Swiss Commentator Implies that Hincapie is doping !
Keith
ass commentator. The main guy (Bertrand something, equivalent to Phil)
said several times yesterday on TSR2 that you had to wonder how
Hincapie managed to haul himself up to the top of the moutains with
the best climbers in light of his size..."on est obligés de se poser
des questions" he said ("one has to wonder" would be a loose
translation).
Is Discovery going to sue ?
Ryan Cousineau
Keith <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Pas Naturellement! The Millar Line! The Millar Line!
He's using strychnine,
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
psycholist
being large. I've seen him in person a number of times including once just
after he returned to the States after the Tour. He was so frail looking I
was afraid he was gonna blow away. I'm sure the size thing is just relative
to other pro riders. You'd get the impression from what you read that the
guy could play linebacker in the NFL. Nobody would dare put him on the
field as a place kicker. He's a wisp. He'd be snapped like twig.
--
Bob C.
"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)
"Keith" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:49cia29qum21b48b9...@4ax.com...
Keith
wrote:
>I really don't understand why everyone is always talking about Hincapie
>being large. I've seen him in person a number of times including once just
>after he returned to the States after the Tour. He was so frail looking I
>was afraid he was gonna blow away. I'm sure the size thing is just relative
>to other pro riders. You'd get the impression from what you read that the
>guy could play linebacker in the NFL. Nobody would dare put him on the
>field as a place kicker. He's a wisp. He'd be snapped like twig.
It's funny because I was remembered that NG message, most likely yours
after you saw him at a meeting or something, yesterday. He was hinting
at his size in how tall he is 1.92/6'3 more then general weight;
Keith
wrote:
>In article <49cia29qum21b48b9...@4ax.com>,
> Keith <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Gotta love the Swiss guys, not your average politically correct lame
>> ass commentator. The main guy (Bertrand something, equivalent to Phil)
>> said several times yesterday on TSR2 that you had to wonder how
>> Hincapie managed to haul himself up to the top of the moutains with
>> the best climbers in light of his size..."on est obligés de se poser
>> des questions" he said ("one has to wonder" would be a loose
>> translation).
>>
>> Is Discovery going to sue ?
>
>Pas Naturellement! The Millar Line! The Millar Line!
Sorry what does that refer too exactly ? You're using Millar as a
mesasuring stick ?
>He's using strychnine,
RonSonic
>I really don't understand why everyone is always talking about Hincapie
>being large. I've seen him in person a number of times including once just
>after he returned to the States after the Tour. He was so frail looking I
>was afraid he was gonna blow away. I'm sure the size thing is just relative
>to other pro riders. You'd get the impression from what you read that the
>guy could play linebacker in the NFL. Nobody would dare put him on the
>field as a place kicker. He's a wisp. He'd be snapped like twig.
Actually, Lance was about as burly as a cyclist gets and we never heard about
that.
Ron
Ryan Cousineau
Keith <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
I've been generating inside jokes faster than any human can keep up,
because I've been sick with a ridiculous cold for four days (woo! Long
weekend in bed!)
Ahem. At some point, probably after Paul Kimmage had the temerity to ask
questions of that nice young David Millar boy during a press conference:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2252601,00.html
...I decided that since David Millar was clearly clean (you can see he's
clean from how much time he spends talking about how clean the sport is
now, and how very sorry he is that he ever doped, etc.).
I ran that fact, the French gym teacher's "n'est pas naturellement"
theory, and the Mendoza Line into the chop-logic factory in my head, and
came out with the formulation that anyone faster than David Millar on a
flat stage was clearly doping.
http://www.bostonbaseball.com/whitesox/baseball_extras/mendoza.html
The Sprinter's Exception came about from the fact that none of the major
sprinters got sucked into the "Operation Door" vortex, while the two GC
favourites did. Also, I have a general sense that sprinters lead a
less-insane existence than GC riders and climbers, given that their
weight matters less than their watts, and it always seems to be the
sprinters who smile the most. Brian Lafferty is getting blamed for all
of this because it's an infallible new method of doping detection.
BTW, Kimmage vs. Millar has an amusing prologue:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2768-1103271,00.html
Of course, I'm playing this all for funny, largely because my own
theories are underformed, uninformed, and probably wrong.
For what it's worth, I think Millar is probably clean, the alternative
being enough chutzpah for ten Rosie Ruizes. I think everyone in
Operation Door is probably guilty, and that kills me because 1) it means
Lafferty was more or less correct, and 2) I was sort of rooting for
Basso to do the double riding a Canadian-designed bike.
I think doping is far too common in the peloton, but I think the real
problem is to prepare the ground so that you can prevent future doping.
I think the best you can hope for with the present riders is to catch
enough to scare some of the dopers straight and encourage the clean
riders to stay that way. For the future, I think we're into some pretty
aggressive medical documentation, combined with more police
investigations and widely publicized sample retention and retroactive
testing. If I ran the zoo, there would be no more surprises: if you give
a sample today, we keep that sample for a decade and run every new test
we come up with on it.
I think the theory that the TdF would be "too hard" to do without doping
is ludicrous. To reverse the LeMond formulation: it doesn't get any
harder, you just go slower. On the other hand, I think there's some fans
who would freak out a little if they realized that most of the top
riders are probably doing intravenous rehydration between stages.
I think that what I will call the "Maso theory" after its smartest
proponent (pro cyclists are professionals, and we should allow them the
drugs and therapies they need to race, just as they have always used
regardless) is the wrong direction, but I've explained why many times
before.
As for the Lance Question, I . . . give up. There's a couple of accusers
among ex-assistants, which might indicate that Lance doped, or might
indicate that Lance can really piss people off, and there's lots of
evidence for the second proposition. I think the 1999 urine-EPO expose
was evidence enough to slander, but not convict, and wonder what one can
do with it at this point regardless. I think hanging around with Dr.
Michele Ferrari is sailing very close to the wind. I think, on the other
hand, he never tested positive, and his denials sounded really sincere.
Just like David Millar's. If I take a position, it is merely that the
dude seems to be doing vastly more charity work than any other athlete,
and that will probably end up mattering more than anything else he does.
I think, again, the right question is not "what did Lance do?" but
rather "what do we need to do so that nobody will ask 'what did [winner,
2007 TdF] do?'"
Any questions?
Mark
> In article <49cia29qum21b48b9...@4ax.com>,
> Keith <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Gotta love the Swiss guys, not your average politically correct lame
>>ass commentator. The main guy (Bertrand something, equivalent to Phil)
>>said several times yesterday on TSR2 that you had to wonder how
>>Hincapie managed to haul himself up to the top of the moutains with
>>the best climbers in light of his size..."on est obligés de se poser
>>des questions" he said ("one has to wonder" would be a loose
>>translation).
>>
>>Is Discovery going to sue ?
>
>
> Pas Naturellement! The Millar Line! The Millar Line!
>
> He's using strychnine,
Hmmm! D'you suppose they might have quit testing for strychnine? A
loophole!
Mark
Frank Drackman
Nope. US intelligence is about to locate some terrorist training camps in
Switzerland and start an invasion for regime change.
Keith
>I've been generating inside jokes faster than any human can keep up,
>because I've been sick with a ridiculous cold for four days (woo! Long
>weekend in bed!)
>
>Ahem. At some point, probably after Paul Kimmage had the temerity to ask
>questions of that nice young David Millar boy during a press conference:
>
>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2252601,00.html
Excellent article...
>...I decided that since David Millar was clearly clean (you can see he's
>clean from how much time he spends talking about how clean the sport is
>now, and how very sorry he is that he ever doped, etc.).
>
>I ran that fact, the French gym teacher's "n'est pas naturellement"
>theory, and the Mendoza Line into the chop-logic factory in my head, and
>came out with the formulation that anyone faster than David Millar on a
>flat stage was clearly doping.
ok, I get it !
Keith
Now that would be a brave move for once !