inverted commas
around the word _life_.
--
Michael Press
RonSonic
<usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>On 12 Aug 2006 10:15:06 -0700, "Blair P. Houghton"
><blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You could have the racers go at 250 mph
>
>There are no drugs that would make that possible.
There are no drugs that make what they do now possible. There are drugs that
make it less painful to get out of bed in the morning during training and make
it slightly faster on the road during the race. That's it.
The difference between those guys and us is not the drugs. The differences among
those guys is not the drugs.
Ron
Blair P. Houghton
> Unfortunately there is not much to comprehend in your puerile
> commentaries. It's not even a high school level challenge.
You're projecting. You've proved yourself to be the uneducated one.
> > You're making exactly the mistake Carl made.
> > IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THEY'RE RIDING.
> > IT ONLY MATTERS WHAT REACHES VIEWERS' EYEBALLS.
> > That's how advertising works.
>
> That's where you're wrong. Well, you're partially right. Trek is not
> marketing the Madone to Joe and Jane Everedge. They're marketing to Bob
> Lecoureur, who's educated enough to spot the discrepancies and to figure
> out what's what.
Trek is marketing the Madone to anyone with four digits to spend
on a bicycle.
And Trek isn't the only logo visible when Lance Armstrong
appears onscreen.
Credit Lyonnais and AMD aren't selling derailleurs.
> > It also doesn't matter who wins.
> >
> > All the losing teams are still making money just putting their
> > sponsors' logos in the public's face for three weeks.
>
> Yup. Not making as much money, but making money nonetheless. So? You
> seem to think there is something wrong with that.
Making money by lying.
You bet there is something wrong with that.
> See, perhaps unlike you, the public knows these guys dope.
Does the public know that? In what proportion? By what method
of research did you determine that fact?
>They've
> known that these guys dope for 100 years. It's understood- not that
> that is a good thing, BTW. But because it's known, understood and
> basically accepted by the general public (or they'd have stopped
> watching long ago), the public is not being defrauded.
> It's like the post-tour criteriums in which the finishing order is known
> before the race ever starts.
No, it isn't. If the audience is informed of the rules they will
make an informed decision. If they are lied to they will not.
You don't know the difference between right and wrong. That's
clear.
> Now, if you want to say that doping is ethically wrong, I'll agree. If
> you want to say that doping is pernicious and destructive to the riders,
> I'll agree with you there too. If you say that doping should be stopped
> for the sake of the health of the riders, I'm with you. But fraud?
> Nah. It's not fraud. We already know they dope.
It's fraud. You don't know they dope.
> Did Floyd dope? Yup.
And you know this how?
> Did Peirerro dope? Yup.
And you know this how?
> Kloden? Yup.
And you know this how?
> And
> right down the GC. On my cynical days, I have no doubt that every pro
> bike racer dopes. I might be wrong and that'd be a good thing.
You are probably wrong and that's not a good thing because
there might be someone even more credulous than you who
will now believe that it's okay to dope and participate in a fraud
because "everyone is doing it."
> > Here's a clue: how many races has the average billboard won? And
> > yet, there they are, covered in advertising, making money for the
> > person who owns the 800 square feet of land under them.
>
> Good grief. Keep going, you'll be at the left field bleachers soon.
Thanks for the directions. I don't know how you can stand to live
under
the scoreboard.
--Blair
Blair P. Houghton
carl...@comcast.net wrote:
> Please tell us about your desperate unhappiness when you discovered
> that the marriage of Prince Charles and Princess Diana was not all
> that you had been led to believe.
Me, I couldn't have cared less. Diana, on the other hand,
cared enough to be compensated for the lies Charles had
told her, and vice-versa.
> We know that you deserved better and wish to share your pain.
You need to stop reading the tabloids.
--Blair
Blair P. Houghton
carl...@comcast.net wrote:
> If this happens again--ever!--I'm going to disband the whole club and
> drop my plans to become a podium girl in France when I grow up!
We all suspected this about you.
--Blair
Tim McNamara
"Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
You got it. I remembered your comment when I wrote mine. BPH is a
master of Usenet absurdity.
John Forrest Tomlinson
BS, it's better than making stuff up.
Tim McNamara
"Blair P. Houghton" <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dude, you just keep getting funnier!
Blair P. Houghton
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <1155401240.4...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > And nobody makes the public watch sports. Having trouble with your
> > > comprehension?
> >
> > Take a class in psychology.
> >
> > And one in criminal justice.
> >
> > You get zero marks for both so far.
>
> with brilliance. Orthogonal responses get you nowhere and just prove
> that you're a moron.
>
> As for your former suggestion, I have a graduate degree in psychology,
> so I've got that covered.
Clearly a case of grade inflation. You can't even recognize your
own projection problem.
> And I haven't even addressed the
> psychological aspect, which is the falsity of the OP's premise. Shy
> people can lie just as well as extroverts.
Which doesn't explain why you haven't gotten away with it yet.
> As for your second suggestion, criminal justice is irrelevant as Landis
> is facing civil not criminal proceedings. Time for you to put the crack
> pipe down.
Criminal justice defines the crime of fraud.
> If you're foolish enough to get defrauded a second time, that's your
> problem for failing to learn. If it bothers you that cheating in
> professional sports is endemic, then don't watch professional sports.
> Every sport has a doping problem. Ain't nobody making you watch. If
> you're getting "defrauded," it's your own fault.
No, it's not. If I know it's happening it's not fraud. You're suck
for a psychologist not even knowing how causal cognition works.
> And if you're too dumb or myopic to grasp that, I have some real estate
> I'd like to discuss with you.
No, it's clear that you're either a liar or a dupe, and it's possible
that you're a criminal sociopath, so it's obvious that you'd overprice
any piece of real estate, whether in malice or because you paid
too much for it yourself.
--Blair
Tim McNamara
John Forrest Tomlinson <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
> On 12 Aug 2006 11:52:37 -0700, "Blair P. Houghton"
> <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >If I was the Tour's marketing director, I'd sure as hell be using
> >average speed to help sell sponsorship space.
>
> That's idiotic.
It's because he's an idiot.
Blair P. Houghton
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <1155402322.3...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Blair P. Houghton" <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Nobody has a gun to your head when you buy a defective product that's
> > advertised falsely, either.
>
> I don't watch infomercials or the Home Shopping Network.
The fact that you think that covers all cases of fraud is proof
you don't know when you're being cheated.
> > Do you think you shouldn't be compensated for the fraud? For your
> > time and effort getting the item?
>
> I can't remember the last time I got "defrauded" in that way.
You clearly wouldn't have recognized it.
> > Of course you don't. You're a moron. You love getting cheated.
>
> No, I just have due diligence about the purchases I make.
You've shown yourself incapable of performing due diligence.
> > You're proving it every time you try to defend the cheaters in
> > sports.
>
> I'm not defending them. I'm just pointing out that your attempts at
> polemic are pathetic, riddled with illogic, inaccuracy
You're projecting, yet again.
> and a fatal
Who died?
Or does it just smell like that around you.
> lack
> of self-responsibility.
I have plenty of self-responsibility. For instance, I'm not buying any
of your bullshit. But then, you're a poor liar.
--Blair