cycling terminology
FCS
competitive cycling I hope this note is
of value and interest and on topic.
Course - the route the entire race takes
from start to finish.
Stage - a single day's riding.
As such the recently disputed and mocked
statement:
"This is the steepest part of the course
and I'm afraid it gets steeper later on"
which was made by commentator Phil Liggett,
during UK TV's ITV4 channel's coverage of the
2008 Tour de France, is an entirely correct and
grammatical, albeit complexly referenced,
utterance.
And not yet one false start 8?).
G DAEB
COPYRIGHT (C) 2008 SIPSTON
--
Will
> As it is the season for various forms of
> competitive cycling I hope this note is
> of value and interest and on topic.
>
> Course - the route the entire race takes
> from start to finish.
> Stage - a single day's riding.
>
> As such the recently disputed and mocked
> statement:
>
> "This is the steepest part of the course
> and I'm afraid it gets steeper later on"
>
> which was made by commentator Phil Liggett,
> during UK TV's ITV4 channel's coverage of the
> 2008 Tour de France, is an entirely correct and
> grammatical, albeit complexly referenced,
> utterance.
Care to explain?
Will.
tony cooper
wrote:
If the cyclists circle the course, the steepest part of the course
would get "steeper" the second or third time they pass that point. Not
literally, but figuratively because the cyclists would be less fresh.
Obviously, I don't know anything about bicycle racing because I don't
know if the course is circular or not.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
The Tour de France is ridden over a non-circular route that
covers an alarming long distance. It is split into daily stages.
I don't understand how the following is "an entirely correct and
grammatical, albeit complexly referenced, utterance":
"This is the steepest part of the course
and I'm afraid it gets steeper later on".
It might make sense if there was an implied "so far" in it, but
we would need to change down a few gears and struggle to read
that implication in it.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Richard Yates
I don't know any reason to question whether the sentence is grammatical.
"Steeper" versus "steepest" is not about grammar. I guess the issue is a
logical one. How about this explanation:
Being *afraid* that something gets steeper than steepest is not the same as
it actually being possible. Just an irrational fear. Or this could be merged
with tony's explanation but not require a circular course: "This is the
steepest part but I fear that it will feel steeper later on." RY
tony cooper
Well, there's a good theory gone off the rails.
John Kane
> "This is the steepest part of the course
> and I'm afraid it gets steeper later on"
>
> which was made by commentator Phil Liggett,
> during UK TV's ITV4 channel's coverage of the
> 2008 Tour de France, is an entirely correct and
> grammatical, albeit complexly referenced,
> utterance.
It sounds like nonsense to me albeit grammatically correct nonsense.
This is the steepest part of the stage but there are steeper parts
later in the Tour " would seem reasonable.
John Kane Kingston ON Canada
J. J. Lodder
Well, it -is- circular more or less, with a radius of about 500 km.
(or it was in the olden days, before commercialization)
That's why it's called: The -Tour- de France,
Jan
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
J. Lodder) wrote:
>tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:45:04 , "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
True. But it is not "circular" in the sense that the cyclists go
round the course more than once.
Leslie Danks
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:58:23 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J.
> J. Lodder) wrote:
>
>>tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:45:04 , "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
>>> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:57:19 -0400, tony cooper
>>> ><tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[...]
>>> >>If the cyclists circle the course, the steepest part of the course
>>> >>would get "steeper" the second or third time they pass that point.
>>> >>Not literally, but figuratively because the cyclists would be less
>>> >>fresh.
>>> >>
>>> >>Obviously, I don't know anything about bicycle racing because I
>>> >>don't know if the course is circular or not.
>>> >>
>>> >The Tour de France is ridden over a non-circular route that
>>> >covers an alarming long distance. It is split into daily stages.
>>>
>>> Well, there's a good theory gone off the rails.
>>
>>Well, it -is- circular more or less, with a radius of about 500 km.
>>(or it was in the olden days, before commercialization)
>>
>>That's why it's called: The -Tour- de France,
>>
> True. But it is not "circular" in the sense that the cyclists go
> round the course more than once.
The only thing circulating round here will be Euclid in his grave at the
thought of some people's idea of a circle:
<http://de.eurosport.yahoo.com/cy/tdf/map/>
The original TdF in 1903 is decidedly less surrealistic, circlewise, but
still far from ideal:
<http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/images/tour_de_france/France%201903.jpg>
--
Les
R H Draney
>
>The only thing circulating round here will be Euclid in his grave at the
>thought of some people's idea of a circle:
>
><http://de.eurosport.yahoo.com/cy/tdf/map/>
>
>The original TdF in 1903 is decidedly less surrealistic, circlewise, but
>still far from ideal:
>
><http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/images/tour_de_france/France%201903.jpg>
Such a "circle" should, whatever other aspects of circularity it lacks, close
upon itself, no?...r
--
Evelyn Wood just looks at the pictures.
John Dean
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:57:19 -0400, tony cooper
> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 06:25:50 -0700 (PDT), Will
>> <bill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 25, 1:05 am, FCS <sipston_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As such the recently disputed and mocked
>>>> statement:
>>>>
>>>> "This is the steepest part of the course
>>>> and I'm afraid it gets steeper later on"
>>>>
>>>> which was made by commentator Phil Liggett,
>>>> during UK TV's ITV4 channel's coverage of the
>>>> 2008 Tour de France, is an entirely correct and
>>>> grammatical, albeit complexly referenced,
>>>> utterance.
>>>
>>
> covers an alarming long distance. It is split into daily stages.
>
> I don't understand how the following is "an entirely correct and
> grammatical, albeit complexly referenced, utterance":
>
> "This is the steepest part of the course
> and I'm afraid it gets steeper later on".
>
> It might make sense if there was an implied "so far" in it, but
> we would need to change down a few gears and struggle to read
> that implication in it.
It makes sense to me and I'm a fan of the tour. A day's stage in the TdF
will cover, typically, between 150 and 250 km. Some stages are predominantly
flat, others are mountainous (these usually in the Alps or Pyrenees). As
such, a typical stage will take riders up and down peaks of maybe 1500 to
2500 km.If you look at
http://www.letour.fr/2008/TDF/LIVE/us/1700/index.html
you see details of stage 17 of this year's Tour. In the 'Route' box, click
on 'profile' to see a graphic representation of the ups and downs. The first
major climb is the Col de Galibier, a traditional favourite of the
organisers. You not that the climb starts relatively gently and then gets
steeper. So a commentator could point out, when the riders are beginning the
ascent of the Galibier at, eg, a 5% gradient, that they are on the steepest
part of the day's stage but that the Galibier segues into a 9% gradient
towards the summit and that, therefore, the riders are not yet on the
steepest gradient contained within the steepest part of the day's course.
NB, my figures for gradients are typical of the Tour but not necessarily
accurate for the Galibier and used for illustrative purposes.
Anyhoo, tomorrow is "contre la montre" day and will determine whether, as is
widely expected, an Aussie will win the Grand Boucle for the first time.
--
John Dean
Oxford
John Dean
> As it is the season for various forms of
> competitive cycling I hope this note is
> of value and interest and on topic.
>
>
>
Difficult to accomplish in a 'départ' which is already 'fictif'.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Robert Bannister
> Well, it -is- circular more or less, with a radius of about 500 km.
> (or it was in the olden days, before commercialization)
>
> That's why it's called: The -Tour- de France,
How disappointing. I thought it was the "trick" meaning of "tour".
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
ly
> flat, others are mountainous (these usually in the Alps or Pyrenees). As
> such, a typical stage will take riders up and down peaks of maybe 1500 to
> 2500 km.
Wow! Peaks of 2500 km - that's high.
--
Rob Bannister
John Dean
The highest peak touched by the Tour (stage 16 this year) is the Col de la
Bonette - 2802 metres.
Alpe d'Huez is a baby in terms of height (1850 m) but is one of the toughest
climbs in the repertoire. Here's a view from cyclists looking *down* on the
clouds
http://www.granfondocyclingtours.com/Picture_series/Oct_2007_image.htm
--
John Dean
Oxford
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
> Robert Bannister wrote:
> > John Dean wrote:
> > ly
> >> flat, others are mountainous (these usually in the Alps or
> >> Pyrenees). As such, a typical stage will take riders up and down
> >> peaks of maybe 1500 to 2500 km.
>
> > Wow! Peaks of 2500 km - that's high.
At first I thought you were just being a Britannico-Australian
flatlander, but I see you're right.
> The highest peak touched by the Tour (stage 16 this year) is the Col de la
> Bonette - 2802 metres.
> Alpe d'Huez is a baby in terms of height (1850 m) but is one of the toughest
> climbs in the repertoire.
...
I find that a climb from 1700 m (where I live) to 3100 m (where I plan
to botanize tomorrow or the next day) takes rather little effort. In
my car. But I think a really worthwhile Tour de France would include
the top of Mont Blanc.
--
Jerry Friedman
mb
...
> I don't know any reason to question whether the sentence is grammatical.
> "Steeper" versus "steepest" is not about grammar. I guess the issue is a
> logical one.
One good reason is that some grammatical definitions are directly
logical, while others are strictly descriptive.
The superlative is both a grammatical and a logical category because
its usage is entirely logical : It applies by definition to the
highest degree (known/possible) of the adjective. Any other use,
except in conscious jest Yogi Berra style, is therefore both
ungrammatical and illogical.
J. J. Lodder
Yes, incredible, isn't it?
Paris to Lyon in a single day,
on a heavy bicycle without the benefit of gearing.
And on from there.
Without any drugs or doping too,
no 'peloton' to help either,
just brute force, an unbelievable amount of it,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
It is an ancient Gallic custom really,
invented by Asterix to baffle those silly Romans,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
They also call it 'le grand boucle'
to confuse those non-francophones some more,
Jan
Isabelle Cecchini
And to further confuse the non-francophones, most of the time we
cannily call it 'la grande boucle'.
--
Isabelle Cecchini
Paul Wolff
>Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at> wrote:
>
>> The original TdF in 1903 is decidedly less surrealistic, circlewise, but
>> still far from ideal:
>>
>> <http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/images/tour_de_france/France%201903.jpg>
>
>Yes, incredible, isn't it?
>Paris to Lyon in a single day,
>on a heavy bicycle without the benefit of gearing.
>And on from there.
>
>Without any drugs or doping too,
>no 'peloton' to help either,
>just brute force, an unbelievable amount of it,
>
--
Paul
J. J. Lodder
Indeed, but only most of the time.
"le grand boucle" produces more than a few hits,
even when restricted to sites francophones.
Most of the hits are for anglophones of course,
Jan
Leslie Danks
> Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at> wrote:
[...]
>> The original TdF in 1903 is decidedly less surrealistic, circlewise,
>> but still far from ideal:
>>
>>
<http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/images/tour_de_france/France%201903.jpg>
>
> Yes, incredible, isn't it?
> Paris to Lyon in a single day,
> on a heavy bicycle without the benefit of gearing.
> And on from there.
>
> Without any drugs or doping too,
You jest...
[quote - from an account of 6-day cycle races during the 1890s]
Sporting Life had heard that Linton had been repeatedly dosed with
strychnine, trimethyl and heroin - possibly in combinations of two or
more. It had no proof, and there were certainly no tests. But all three
drugs were common at Six Day races, where some riders were drugged so
heavily that they thought they were nailed to the track or chased by
knifemen.
[endquote]
There is little reason to believe that the TdF was "clean" way back then.
> no 'peloton' to help either,
> just brute force, an unbelievable amount of it,
For example:
[quote]
There was so much cheating in the second Tour (de France) in 1904, that
Henri Desgrange swore he'd never run another. Riders rode behind cars or
even inside them. If officials were too close by, the trick was to tie a
thin wire to a door handle and bite on a cork tied to the other (end).
<...>
Spectators joined in, too. They let their favourites pass and then felled
trees across the road in the darkness to hole up the chasers. On the Col
de la Republique outside St.-Etienne they went still further and simply
beat up riders they didn't want to win. The travelling organiser, Gel
Lefevre, had to fire his gun to disperse them.
[endquote]
This and much more in "The Crooked Path to Victory" by Les Woodland,
ISBN 1-892495-40-6
--
Les
Robert Bannister
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>> John Dean wrote:
>> ly
>>> flat, others are mountainous (these usually in the Alps or
>>> Pyrenees). As such, a typical stage will take riders up and down
>>> peaks of maybe 1500 to 2500 km.
>> Wow! Peaks of 2500 km - that's high.
>
> The highest peak touched by the Tour (stage 16 this year) is the Col de la
> Bonette - 2802 metres.
> Alpe d'Huez is a baby in terms of height (1850 m) but is one of the toughest
> climbs in the repertoire. Here's a view from cyclists looking *down* on the
> clouds
You missed your typo: "km" for "m".
--
Rob Bannister
J. J. Lodder
> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> The original TdF in 1903 is decidedly less surrealistic, circlewise,
> >> but still far from ideal:
> >>
> >>
> <http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/images/tour_de_france/France%201903.jpg>
> >
> > Yes, incredible, isn't it?
> > Paris to Lyon in a single day,
> > on a heavy bicycle without the benefit of gearing.
> > And on from there.
> >
> > Without any drugs or doping too,
>
> You jest...
Not at all.
To quote too for what I referred to:
===
Paris (Montgeron) - Lyon (467 km) le 1er juillet. (1903)
Maurice Garin remporte l'étape en 17 heures, 45 minutes et 44 secondes
devant son compatriote Émile Pagie, ą 24 secondes.
===
[snip swindles, drugs, etc]
AFAIK there is no evidence that Maurice Garin (or Pagie)
swindled or took drugs
for his incredible 467 km in 17 hours 45 mins,
Jan
Leslie Danks
> Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at> wrote:
>
>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
[...]
>> > Yes, incredible, isn't it?
>> > Paris to Lyon in a single day,
>> > on a heavy bicycle without the benefit of gearing.
>> > And on from there.
>> >
>> > Without any drugs or doping too,
>>
>> You jest...
>
> Not at all.
> To quote too for what I referred to:
> ===
> Paris (Montgeron) - Lyon (467 km) le 1er juillet. (1903)
> Maurice Garin remporte l'étape en 17 heures, 45 minutes et 44 secondes
> devant son compatriote Émile Pagie, à 24 secondes.
> ===
>
> [snip swindles, drugs, etc]
> AFAIK there is no evidence that Maurice Garin (or Pagie)
> swindled or took drugs
> for his incredible 467 km in 17 hours 45 mins,
I understood your original "without any drugs or doping" comment to be a
general statement; the fact that one or more individuals coped without
pharmaceutical support doesn't mean that the Tour was entirely clean.
"There is no evidence that" is strongly reminiscent of the standard reply
of modern-day professional cyclists on being asked whether they took
drugs to boost their performance: "I have been tested <large number>
times and have never been positive (a.k.a. never been caught)". Jan
Ullrich went one better: Q. "Have you ever taken drugs?" A. "I never
cheated anyone" -- in other words "Everyone else was on EPO too". One of
the requirements for success in top-level sport of any kind seems to be
the ability to apply the "presumption of innocence" to oneself.
During an interview he gave around the time of his retirement, Johann
Museeuw (the "Lion of Belgium" and winner of many classics) [1] said that
taking drugs was like speeding on the motorway: everyone did it who
thought they wouldn't get caught. Shortly afterwards, he and an
accomplice (a vet) appeared in court on charges of supplying drugs to
cyclists.
The TdF was commercial right from the start -- there was prize money and
it was organised to promote a magazine. The idea of a "golden age" of
sportsmanship is naive. Effective testing for drugs will be the most
important factor if the sport of cycling and the TdF are to prosper (as I
hope they will). All this talk of "renewal" and "a new start", etc., is
so much baloney. The decision not to throw a rock through a jeweller's
window is a lot easier to take if a person wearing a uniform and carrying
a gun is standing at the next street corner.
[1]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_Museeuw>
--
Les
Frustrated smash-and-grabber
J. J. Lodder
> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at> wrote:
> >
> >> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> > Yes, incredible, isn't it?
> >> > Paris to Lyon in a single day,
> >> > on a heavy bicycle without the benefit of gearing.
> >> > And on from there.
> >> >
> >> > Without any drugs or doping too,
> >>
> >> You jest...
> >
> > Not at all.
> > To quote too for what I referred to:
> > ===
> > Paris (Montgeron) - Lyon (467 km) le 1er juillet. (1903)
> > Maurice Garin remporte l'étape en 17 heures, 45 minutes et 44 secondes
> > devant son compatriote Émile Pagie, ą 24 secondes.
> > ===
> >
> > [snip swindles, drugs, etc]
> > AFAIK there is no evidence that Maurice Garin (or Pagie)
> > swindled or took drugs
> > for his incredible 467 km in 17 hours 45 mins,
>
> I understood your original "without any drugs or doping" comment to be a
> general statement; the fact that one or more individuals coped without
> pharmaceutical support doesn't mean that the Tour was entirely clean.
Your fault, you snipped too much.
My "Yes incredible...." was a direct reaction to
===
> > The original TdF in 1903 is decidedly less surrealistic, circlewise, but
> > still far from ideal:
> >
> > <http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/images/tour_de_france/France%201903.jpg>
===
and directly below it.
> "There is no evidence that" is strongly reminiscent of the standard reply
> of modern-day professional cyclists on being asked whether they took
> drugs to boost their performance: "I have been tested <large number>
> times and have never been positive (a.k.a. never been caught)". Jan
> Ullrich went one better: Q. "Have you ever taken drugs?" A. "I never
> cheated anyone" -- in other words "Everyone else was on EPO too". One of
> the requirements for success in top-level sport of any kind seems to be
> the ability to apply the "presumption of innocence" to oneself.
Now you are just becoming mean, to make your non-existent point.
My: There is no evidence" really means just that.
M Maurice Garin really did Paris-lyon on his own in 17+ hours,
without any drugs, a peloton to shield from the wind, or false aid.
[snip modern doping irrelevancies]
Jan
Leslie Danks
clarity -- no ulterior motives, appearance of same assignable to
incompetence]
Leslie Danks:
>> I understood your original "without any drugs or doping" comment to be
>> a general statement; the fact that one or more individuals coped
>> without pharmaceutical support doesn't mean that the Tour was entirely
>> clean.
J.J. Lodder:
> Your fault, you snipped too much.
> My "Yes incredible...." was a direct reaction to
> ===
[Leslie Danks]:
>> > The original TdF in 1903 is decidedly less surrealistic, circlewise,
>> > but still far from ideal:
>> >
>> >
<http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/images/tour_de_france/France%201903.jpg>
> ===
> and directly below it.
In other words, you admit that doping went on in the "good old days".
J.J. Lodder:
>> > AFAIK there is no evidence that Maurice Garin (or Pagie)
>> > swindled or took drugs
>> > for his incredible 467 km in 17 hours 45 mins,
Nor did I claim that either of them did. But the fact that there is no
evidence that they did doesn't prove that they didn't.
[snip "mean" remarks by Leslie Danks about professional cylists]
J.J. Lodder:
> Now you are just becoming mean, to make your non-existent point.
> My: There is no evidence" really means just that.
Yes, and no more than that.
> M Maurice Garin really did Paris-lyon on his own in 17+ hours,
> without any drugs,
You cannot conclude that on the basis of the available evidence. The only
people who knew exactly what went on are M Maurice Garin, his helpers and
maybe a few others who were there at the time.
> a peloton to shield from the wind, or false aid.
> [snip modern doping irrelevancies]
Modern doping is not irrelevant because doping in cycling is not something
that started recently: it has a long, well-documented history stretching
back into the 19th century. That is the point I was making; far from
being "non-existent", it is still relevant today.
--
Les
Robert Bannister
> Modern doping is not irrelevant because doping in cycling is not something
> that started recently: it has a long, well-documented history stretching
> back into the 19th century. That is the point I was making; far from
> being "non-existent", it is still relevant today.
>
In fact, it wouldn't be too far from the truth to say that the three
sports, cycling, wrestling and horse racing have always been the main
culprits. (I don't know much about boxing, but that might be on the list
too). Doping in athletics and team sports like football is a relatively
new thing.
--
Rob Bannister