Christine Thorburn to retire?
caffetrieste
Thorburn, a physician at Stanford, is done with big-time bike racing.
We talked to her this week in San Francisco...the story is up on
CycleTo.
Here's a direct link:
http://cycleto.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=509
ila...@gmail.com
You keep insisting on these incorrect facts. To make it worse, you're
ignoring one of the great achievements of the best women's bike racer
of all time.
-ilan
caffetrieste
Typo...my bad...4th in '04, 5th in '08.
Mi scusi.
Black Bart Roberts
<ila...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6e38afb9-2ece-458b...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
-ilan
She certainly was a good TT rider, one of the best, but she missed being
World and Olympic champion, perhaps by working full time. I don't buy that
someone can be all they can be in a sport, by working a fulltime job, and
training in their spare time because I did it for years, and it sucks. You
are often beat after work, and you training suffers, and then in turn, you
are beat at work, you work suffers because you spend hours training after
work. If Christine was training full time and really focused on winning the
games like Armstrong and Cooke were, perhaps it would of been Gold and
Silver for the Americans. However, on the flip side, that was superb effort
she gave in the Olympic RR this year. She did a great job pulling at the
front for such a long time, and she got the Lions share of the coverage as
well.
Black Bart
ila...@gmail.com
> <ilan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I know her from being at Stanford and she is one of a fairly
significant number of top riders who ended up doing a Ph.D. in
medicine or biology (I know at least 4). I personally think that their
scientific career is a waste of time compared to their cycling. In
particular, in areas like medicine or biology, a Ph.D. is more often
than not just a drone who carries out an experiment thought out by the
adviser and the results have little or no impact on anything. The
limited discussions I had with stanford graduate students convinced me
that their research was useless but not in the noble sense. They then
end up doing a career than thousands of other people do equally well
or better when instead they have the opportunity of being the best in
the world at something, namely cycling. In a lot of cases, the
problem is that their cultural background was such that their life
would not be fulfilled unless they got a Ph.D I respect more the
riders who just decided to be professional cyclists after getting a
bachelors degree and went far beyond expectations, e.g., Nicole
Freedman.
-ilan
Black Bart Roberts
<ila...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2184cc3d-98c1-4b01...@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
-ilan
I believe I read either in print or on a video that she said her career was
more important then cycling, so there you have it, and that's core and
central to part of the problem of women's cycling in America, unlike Europe
where women on UCI teams train and race full time. Over the last few years,
I was thinking if she would only race and train full time, she could of had
the Worlds or the Olympic gold by now! You are right about the career and
opportunities, as that would only enhance any career opportunities that
might come her way after retirement. As a fan, I felt robbed at times, in
fact by a lot of women who could be really good if they trained and raced
full time.
Nicole Freedman I believed developed her own sponsors for racing, Ford Basis
for one, so she kind of supported herself in cycling, and raced while living
out of a van at times to race, something I admire a lot, because she really
wanted to race and see what she could achieve. I'm not saying Thorburn
didn't, but it seems obvious, that her career is more important then
cycling. Of course, she will earn millions in her career, and very little
from cycling, so its no surprise, but the Olympics is the one rare
opportunity where Gold brings both prestige and opens doors in the real
world.
Here's the deal, even though guys like Engleman, who I used to watch race at
Nevada City, are helping women at USWCDP, its not enough I don't think. Part
of the problem is the way top women are portrayed in the press and on team
websites. Recently I saw Brooke Miller speak about tending tea parties in
the past, which is what I also used to see at Nevada City sometimes. Women
coming together to race, but as more of a social gathering instead of a
serious race where hearts, lungs and legs are singing. Rather instead, a lot
of chit-chat at the front of the peloton instead of intense racing.
In the press and on team sites, they tend to highlight women careers first,
and cycling seems to be more or less their recreational hobby. You always
hear about their careers and what degrees and universities they attend and
what their career goals are, but you almost never hear about women cyclists
who have decided to fully dedicate themselves to pro cycling for a few years
to see what they can achieve. Its usually what they can achieve on the side
in cycling, as cycling plays second fiddle. That's why we don't have more
serious contenders in Europe like Neben and Armstrong who have pretty much
fully dedicated themselves to cycling. What we have today in America at our
races, are often weekend warriors, who race on the side from their full or
part time career jobs.
Another problem is teams can't always afford to foot the bill to allow women
to race and train full time, but I'm not sure how big a problem that would
be, if more women were fully dedicated to do it. It seems they would find
the extra money, even though times are tight, and sometimes women have to
dig into their own pockets to race. Some teams clearly have a pretty decent
budget. But it seems often what you see in the media or on team sites is
they try to put the best face on women's cycling by praising their
university degrees and careers. Its as if we should honor the career aspects
of cyclists more then what they are actually doing on the bike. It seems
like a flawed concept, because clearly fans want to see fully dedicated
professionals race, and that would be much more exciting. When the USA
National B team came back from Europe, I was reading how strong and hard
they raced against our women back home now, and that's the big difference
between racing full time in Europe and being just a weekend warrior here at
home and attending the so called tea parties.
On a positive note, at least races today are more serious here then in the
past, and the tea parties or social gathering are becoming a thing of the
past, as the sport grows, and riders and teams have improved here in
America. At least I think they have improved from a couple of years ago. The
women at Aarons and Tibco, Colavita are looking better, stronger and more
professional then back then. I have noticed the difference at races,
although many still work regular jobs. If I understood Carroll correctly in
an interview a while back, there are some very serious women riders coming
up now from the juniors who will be very dedicated. I understand that some
of them are going to be totally awesome, meaning top replacements for Neben
and Armstrong when they retire, but it would be nice to hear about more
women like that from the USA competing in Europe. However, it was an
American who got the gold at the Olympics, so not so bad! Hats off to
Kristin Armstrong, got the gold, something Lance never did!
Black Bart
John Forrest Tomlinson
<Ba...@PiratesForum.com> wrote:
>In the press and on team sites, they tend to highlight women careers first,
>and cycling seems to be more or less their recreational hobby. You always
>hear about their careers and what degrees and universities they attend and
>what their career goals are, but you almost never hear about women cyclists
>who have decided to fully dedicate themselves to pro cycling for a few years
>to see what they can achieve. Its usually what they can achieve on the side
>in cycling, as cycling plays second fiddle.
In my city in the last 15 years I can think of four riders who went
full-time with 100% focus on cycling, but a big problem was affording
it. One had the genetics and skill and also some luck with money and
made a long pro career, including fifth at worlds. Another not so
good sold everything (she'd made some money as a younger person) and
was able to make it to the Olympics. Two others tried it for two
years but financial pressure and recognition that they couldn't make
it to the top resulted in them ending the quest early. And there's a
fifth woman, super-talented, who didn't even try to go full-time,
perhaps for reasons you mention.
Off The Back
> I believe I read either in print or on a video that she said her career
> was more important then cycling, so there you have it, and that's core and
> central to part of the problem of women's cycling in America, unlike
<snip>
I think that you'd find that the number of full-time women bike racers in
the US is not proportionally different than it is for the men. By
proportionally, I mean relative to the total population of women racers.
Where I live, the ratio of men-to-women licensed racers is nearly 8-to-1,
and I'd assume it is at least that unbalanced nationally.
<snip>
> Another problem is teams can't always afford to foot the bill to allow
> women to race and train full time, but I'm not sure how big a problem that
> would be, if more women were fully dedicated to do it. It seems they
> would find the extra money, even though times are tight, and sometimes
> women have to dig into their own pockets to race. Some teams clearly have
> a pretty decent budget.
<snip>
Again, I think you have to consider it relative to the total number of women
racers. As you know, there were some competitive and well-funded teams in
the US this year. Women's racing was hot in the US.
Unfortunately, things are looking bleak on both the mens and womens side for
next year. Lots of teams folding. Not sure if it's the bad economy, or maybe
just a cyclic thing in US racing, but it will mean fewer full-time domestic
racers in 2009.
Tom Kunich
news:2184cc3d-98c1-4b01...@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
> The limited discussions I had with stanford graduate students convinced me
> that their research was useless but not in the noble sense. They then
> end up doing a career than thousands of other people do equally well
> or better when instead they have the opportunity of being the best in
> the world at something, namely cycling.
You need to be a little careful there Ilan. I was advised not to bother with
getting a degree by several professors at Cal Berkeley since I was already
designing electronics and at that time there were quite a few top level
designers without a degree of any sort.
But the fact is that being without a degree really handicapped me my whole
life. Even though I could design with the best of them, I always had to do
twice as much to prove that I was capable.
So I ALWAYS tell people to get a degree regardless of what anyone else says
if they intend to work for someone else.
Howard Kveck
"Black Bart Roberts" <Ba...@PiratesForum.com> wrote:
> I was thinking if she would only race and train full time, she could of had
Hi there, Bruce.
--
tanx,
Howard
The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Black Bart Roberts
"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote in message
news:m3f5c41g8rj3plc2s...@4ax.com...
That's a mixed, but primary a sad commentary on a sport, which is so complex
and rich, full of tremendous potential for TV, the press, writers and
journalists. I heard Nascar viewership or popularity was taking a hit in
spite of spending billions on TV and print advertising. I guess on the flip
side, its amazing how well cycling does in America, considering its working
with pennies compared to the massive amounts of cash pumped into other major
sports. Cycling seems to do quite well using the Internet as the poor mans
medium compared to the Global TV cable and Dish networks. It's hard to even
imagine cycling as it is today without the Internet, but this year two great
examples of Olympic success is both Cooke and Armstrong. Their whole year
was based on training just for the games, and they both won gold! My only
regret is I wish Mara had made the Olympic team too, but then that means
Thorburn would of been out. I think Mara might of been in with a shot on
that hilly road race course! Its hard to concieve if riders like Mara will
even be around in 4 more years. That's a long time, as cycling goes since
seasons last nearly all year long, but I think she will! I hope so!
Black Bart
Black Bart Roberts
"Off The Back" <marco_f...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1RAwk.47076$4s1....@newsfe06.iad...
Another thing to mention is besides Gas prices killing riders and teams,
after the Olympics, there will be an exodus of top women to retire, I mean
some great ones. As you might of heard Luperini is supposed to retire, as is
Armstrong, Thorburn, Thurig and Doppman. I don't see Brandli or Pucinskaite
staying much longer, and Longo could retire too, but I don't think she will.
I'm pretty sure Beltman will be back next year, she talks like it. Arndt
won't be around much longer, nor Regina or Ina. Wood and Gilmore have a few
more years in their legs, but surely Watt is done now you would think! On
the American side Pic or Van Gilder probably won't stay much longer, in
fact America has a large number of older women still riding. I hope both
Millers stay with it, and Wansgard is a cool rider. I still wonder what's
she hiding under that black arm cover she wears on her left arm at all the
races. I know its a tatoo, but I can't imagine why she hides that! Must be
juicy! Lots of colorful characters in the group like Vanderkitten's Liz
Hatch. I hope she comes back next year, and Kim Anderson is set to retire,
another very good rider! Mara will be back, she's a big plus for the America
scene!
There are others, but women seem to go in 4 year spurts where the Olympics
is the grand prize, and another 4 years often is too much to ask. Its hard
to imagine since only three riders make the team, but often that's all you
hear coming out of the chatter from the peloton, as if the Olympics is all
that matters! Dotsie tried to make the Olympics through track. I know Pia
Sunsteadt switched from the Road to MB racing with hopes of having a better
shot of making the Olympics. Bessette is probably pretty close to being done
too.
Yeah, next year is going to be scary, after the dust settles at the end of
the season. Kind of like visiting Bodie California I guess, which I have!
High Road only lasted half a season before it merged, and Aarons and
Colavita can't last forever. I hope they come back next year, plus
Vanderkitten, and Rock Racing women rocked early in the season. ValueAct
Capitol had some good riders with Chrissy, Taito and Martina. I hope Nicola
Crammer continues to work with Proman. Proman were a big hit at the spring
classics! The absent of TV coverage of the women's Olympics road race and TT
puts things into a sobering perspective as far as how big a hit cycling has
taken since the last games. During 2004, the Women's road race had full TV
coverage, almost 4 hours, compared to split 10 minute segements on NBC this
year. The Internet coverage was bizzare without commentary, which excluded
millions of casual cycling fans who need commentary to fill in the blanks.
That crowd can quickly lose interest without input. As far as coverage goes
for cycling, NBC was almost a total disaster during the games.
We're closing out the end of an era now, like the end of the 90's, and 2010
will start a new era.
Black Bart
Off The Back
<snip>
> ...and Kim Anderson is set to retire, another very good rider!
Why do you say Kim is set to retire? And yes, she's a very good rider. I had
the pleasure of riding with her off-and-on this last year. On one
particularly brutal 100-miler I was on her wheel with a 20 mph crosswind and
lots of strong guys were detonating all around us (her bf Aaron Olson was on
the front pulling like a freight train). She calmly rode on the 2-inch-wide
strip of pavement between the wheel in front of her and a 12-inch drop-off
to the rocks on the right side of the road. Euro experience is obvious in
situations like that.
Fast forward to last Saturday... She and Aaron had their rent raised when
their lease was up so they were planning to move somewhere else, but they
hadn't decided where yet. She mentioned Boulder ...yawn... so I told her how
nice Asheville NC looked, as I had just returned from visiting there. Green
forests, lots of climbing, tons of quality roads, plenty of talented riders,
and of course, good coffee shops. If I were a pro bike racer in the US
looking for a place to live, Asheville would be on a very short list of
candidates. Well, apparently it was on Kim's and Aaron's list too, because
the next day she said they had just decided on Asheville!
<snip>
> ... Aarons and Colavita can't last forever. I hope they come back next
> year
Aarons is not coming back next year.
Black Bart Roberts
She seems to indicate in the video, that she might retire. You decide...
http://www.thebroadbandracer.com/fly.aspx?layout=player&taxid=19&videoid=314
B-
bjwe...@gmail.com
> I know her from being at Stanford and she is one of a fairly
> significant number of top riders who ended up doing a Ph.D. in
> medicine or biology (I know at least 4). I personally think that their
> scientific career is a waste of time compared to their cycling. In
> particular, in areas like medicine or biology, a Ph.D. is more often
> than not just a drone who carries out an experiment thought out by the
> adviser and the results have little or no impact on anything. The
> limited discussions I had with stanford graduate students convinced me
> that their research was useless but not in the noble sense. They then
> end up doing a career than thousands of other people do equally well
> or better when instead they have the opportunity of being the best in
> the world at something, namely cycling.
Dumbass,
You think like that because you're a mathematician,
not a scientist. Science, especially experimental science,
advances mostly by plodding. To an outside observer,
the plodders may look like hacks, but they are the
foundation of the field. A scientific field that contained
only geniuses and pundits would be dead within two
decades. Even some pundits recognize this.
Ben
12K plodder
SLAVE of THE STATE
Sure, it is peon work in CA. All the most advanced research/
technology leaves the state. I heard it in rbr.
Thanks.
LoTech
Barry Harmon
news:_eidne7zF4FZfl_V...@earthlink.com:
Not just working for someone else, either, No matter how good you are,
it's often easier to get seed money or continuing financing with a degree
on your CV.
Barry
Michael Press
<230b4fb1-393e-427a...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
Agree.
Continuously for the last 60 years experimental
physics has ticked over quite well, thank you.
* Maser
* Laser
* Atomic laser
* Quantized flux in superconducting rings
* Semiconductor laser
* Superconducting quantum interference device
* Integer quantum Hall effect
* Fractional quantum Hall effect
* Bose-Einstein condensaste
Penning traps are way cool.
<http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1402-4896/1988/T22/016>
While at the same time theoretical physics has little to show us.
Niels Bohr and string theory.
Where is the theory of the electron?
--
Michael Press
ila...@gmail.com
wrote:
Most of the research in these fields including math has absolutely no
value or interest though at least in math it is partly a reflection of
the creativity of one person as opposed to drones getting Ph.D.'s for
being lab technicians. Even if it did have value, in these
experimental fields, anyone who is doing a Ph.D. or working for some
"important" researcher is completely replaceable, for each of the
world class cyclists who gave it up for a Ph.D. there were a dozen
other grad students from China who could have done their results.
-ilan
SLAVE of THE STATE
Dumbass,
I go off on tangents; That made me think of a preface in one of my
books, which I post merely for amusement:
=================================
Louis Weinburg, _Network Analysis and Synthesis_, 1962 pp.ix-x
Though it is hoped that the book will appeal to mathematicians, this
is not a book on mathematics. A scanning of the contents will show
that network theory does indeed use much mathematics and often does
this in an elegant manner, but it is surely not a branch of
mathematics. It is rather a beautiful blend of mathematics, physics,
and engineering. As such it is an ideal framework and motivation for
the study of the mathematics of linear systems. Moreover, and equally
important, it is an excellent tool for the solution of practical
problems.
Those of us who have watched the growth of engineering, as taught in
the universities and as practiced in industry, realize that the
engineer is becoming more of a mathematician and more of a physicist
than he was a decade ago; it is also clear that this trend is
accelerating. For example, in the research section at the Hughes
Research Laboratories formerly headed by the author, a section
composed of eight engineers,physicists, and mathematicians, it was
often difficult to determine from their writings and talks who were
the engineers and who were the mathematicians and physicists. It is
true that each of the section members possessed the doctorate from an
excellent university and that it is especially difficult to guess the
field in which a scientist obtained his doctorate. However, the point
still holds even for the graduate with the bachelor’s degree.
In the field of network theory this situation is not only true today
but has been true in the past. Traditionally, network theory has made
use of more advanced mathematics than have most other fields of
engineering. It has always appealed to the more theoretical students—
those engineers who were attracted to mathematics and physics.
Moreover, the professional careers of a number of physicists and
mathematicians have been devoted to network theory: one has only to
think of such men as E. A. Guillemin and R. M. Foster; the appeal of
the subject has even charmed abstract mathematicians: here the name of
R. Bott comes to mind.
In the past two decades a number of branches of mathematics have
become indispensable to the network theorist. Network theory has
assimilated function theory, matrix theory, and Laplace transform
theory and used them to develop general methods for analyzing
exceedingly complex networks without becoming lost in a maze of
detail. The concepts and techniques that were developed then served
to enrich other fields; they were recognized to be of great value to
the applied mathematician and physicist, irrespective of his field of
specialization. Network concepts like input-output and others have
even found their way into texts on mathematics, written by and for
mathematicians. The input-output concept, the system function, and the
ubiquitous black box, in addition to their use in the exact sciences,
have also yielded rich rewards in such fields as biology and
economics.
Recently, a new branch of mathematics has been intensively applied to
physical systems; this is linear-graph theory. Linear graphs allow us
to express very concisely and pictorially the essential facts about
analogous fields of physics and engineering. Their use has already
contributed a number of remarkable results to network theory; and they
promise to have an integrating effect on the study of all linear
systems.
Thus not only does the network theorist need to know physics and
mathematics, but the mathematician, physicist, and mechanical
engineer, the psychologist, biologist, and economist need network
theory. These scientists and engineers have already made use of
network analysis; they have yet to discover and adapt network
synthesis to solve their problems. The design of mechanical systems,
for example, provides a fertile field for the techniques of synthesis,
but for the most part the applications have yet to be made. It is
hoped that this book will contribute the necessary understanding of
network analysis and synthesis so that they can be applied not only to
electrical networks but also to other models of physical systems.
=================================
I apologize for not having the time to post the entire text.
Personally, I think the synthesis (exact parameter) folks were a
little too optimistic regarding what could be accomplished by pure
synthesis. More commonly, a variety of techniques augment one
another, and today some (say most) working engineers never touch the
underlying mathematics/theory because design and simulation software
has become quite powerful given decent models. The mathematics
underlying both synthesis and simulation (a numeric engine) both have
substantial sophistication, but miraculously many who "design" have no
idea of what is occuring under the hood, even though they are
successful in aim (Ilan would call them "drones," I guess). Ah, the
beauty of div-of-labor.
Wilhelm Cauer was sort of a case study of ground-breakers (Cauer was
executed by the Russians when they reached Berlin):
_Wilhelm Cauer: His Life and the Reception of his Work_, Emil Cauer
und Wolfgang Mathis <http://tetlab.tet.uni-hannover.de/geschichte/
cauer_his_life.pdf>
"It seems likely that after World War II the contribution
of Cauer to the development of networks and systems
theory was lost sight of not only because Cauer
was neither enough of a mathematician nor enough of
a physicist to be regarded as an outstanding scientist
in either of the two disciplines, but also because his
life and work in general were somewhat fragmented."
"A further problem at that time was that few people
could appreciate the vast potential of Cauer’s special
field of work. Whenever faculties discussed making
new professional appointments, they tended to
look for teachers in the traditional fields of mathematics.
They did not pay attention to Cauer because,
for mathematicians, he seemed too involved in applied
sciences, and for electrical engineers his contributions
included too much mathematics."
"Having opened a new boundary field between mathematics
and electrical engineering, Cauer had to defend
his ideas against disinterest and harsh criticisms
from both sides."
Bob Schwartz
> I apologize for not having the time to post the entire text.
If your author was willing to submit a grant request
I'm sure he could get funding to upgrade your hardware.
Bob Schwartz
Off The Back
Hmmm. And the Columbia website says this will be her last year too. But that
interview and her profile on the site were done early in the year. She had a
strong season and is still very fit, believe me, so who cares if she's 40
years old. Plus the recent Columbia press release about 2009 lists her as a
rider. She's a classy and talented rider so let's hope she reconsidered her
retirement!