| |
Main
Date: 26 Jul 2007 01:58:44
From: Burt
Subject: I don't understand the "lack of credibility" comments about the tour
|
I anything, the fact that cycling actually catches drug cheats and
kicks them out adds credibility to the race.
Imagine if, in football, soccer, baseball, hockey, etc., after the
game you handed everyone on the winning team a cup to pee in. What do
you think would happen.
If anything, the doping controversy makes cycling MORE credible.
|
|
| |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 14:22:31
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: I don't understand the "lack of credibility" comments about the tour
|
On Jul 26, 6:41 am, "steve" <st...@steve.com > wrote:
>
> 1. Riders affect one anothers performances in a variety of ways. Pulling a
> rider doesnt undo his effect on the race, so the end result is not the same
> as if the rider had not started. It's like trying to re-score a baseball
> game by eliminating one player, the runs he scored or batted-in, the outs,
> put-outs, errors, etc. that he made. You cant undo the effect of his
> participation, so the result itself is not credible. It was Rabo pulling
> all day for a week. What if it had been Disco, Astana, or Lotto? How can a
> winner be credibly declared now?
Getting busted is a road hazard, like puncturing,
crashing, eating a bad clam on the rest day, or getting
stung by a bee. Counterfactuals are just that,
counterfactual. What if Vino hadn't doped, but still
had got knocked over by the fan who put his flag in
Ivanov's wheel? Would we declare the winner not-credible?
The Tour is not and has never been solely a "true
athletic test" of the riders. That is why they
ride the Tour rather than doing a roller race while
hooked up to VO2 monitors.
Ben
> 2. The drug testing and appeals process itself is not seen as credible by
> many people. The presumption of guilt, sloppy lab work, and press leaks all
> give the impression of an unfair and out of control process.
>
> All this leaves me (and I assume many others) feeling that the tour is no
> longer a true athletic test of the participants.
>
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 02:20:59
From: steve
Subject: Re: I don't understand the "lack of credibility" comments about the tour
|
On 26-Jul-2007, smacked up and reeling, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> > 1. Riders affect one anothers performances in a variety of ways.
> > Pulling a
> > rider doesnt undo his effect on the race, so the end result is not the
> > same
> > as if the rider had not started. It's like trying to re-score a
> > baseball
> > game by eliminating one player, the runs he scored or batted-in, the
> > outs,
> > put-outs, errors, etc. that he made. You cant undo the effect of his
> > participation, so the result itself is not credible. It was Rabo
> > pulling
> > all day for a week. What if it had been Disco, Astana, or Lotto? How
> > can a
> > winner be credibly declared now?
>
> Getting busted is a road hazard, like puncturing,
> crashing, eating a bad clam on the rest day, or getting
> stung by a bee. Counterfactuals are just that,
> counterfactual. What if Vino hadn't doped, but still
> had got knocked over by the fan who put his flag in
> Ivanov's wheel? Would we declare the winner not-credible?
> The Tour is not and has never been solely a "true
> athletic test" of the riders. That is why they
> ride the Tour rather than doing a roller race while
> hooked up to VO2 monitors.
I thought someone might make that point, but I dont think it holds water.
It's a stretch (at best) to consider getting DQed for cheating as a
legitimate part of the contest. I would say that, by definition, it is not.
OTOH, crashing etc. (even due to some idiot waving a flag) are legitimate
hazards and part of the somewhat crazy sport. Further, the strategy that is
so important in mass start racing is what makes road cycling so facinating.
I didnt mean to suggest that athletic competition should be a pure test of
physical ability. Few (if any) are, so roller races are not the ideal.
My point is that the contest is not made whole by ousting the cheaters
partway through. They leave a mark on the race that, due to their cheating,
is not a legitimate part of the contest. The result is thereby tainted.
That is quite different from the effects of random chance, road hazards,
strategy (of course), and all rider interaction within the rules.
steve
--
"The accused will now make a bogus statement."
James Joyce
|
| |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 20:02:28
From: kaiser
Subject: Re: I don't understand the "lack of credibility" comments about the tour
|
On Jul 26, 1:58 am, Burt <burt.hoo...@gmail.com > wrote:
> I anything, the fact that cycling actually catches drug cheats and
> kicks them out adds credibility to the race.
The testing was supposed to be a deterrent, not a roll of flypaper.
|
| |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 18:20:51
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: I don't understand the "lack of credibility" comments about the tour
|
On Jul 26, 9:57 am, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com > wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2:24 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 26, 1:58 am, Burt <burt.hoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I anything, the fact that cycling actually catches drug cheats and
> > > kicks them out adds credibility to the race.
>
> > > Imagine if, in football, soccer, baseball, hockey, etc., after the
> > > game you handed everyone on the winning team a cup to pee in. What do
> > > you think would happen.
>
> > > If anything, the doping controversy makes cycling MORE credible.
>
> > A lot of these come from sportswriters. Sports writing
> > is all about suspension of disbelief; even for those
> > writers that are skeptical, a necessary element of the
> > craft is to mythologize actions that are meaningful only
> > because we invest them with significance when played
> > out against arbitrary rules. In real life, there's
> > nothing wrong with making part of a 26-mile trip on
> > the subway; it's only cheating in a marathon, and we
> > only care because running all the way seems important
> > by the rules of the game. For the first marathoner
> > in his run from Marathon, of course there were no rules
> > and it wasn't a game.
>
> > Kicking racers out of the Tour doesn't make the Tour
> > less credible. It makes people who yesterday were
> > writing about the heroic achievements of those same
> > racers seem less credible, and understandably, they
> > resent it. It's partly their fault for forgetting
> > that it's only a game. But we the readers eat up the
> > mythology they feed us, so it's our fault too.
>
> > Ben
>
> I always thought the sportswriters were simply dumbasses that had to
> write something rather than nothing.
>
> My explanation is simpler, easier to remember, works in theory, and
> works in practice. Therefore it is a better model than yours.
Luftmensch,
Your explanation doesn't explain why the sportswriters
write the specific dumbass thing Burt complains about.
I think it is a subset of my explanation, but it is
indeed simpler and easier to remember.
However, the only way to know which of our explanations
is a better model is to see which brings a higher price
on the open market.
Ben
|
| |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 10:03:19
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: I don't understand the "lack of credibility" comments about the tour
|
On Jul 26, 6:41 am, "steve" <st...@steve.com > wrote:
> All this leaves me (and I assume many others) feeling that the tour is no
> longer a true athletic test of the participants.
No true athlete would dope.
No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
|
| | |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 22:55:30
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: I don't understand the "lack of credibility" comments about the tour
|
in message <1185469399.320495.126440@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com >, SLAVE
of THE STATE ('gwhite@ti.com') wrote:
> On Jul 26, 6:41 am, "steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote:
>
>> All this leaves me (and I assume many others) feeling that the tour is
>> no longer a true athletic test of the participants.
>
> No true athlete would dope.
>
> No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Maple syrup, dear boy. And a wee bit salt. /Never/ sugar.
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; I can't work yanks out......
;; Why do they frown upon sex yet relish violence?
;; Deep Fried Lettuce
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 10:02:36
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: I don't understand the "lack of credibility" comments about the tour
|
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>> No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Simon Brooke wrote:
> Maple syrup, dear boy. And a wee bit salt. /Never/ sugar.
Save it for the haggis then.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 21:25:49
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: I don't understand the "lack of credibility" comments about the tour
|
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Perhaps they'd TT better if they did.
|
| |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 09:59:04
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: I don't understand the "lack of credibility" comments about the tour
|
On Jul 26, 4:16 am, anton2...@aol.com wrote:
> Your sport is catching those who make mistakes with their doping,
> thats all.
WTF is all this "your" sport and "our" sport bullshit?
|
| |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 09:57:52
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: I don't understand the "lack of credibility" comments about the tour
|
On Jul 26, 2:24 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> On Jul 26, 1:58 am, Burt <burt.hoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I anything, the fact that cycling actually catches drug cheats and
> > kicks them out adds credibility to the race.
>
> > Imagine if, in football, soccer, baseball, hockey, etc., after the
> > game you handed everyone on the winning team a cup to pee in. What do
> > you think would happen.
>
> > If anything, the doping controversy makes cycling MORE credible.
>
> A lot of these come from sportswriters. Sports writing
> is all about suspension of disbelief; even for those
> writers that are skeptical, a necessary element of the
> craft is to mythologize actions that are meaningful only
> because we invest them with significance when played
> out against arbitrary rules. In real life, there's
> nothing wrong with making part of a 26-mile trip on
> the subway; it's only cheating in a marathon, and we
> only care because running all the way seems important
> by the rules of the game. For the first marathoner
> in his run from Marathon, of course there were no rules
> and it wasn't a game.
>
> Kicking racers out of the Tour doesn't make the Tour
> less credible. It makes people who yesterday were
> writing about the heroic achievements of those same
> racers seem less credible, and understandably, they
> resent it. It's partly their fault for forgetting
> that it's only a game. But we the readers eat up the
> mythology they feed us, so it's our fault too.
>
> Ben
I always thought the sportswriters were simply dumbasses that had to
write something rather than nothing.
My explanation is simpler, easier to remember, works in theory, and
works in practice. Therefore it is a better model than yours.
|
| |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 08:56:27
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: I don't understand the "lack of credibility" comments about the tour
|
On Jul 26, 6:16 am, anton2...@aol.com wrote:
> Your sport is catching those who make mistakes with their doping,
> thats all.
You forgot ruining careers, driving out sponsors, and so forth.
> Rasmassen, if he had not been spotted in the Dolomites would have not
> failed a test.
He didn't fail any tests, whether or not he was actually "spotted" in
the Dolomites. Jailhouse testimony automatically taken as truth?
> After 5 years of clean tours, you will regain credibilty.
Not ever, if they're only catching those who don't cheat well, per
your comment above.
> Currently the sport of cycling is at a lower point than when Floyd cheated.
As leaked from the lab that couldn't shoot straight? The test that
showed the sample to be contaminated? You've been reading ahead in
your magic book so you know what the outcome of adjudication is going
to be before the rest of us?
> However so many enthusiasts bury their head in the sand.
What does "bury their head in the sand" mean in plain English? What
percentage of enthusiasts do you think have "buried their heads"?
> Each rider left after a doping withdrawel is assumed clean......
That's just throwing more dirt.
What sport did or do you compete in, again? --D-y
|
| |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 13:41:50
From: steve
Subject: Re: I don't understand the "lack of credibility" comments about the tour
|
On 26-Jul-2007, smacked up and reeling, Burt <burt.hoovis@gmail.com > blindly
formulated
the following incoherence:
> I anything, the fact that cycling actually catches drug cheats and
> kicks them out adds credibility to the race.
>
> Imagine if, in football, soccer, baseball, hockey, etc., after the
> game you handed everyone on the winning team a cup to pee in. What do
> you think would happen.
>
> If anything, the doping controversy makes cycling MORE credible.
Two things:
1. Riders affect one anothers performances in a variety of ways. Pulling a
rider doesnt undo his effect on the race, so the end result is not the same
as if the rider had not started. It's like trying to re-score a baseball
game by eliminating one player, the runs he scored or batted-in, the outs,
put-outs, errors, etc. that he made. You cant undo the effect of his
participation, so the result itself is not credible. It was Rabo pulling
all day for a week. What if it had been Disco, Astana, or Lotto? How can a
winner be credibly declared now?
2. The drug testing and appeals process itself is not seen as credible by
many people. The presumption of guilt, sloppy lab work, and press leaks all
give the impression of an unfair and out of control process.
All this leaves me (and I assume many others) feeling that the tour is no
longer a true athletic test of the participants.
steve
--
"The accused will now make a bogus statement."
James Joyce
|
| |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 04:16:57
From:
Subject: Re: I don't understand the "lack of credibility" comments about the tour
|
On Jul 26, 4:58 am, Burt <burt.hoo...@gmail.com > wrote:
> I anything, the fact that cycling actually catches drug cheats and
> kicks them out adds credibility to the race.
>
> Imagine if, in football, soccer, baseball, hockey, etc., after the
> game you handed everyone on the winning team a cup to pee in. What do
> you think would happen.
>
> If anything, the doping controversy makes cycling MORE credible.
There are too many cases and no change in the frequency of occurances
for credibility to be found here.
Your sport is catching those who make mistakes with their doping,
thats all.
Rasmassen, if he had not been spotted in the Dolomites would have not
failed a test.
After 5 years of clean tours, you will regain credibilty. Currently
the sport of cycling is at a lower point than when Floyd cheated.
However so many enthusiasts bury their head in the sand.
Each rider left after a doping withdrawel is assumed clean......
|
| | |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 18:47:53
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: I don't understand the "lack of credibility" comments about the tour
|
anton2468 wrote:
> However so many enthusiasts bury their head in the sand.
> Each rider left after a doping withdrawel is assumed clean......
Dumbass,
Most of us are aware that they dope but we don't really care.
|
| |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 09:24:32
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: I don't understand the "lack of credibility" comments about the tour
|
On Jul 26, 1:58 am, Burt <burt.hoo...@gmail.com > wrote:
> I anything, the fact that cycling actually catches drug cheats and
> kicks them out adds credibility to the race.
>
> Imagine if, in football, soccer, baseball, hockey, etc., after the
> game you handed everyone on the winning team a cup to pee in. What do
> you think would happen.
>
> If anything, the doping controversy makes cycling MORE credible.
A lot of these come from sportswriters. Sports writing
is all about suspension of disbelief; even for those
writers that are skeptical, a necessary element of the
craft is to mythologize actions that are meaningful only
because we invest them with significance when played
out against arbitrary rules. In real life, there's
nothing wrong with making part of a 26-mile trip on
the subway; it's only cheating in a marathon, and we
only care because running all the way seems important
by the rules of the game. For the first marathoner
in his run from Marathon, of course there were no rules
and it wasn't a game.
Kicking racers out of the Tour doesn't make the Tour
less credible. It makes people who yesterday were
writing about the heroic achievements of those same
racers seem less credible, and understandably, they
resent it. It's partly their fault for forgetting
that it's only a game. But we the readers eat up the
mythology they feed us, so it's our fault too.
Ben
|
|
