| |
Main
Date: 04 Oct 2007 13:05:30
From: Andrew Martin
Subject: Nationals 2008?
|
Anybody know what plans are for '08? Back to PA, or someplace new?
How about Masters vs. Elite?
I googled a little and didn't see anything.
|
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 05:41:08
From: Bret
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
On Oct 11, 7:30 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Bret" <bret.w...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1192149694.205706.271880@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 11, 1:52 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Oct 5, 8:37 pm, Bret Wade <bretw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> > Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> >> > > Field sprints have ALWAYS been a lottery - whoever has a fast sprint
> >> > > and
> >> > > a team that will lead him out and block everyone else wins.
>
> >> > That's your argument? A lottery isn't really a game of chance? It's a
> >> > contest involving speed, strategy and guile? Redefining words is an
> >> > excellent strategy for winning arguments.
>
> >> Pretending that all of the really good sprinters have a team that are
> >> capable of leading them out properly and blocking properly is simply
> >> stupid. Therefore many times far inferior sprinters win because the
> >> good ones haven't the support they need.
>
> >> Sprinters usually only get good support on top notch teams that are
> >> aiming for sprint wins.
>
> >> So let's not pretend that somehow sprints are equal or that somehow
> >> blocking better sprinters is some sort of validity test of a poorer
> >> sprinter.
>
> > None of this poorly reasoned blather has anything at all to do with
> > the lottery argument.
>
> Poorly reasoned? You're the jackass that published, "People who can't sprint
> like to say that but field sprints are probably more deterministic than any
> other race result."
Dumbass, last week in the Circuit Franco-Belge, Steegmans and
Cavendish finished first or second in three consecutive sprint
stages. That's deterministic behavior.
>
> The fact is that sprinting is hardly every a clean race and hence is
> practically never a lottery.
But ... but ... you said "Field sprints have ALWAYS been a lottery -
whoever has a fast sprint and a
team that will lead him out and block everyone else wins". I can only
assume that we are witnessing the effects of your daily gallon of
beer. Not that I haven't been imbibing, but I think that I hold it
better.
Bret
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 00:45:01
From: Bret
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
On Oct 11, 3:15 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Oct 11, 1:52 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 5, 8:37 pm, Bret Wade <bretw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > > > Field sprints have ALWAYS been a lottery - whoever has a fast sprint and
> > > > a team that will lead him out and block everyone else wins.
>
> > > That's your argument? A lottery isn't really a game of chance? It's a
> > > contest involving speed, strategy and guile? Redefining words is an
> > > excellent strategy for winning arguments.
>
> > Pretending that all of the really good sprinters have a team that are
> > capable of leading them out properly and blocking properly is simply
> > stupid. Therefore many times far inferior sprinters win because the
> > good ones haven't the support they need.
>
> > Sprinters usually only get good support on top notch teams that are
> > aiming for sprint wins.
>
> > So let's not pretend that somehow sprints are equal or that somehow
> > blocking better sprinters is some sort of validity test of a poorer
> > sprinter.
>
> Where do you get the idea that sprinters' teams not only lead them
> out, but block, too?
It wasn't from personal experience.
Are you going to Gunnison Scott?
Bret
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 00:41:34
From: Bret
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
On Oct 11, 1:52 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 5, 8:37 pm, Bret Wade <bretw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > > Field sprints have ALWAYS been a lottery - whoever has a fast sprint and
> > > a team that will lead him out and block everyone else wins.
>
> > That's your argument? A lottery isn't really a game of chance? It's a
> > contest involving speed, strategy and guile? Redefining words is an
> > excellent strategy for winning arguments.
>
> Pretending that all of the really good sprinters have a team that are
> capable of leading them out properly and blocking properly is simply
> stupid. Therefore many times far inferior sprinters win because the
> good ones haven't the support they need.
>
> Sprinters usually only get good support on top notch teams that are
> aiming for sprint wins.
>
> So let's not pretend that somehow sprints are equal or that somehow
> blocking better sprinters is some sort of validity test of a poorer
> sprinter.
None of this poorly reasoned blather has anything at all to do with
the lottery argument.
Bret
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 18:30:13
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
"Bret" <bret.wade@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1192149694.205706.271880@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 11, 1:52 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Oct 5, 8:37 pm, Bret Wade <bretw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>> > > Field sprints have ALWAYS been a lottery - whoever has a fast sprint
>> > > and
>> > > a team that will lead him out and block everyone else wins.
>>
>> > That's your argument? A lottery isn't really a game of chance? It's a
>> > contest involving speed, strategy and guile? Redefining words is an
>> > excellent strategy for winning arguments.
>>
>> Pretending that all of the really good sprinters have a team that are
>> capable of leading them out properly and blocking properly is simply
>> stupid. Therefore many times far inferior sprinters win because the
>> good ones haven't the support they need.
>>
>> Sprinters usually only get good support on top notch teams that are
>> aiming for sprint wins.
>>
>> So let's not pretend that somehow sprints are equal or that somehow
>> blocking better sprinters is some sort of validity test of a poorer
>> sprinter.
>
> None of this poorly reasoned blather has anything at all to do with
> the lottery argument.
Poorly reasoned? You're the jackass that published, "People who can't sprint
like to say that but field sprints are probably more deterministic than any
other race result."
The fact is that sprinting is hardly every a clean race and hence is
practically never a lottery.
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 14:15:59
From: Scott
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
On Oct 11, 1:52 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 5, 8:37 pm, Bret Wade <bretw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > > Field sprints have ALWAYS been a lottery - whoever has a fast sprint and
> > > a team that will lead him out and block everyone else wins.
>
> > That's your argument? A lottery isn't really a game of chance? It's a
> > contest involving speed, strategy and guile? Redefining words is an
> > excellent strategy for winning arguments.
>
> Pretending that all of the really good sprinters have a team that are
> capable of leading them out properly and blocking properly is simply
> stupid. Therefore many times far inferior sprinters win because the
> good ones haven't the support they need.
>
> Sprinters usually only get good support on top notch teams that are
> aiming for sprint wins.
>
> So let's not pretend that somehow sprints are equal or that somehow
> blocking better sprinters is some sort of validity test of a poorer
> sprinter.
Where do you get the idea that sprinters' teams not only lead them
out, but block, too?
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 18:28:17
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
"Scott" <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1192137359.902324.200210@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 11, 1:52 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Oct 5, 8:37 pm, Bret Wade <bretw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>> > > Field sprints have ALWAYS been a lottery - whoever has a fast sprint
>> > > and
>> > > a team that will lead him out and block everyone else wins.
>>
>> > That's your argument? A lottery isn't really a game of chance? It's a
>> > contest involving speed, strategy and guile? Redefining words is an
>> > excellent strategy for winning arguments.
>>
>> Pretending that all of the really good sprinters have a team that are
>> capable of leading them out properly and blocking properly is simply
>> stupid. Therefore many times far inferior sprinters win because the
>> good ones haven't the support they need.
>>
>> Sprinters usually only get good support on top notch teams that are
>> aiming for sprint wins.
>>
>> So let's not pretend that somehow sprints are equal or that somehow
>> blocking better sprinters is some sort of validity test of a poorer
>> sprinter.
>
> Where do you get the idea that sprinters' teams not only lead them
> out, but block, too?
Not in pro groups but ALL of the time in amateur races.
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 12:52:40
From:
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
On Oct 5, 8:37 pm, Bret Wade <bretw...@earthlink.net > wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > Field sprints have ALWAYS been a lottery - whoever has a fast sprint and
> > a team that will lead him out and block everyone else wins.
>
> That's your argument? A lottery isn't really a game of chance? It's a
> contest involving speed, strategy and guile? Redefining words is an
> excellent strategy for winning arguments.
Pretending that all of the really good sprinters have a team that are
capable of leading them out properly and blocking properly is simply
stupid. Therefore many times far inferior sprinters win because the
good ones haven't the support they need.
Sprinters usually only get good support on top notch teams that are
aiming for sprint wins.
So let's not pretend that somehow sprints are equal or that somehow
blocking better sprinters is some sort of validity test of a poorer
sprinter.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 23:27:49
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
In article <1192132360.269178.23820@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com >,
cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 5, 8:37 pm, Bret Wade <bretw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
> >
> > > Field sprints have ALWAYS been a lottery - whoever has a fast sprint and
> > > a team that will lead him out and block everyone else wins.
> >
> > That's your argument? A lottery isn't really a game of chance? It's a
> > contest involving speed, strategy and guile? Redefining words is an
> > excellent strategy for winning arguments.
>
> Pretending that all of the really good sprinters have a team that are
> capable of leading them out properly and blocking properly is simply
> stupid. Therefore many times far inferior sprinters win because the
> good ones haven't the support they need.
How do you explain the success of, say, Robbie McEwen then? He rarely has great
team support in the last couple of kilometers yet he still wins quite regularly. And
who are these "far inferior sprinters" that are winning over the really good ones?
can you give some examples of their wins?
> Sprinters usually only get good support on top notch teams that are
> aiming for sprint wins.
Oy.
> So let's not pretend that somehow sprints are equal or that somehow
> blocking better sprinters is some sort of validity test of a poorer
> sprinter.
What are you talking about?
--
tanx,
Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 09:46:47
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
On Oct 6, 2:17 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> > RBR has already dope tested the coaches.
>
> So why have their been no suspensions ?
Because the penalty for being found a dope in rbr is two years of
encouragement.
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 17:05:12
From: yeahyeah
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
On Oct 4, 9:18 pm, "Mark Fennell" <marco_fenne...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
> > Alright, now all you beta chimps listen up and listen good. And that
> > includes all you Landis-lovers in here - so put down your little fantasy
> > pipedream of a successful appeal and listen because I don't like having to
> > toss this Samsonite suitcase around more than once.
>
> OK, I'll climb into your cage and play...
>
> > First of all, 7 Springs is not going to be the host resort this year.
>
> True that.
>
> > The reason is... <snip>
>
> ...because it's in the middle of nowhere, and far, far away from the
> center-of-mass of good riders ...which might explain the rumor that it will
> be back on the west coast in 2008.
I wonder if it has anything to do with the pack of juniors winding up
in the hospital from crashing before their race.
Did anyone ever get the story on what happened with that?
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 16:22:36
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
On Oct 5, 4:03 pm, Bret Wade <bretw...@earthlink.net > wrote:
> William Asher wrote:
> > Bret Wade wrote:
>
> >>SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> >>>>TK is at his best when sprinting is the subject.
>
> >>>Specifically, sprinting in a 12. TT'ing with an 11 too. If I can
> >>>find a ouija board, maybe I can get a hook on Kevin. I've seen his
> >>>name in some recent race results.
>
> >>Here's an idea. We randomly choose ten bay area Cat 5's and assign five
> >>each to be coached by KM and TK, and then compare results next spring.
> >>Coach K vs. Koach K.
>
> >>Bret
>
> > Oooohhh. Then we could also see if either of the coaches would resort to
> > doping to win the competition.
>
> This would be a rare case where there is no dope strong enough to alter
> the result.
RBR has already dope tested the coaches.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 11:17:24
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> RBR has already dope tested the coaches.
So why have their been no suspensions ?
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 15:13:20
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
On Oct 5, 1:45 pm, Bret Wade <bretw...@earthlink.net > wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> > On Oct 5, 12:26 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >>"Bret Wade" <bretw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>news:13gcnhbqs1dij5c@corp.supernews.com...
>
> >>>>>... probably more deterministic...
>
> > Now that is a slightly amusing construction.
>
> Maybe "deterministic" means different things to us.
The simplist I can put deterministic is "not random." Philo-talk will
have def's like "consequence of antecedents." "Probable" is the
language of randomness/uncertainty. They sat beside each other in the
sentence -- one modified its counterpoise. And of course, I knew
exactly what you meant. Nothing was wrong with it -- I am strangely
amused by language.
Maybe I would have said "less uncertain," and maybe I'd have put it
just like you did. Dunno. I'm no language expert, and scarcely know
how to talk to folks -- that *is* determined. Big Dog has a minor in
english, so he's the rbr expert. How low I go commenting on the most
trivial of things....
> >>>>Bret - have you ever been in a sprint?
>
> > Now that is highly amusing.
>
> >>>http://tinyurl.com/3dxnz8
>
> > Now that is Beautiful. The Halcyon Days of 12t Threads. Thanks for
> > that.
>
> TK is at his best when sprinting is the subject.
Specifically, sprinting in a 12. TT'ing with an 11 too. If I can
find a ouija board, maybe I can get a hook on Kevin. I've seen his
name in some recent race results.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 16:43:26
From: Bret Wade
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>>TK is at his best when sprinting is the subject.
>
>
> Specifically, sprinting in a 12. TT'ing with an 11 too. If I can
> find a ouija board, maybe I can get a hook on Kevin. I've seen his
> name in some recent race results.
Here's an idea. We randomly choose ten bay area Cat 5's and assign five
each to be coached by KM and TK, and then compare results next spring.
Coach K vs. Koach K.
Bret
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 22:49:08
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
Bret Wade wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
>>>TK is at his best when sprinting is the subject.
>>
>>
>> Specifically, sprinting in a 12. TT'ing with an 11 too. If I can
>> find a ouija board, maybe I can get a hook on Kevin. I've seen his
>> name in some recent race results.
>
> Here's an idea. We randomly choose ten bay area Cat 5's and assign five
> each to be coached by KM and TK, and then compare results next spring.
> Coach K vs. Koach K.
>
> Bret
>
Oooohhh. Then we could also see if either of the coaches would resort to
doping to win the competition.
--
Bill Asher
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 17:03:36
From: Bret Wade
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
William Asher wrote:
> Bret Wade wrote:
>
>
>>SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>TK is at his best when sprinting is the subject.
>>>
>>>
>>>Specifically, sprinting in a 12. TT'ing with an 11 too. If I can
>>>find a ouija board, maybe I can get a hook on Kevin. I've seen his
>>>name in some recent race results.
>>
>>Here's an idea. We randomly choose ten bay area Cat 5's and assign five
>>each to be coached by KM and TK, and then compare results next spring.
>>Coach K vs. Koach K.
>>
>>Bret
>>
>
>
> Oooohhh. Then we could also see if either of the coaches would resort to
> doping to win the competition.
>
This would be a rare case where there is no dope strong enough to alter
the result.
Bret
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 13:16:25
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
On Oct 5, 12:26 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Bret Wade" <bretw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13gcnhbqs1dij5c@corp.supernews.com...
> >>> ... probably more deterministic...
Now that is a slightly amusing construction.
> > > Bret - have you ever been in a sprint?
Now that is highly amusing.
> >http://tinyurl.com/3dxnz8
Now that is Beautiful. The Halcyon Days of 12t Threads. Thanks for
that.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 14:45:14
From: Bret Wade
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> On Oct 5, 12:26 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>>"Bret Wade" <bretw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:13gcnhbqs1dij5c@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>>>>>... probably more deterministic...
>
>
> Now that is a slightly amusing construction.
Maybe "deterministic" means different things to us. I'm guessing that
you have some sort of political science definition in mind. Here's an
example of what it means in my industry:
http://tinyurl.com/33mvnf
>
>
>>>>Bret - have you ever been in a sprint?
>
>
> Now that is highly amusing.
>
>
>>>http://tinyurl.com/3dxnz8
>
>
> Now that is Beautiful. The Halcyon Days of 12t Threads. Thanks for
> that.
TK is at his best when sprinting is the subject.
Bret
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 19:41:40
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
On Oct 5, 3:26 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Bret Wade" <bretw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:13gcnhbqs1dij5c@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> "Bret Wade" <bretw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>news:13gb4951t6kb5f9@corp.supernews.com...
>
> >>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> >>>> Any one day road race is basically a lottery unless it's held on a
> >>>> selective course.
>
> >>> People who can't sprint like to say that but field sprints are probably
> >>> more deterministic than any other race result. It only seems like a
> >>> lottery because you never win.
>
> >> Deterministic of what? Whose team can block the most effectively?
>
> > Deterministic in the sense that the result is repeatable. That's why you
> > see dominant sprinters win multiple stages in Grand Tours. You could make
> > a case that leadout trains are a big part of that, but blocking?
>
> > > Bret - have you ever been in a sprint?
>
> > Hmmm... Back in 1998 you called me an elite sprinter:
> >http://tinyurl.com/3dxnz8
>
> > The truth is, I have been in many hundreds of sprints at a non-elite
> > level, winning over 300 races. In the mid-90's during a five year span, I
> > won the CO 35+ crit championship three times,was 2nd once and third once.
> > In those five races I was only outsprinted once by an ex-pro (HW) who I'd
> > never had much success against.
>
> So you like the idea of a final sprint because you're a sprinter?
moron, maybe you should READ what bret wrote instead of trying to put
words into his mouth.
he said field sprints are not a "lottery" like you claimed and called
you on it when you questioned his experience.
you should atone for your insolence by offering to eat a pound of his
poo.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 16:59:52
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
<amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1191613300.542229.215390@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 5, 3:26 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> moron, maybe you should READ what bret wrote instead of trying to put
> words into his mouth.
Words of a coward again? One day you might become a man but I doubt it.
> he said field sprints are not a "lottery" like you claimed and called
> you on it when you questioned his experience.
Field sprints have ALWAYS been a lottery - whoever has a fast sprint and a
team that will lead him out and block everyone else wins.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 12:41:38
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> <amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1191613300.542229.215390@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
>> On Oct 5, 3:26 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> moron, maybe you should READ what bret wrote instead of trying to put
>> words into his mouth.
>
>
> Words of a coward again? One day you might become a man but I doubt it.
>
>> he said field sprints are not a "lottery" like you claimed and called
>> you on it when you questioned his experience.
>
>
> Field sprints have ALWAYS been a lottery - whoever has a fast sprint and
> a team that will lead him out and block everyone else wins.
>
>
..or in the case of Zabel...whoever has a better EPO program.
Thanks,
Magilla
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 21:37:20
From: Bret Wade
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> <amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1191613300.542229.215390@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
>> On Oct 5, 3:26 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> moron, maybe you should READ what bret wrote instead of trying to put
>> words into his mouth.
>
>
> Words of a coward again? One day you might become a man but I doubt it.
>
>> he said field sprints are not a "lottery" like you claimed and called
>> you on it when you questioned his experience.
>
>
> Field sprints have ALWAYS been a lottery - whoever has a fast sprint and
> a team that will lead him out and block everyone else wins.
>
>
That's your argument? A lottery isn't really a game of chance? It's a
contest involving speed, strategy and guile? Redefining words is an
excellent strategy for winning arguments.
Bret
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 21:06:43
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
In article <13ge0p0nv9d3pcf@corp.supernews.com >, Bret Wade <bretwade@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > <amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1191613300.542229.215390@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >> On Oct 5, 3:26 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >>
> >> moron, maybe you should READ what bret wrote instead of trying to put
> >> words into his mouth.
> >
> >
> > Words of a coward again? One day you might become a man but I doubt it.
> >
> >> he said field sprints are not a "lottery" like you claimed and called
> >> you on it when you questioned his experience.
> >
> >
> > Field sprints have ALWAYS been a lottery - whoever has a fast sprint and
> > a team that will lead him out and block everyone else wins.
> >
> >
>
> That's your argument? A lottery isn't really a game of chance? It's a
> contest involving speed, strategy and guile? Redefining words is an
> excellent strategy for winning arguments.
It's either that or arguing the positions that he's assigned you via one of his
standard "So you're saying..." statements. Dishonest, either way.
--
tanx,
Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 14:05:03
From: Bret Wade
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
amit.ghosh@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 5, 3:26 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>>"Bret Wade" <bretw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>
>>news:13gcnhbqs1dij5c@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>
>>>Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Bret Wade" <bretw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:13gb4951t6kb5f9@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Any one day road race is basically a lottery unless it's held on a
>>>>>>selective course.
>>
>>>>>People who can't sprint like to say that but field sprints are probably
>>>>>more deterministic than any other race result. It only seems like a
>>>>>lottery because you never win.
>>
>>>>Deterministic of what? Whose team can block the most effectively?
>>
>>>Deterministic in the sense that the result is repeatable. That's why you
>>>see dominant sprinters win multiple stages in Grand Tours. You could make
>>>a case that leadout trains are a big part of that, but blocking?
>>
>>>>Bret - have you ever been in a sprint?
>>
>>>Hmmm... Back in 1998 you called me an elite sprinter:
>>>http://tinyurl.com/3dxnz8
>>
>>>The truth is, I have been in many hundreds of sprints at a non-elite
>>>level, winning over 300 races. In the mid-90's during a five year span, I
>>>won the CO 35+ crit championship three times,was 2nd once and third once.
>>>In those five races I was only outsprinted once by an ex-pro (HW) who I'd
>>>never had much success against.
>>
>>So you like the idea of a final sprint because you're a sprinter?
>
>
> moron, maybe you should READ what bret wrote instead of trying to put
> words into his mouth.
>
> he said field sprints are not a "lottery" like you claimed and called
> you on it when you questioned his experience.
>
> you should atone for your insolence by offering to eat a pound of his
> poo.
>
I'd already said, "I'm as disappointed as anyone when a race ends in a
field sprint" in this thread. TK's reading comprehension isn't worth a damn.
Bret
|
| |
Date: 04 Oct 2007 20:01:59
From: Andrew Martin
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
On Oct 4, 6:18 pm, "Mark Fennell" <marco_fenne...@yahoo.com > wrote:
>which might explain the rumor that it will
>be back on the west coast in 2008.
Great news, since I live on the West Coast. I'm about to submit for
Cat1 upgrade, so I thought I might try at least once to have a go at
Nats. I don't expect to have a shot in hell, but sometimes it's cool
just to go experience something like that.
If there's any leaked locations please post.
Spokane again? Hopefully not Bakersfield 110degree smog-filled hole...
|
| | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 11:32:58
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
Andrew Martin wrote:
> On Oct 4, 6:18 pm, "Mark Fennell" <marco_fenne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>which might explain the rumor that it will
>>be back on the west coast in 2008.
>
>
> Great news, since I live on the West Coast. I'm about to submit for
> Cat1 upgrade, so I thought I might try at least once to have a go at
> Nats. I don't expect to have a shot in hell, but sometimes it's cool
> just to go experience something like that.
>
> If there's any leaked locations please post.
>
> Spokane again? Hopefully not Bakersfield 110degree smog-filled hole...
>
I wish I had a list of all those riders who won "nationals" and then
vanished from the sport. Nationals is meaningless. In some cases, so
is worlds.
Just ask Jeff Evanshine.
Take care,
Magilla
|
| |
Date: 04 Oct 2007 17:06:33
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
On Oct 4, 6:33 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com > wrote:
>
> Fuck everyone in here,
>
> Magilla
Only in your perverted dreams. Refill your prescription, call the
crisis center, and huddle quietly in a corner until help comes.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 04 Oct 2007 18:33:34
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
Andrew Martin wrote:
> Anybody know what plans are for '08? Back to PA, or someplace new?
> How about Masters vs. Elite?
>
> I googled a little and didn't see anything.
>
Alright, now all you beta chimps listen up and listen good. And that
includes all you Landis-lovers in here - so put down your little fantasy
pipedream of a successful appeal and listen because I don't like having
to toss this Samsonite suitcase around more than once.
First of all, 7 Springs is not going to be the host resort this year.
The reason is irrelevant, but that's all you need to know. Second,
nationals in '08 plays no role whatsoever as an "Olympic trials" venue,
unlike in past Olympic years where winning it meant you had an automatic
selection to the Olympics.
And third...and here's that part I really want you losers to pay
attention to: nationals doesn't matter and it's a meaningless race. So
stop talking about it like it's 1976 and your name is Jackie Simes.
Nationals, like the Olympics and world championships, is a fucked-up
race in that it's only one of a handful of events where the team concept
is thrown out the window and riders ride for themselves (even though
they say they don't ride selfishly, they do). And any rider who rides
for a teammate is stupid because when you cross the line in 37th place
and cheer in some nationalistic seizure just because some other guy born
in your country won, you have to ask yourself why a rider is so happy
that someone ELSE wins, just because they're from the same country.
Any one day road race is basically a lottery unless it's held on a
selective course. That's why top guys like Lance and LeMond never even
bothered to race nationals once they went over to Europe. Not sure why
Hincapie annd Leipheimer contine to try to win nationals - it's really a
cop-out to failing to win the big one in Europe.
USAC has turned nationals into an excuse to give out 45,780 stars and
stripes jerseys in age-graded categories that require calculus equations
to differentiate. It's a fucking joke. And wearing a stars & stripes
jersey is now the equivalent of wearing a kit from Team Noble House.
Fuck everyone in here,
Magilla
|
| | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 06:18:57
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com > wrote in
news:fe3po0$1ov$1@aioe.org:
> Andrew Martin wrote:
>> Anybody know what plans are for '08? Back to PA, or someplace new?
>> How about Masters vs. Elite?
>>
>> I googled a little and didn't see anything.
>>
>
>
> Alright, now all you beta chimps listen up and listen good. And that
> includes all you Landis-lovers in here - so put down your little
> fantasy pipedream of a successful appeal and listen because I don't
> like having to toss this Samsonite suitcase around more than once.
>
> First of all, 7 Springs is not going to be the host resort this year.
> The reason is irrelevant, but that's all you need to know. Second,
> nationals in '08 plays no role whatsoever as an "Olympic trials"
> venue, unlike in past Olympic years where winning it meant you had an
> automatic selection to the Olympics.
>
> And third...and here's that part I really want you losers to pay
> attention to: nationals doesn't matter and it's a meaningless race. So
> stop talking about it like it's 1976 and your name is Jackie Simes.
>
> Nationals, like the Olympics and world championships, is a fucked-up
> race in that it's only one of a handful of events where the team
> concept is thrown out the window and riders ride for themselves (even
> though they say they don't ride selfishly, they do). And any rider
> who rides for a teammate is stupid because when you cross the line in
> 37th place and cheer in some nationalistic seizure just because some
> other guy born in your country won, you have to ask yourself why a
> rider is so happy that someone ELSE wins, just because they're from
> the same country.
>
> Any one day road race is basically a lottery unless it's held on a
> selective course. That's why top guys like Lance and LeMond never
> even bothered to race nationals once they went over to Europe. Not
> sure why Hincapie annd Leipheimer contine to try to win nationals -
> it's really a cop-out to failing to win the big one in Europe.
>
> USAC has turned nationals into an excuse to give out 45,780 stars and
> stripes jerseys in age-graded categories that require calculus
> equations to differentiate. It's a fucking joke. And wearing a stars
> & stripes jersey is now the equivalent of wearing a kit from Team
> Noble House.
>
> Fuck everyone in here,
Do you think you have time?
--
Bill Asher
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 09:47:32
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
MagillaGorilla wrote:
>> Fuck everyone in here,
William Asher wrote:
> Do you think you have time?
Gorillas come quickly.
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 21:43:36
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
Donald Munro wrote:
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>> Fuck everyone in here,
>
> William Asher wrote:
>> Do you think you have time?
>
> Gorillas come quickly.
They also lack a little in the endowment side of the equation.
http://tinyurl.com/3cq8lr
But at least they can please themselves.
--
Bill Asher
|
| | |
Date: 04 Oct 2007 19:33:13
From: Carl Sundquist
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com > wrote in message
news:fe3po0$1ov$1@aioe.org...
>
> USAC has turned nationals into an excuse to give out 45,780 stars and
> stripes jerseys in age-graded categories that require calculus equations
> to differentiate. It's a fucking joke. And wearing a stars & stripes
> jersey is now the equivalent of wearing a kit from Team Noble House.
>
Massengill,
Have you counted how many rainbow jerseys are handed out each year?
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 11:20:55
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
Carl Sundquist wrote:
>
> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fe3po0$1ov$1@aioe.org...
>
>>
>> USAC has turned nationals into an excuse to give out 45,780 stars and
>> stripes jerseys in age-graded categories that require calculus
>> equations to differentiate. It's a fucking joke. And wearing a stars
>> & stripes jersey is now the equivalent of wearing a kit from Team
>> Noble House.
>>
>
> Massengill,
>
> Have you counted how many rainbow jerseys are handed out each year?
Too many. I think it's over 200 if you include the gerbil wheel
(velodrome).
Magilla
|
| | |
Date: 04 Oct 2007 19:18:45
From: Bret Wade
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Any one day road race is basically a lottery unless it's held on a
> selective course.
People who can't sprint like to say that but field sprints are probably
more deterministic than any other race result. It only seems like a
lottery because you never win.
Bret
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 11:19:09
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
Bret Wade wrote:
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> Any one day road race is basically a lottery unless it's held on a
>> selective course.
>
>
> People who can't sprint like to say that but field sprints are probably
> more deterministic than any other race result. It only seems like a
> lottery because you never win.
>
> Bret
When a race ends in a field sprint it means the course allowed too many
losers (i.e. sprinters) to get to the finish with the riders who are
actually good. Sprinting is a function of genetics, not training.
That's why the same guys win sprints. It's the same with track and field.
If you were born as Carl Lewis you'd be able to run a 10.1 in the 100
meters in a pair of worn out, unlaced Converse sneakers in 7th grade
without ever having set foot on a track in your life.
I'm suppose to respect that?
Do you know how come a falcon can fly and you can't? It's because of
genetics. The bird didn't "train" harder than you to fly and somehow
you failed to match the bird's training.
Well the same goes for sprinters - they are born with it. And then
they just sit around while all you clueless jackasses slobber all over them.
It's ridiculous and it better stop.
Eric Zabel, Cipollini, Boonen....these riders were born to sprint.
Other than that, they don't train any harder than any Cat. 2 rider in
here.
Stop worshipping them. It's all an illusion. Zabel's EPO admission
should tell you what that guy's all about, anyway.
Thanks,
Magilla
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 10:11:03
From: Bret Wade
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Bret Wade wrote:
>
>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>> Any one day road race is basically a lottery unless it's held on a
>>> selective course.
>>
>>
>>
>> People who can't sprint like to say that but field sprints are
>> probably more deterministic than any other race result. It only seems
>> like a lottery because you never win.
>>
>> Bret
>
>
> When a race ends in a field sprint it means the course allowed too many
> losers (i.e. sprinters) to get to the finish with the riders who are
> actually good. Sprinting is a function of genetics, not training.
> That's why the same guys win sprints. It's the same with track and field.
>
> If you were born as Carl Lewis you'd be able to run a 10.1 in the 100
> meters in a pair of worn out, unlaced Converse sneakers in 7th grade
> without ever having set foot on a track in your life.
>
> I'm suppose to respect that?
>
> Do you know how come a falcon can fly and you can't? It's because of
> genetics. The bird didn't "train" harder than you to fly and somehow
> you failed to match the bird's training.
>
> Well the same goes for sprinters - they are born with it. And then
> they just sit around while all you clueless jackasses slobber all over
> them.
>
> It's ridiculous and it better stop.
>
> Eric Zabel, Cipollini, Boonen....these riders were born to sprint. Other
> than that, they don't train any harder than any Cat. 2 rider in here.
>
> Stop worshipping them. It's all an illusion. Zabel's EPO admission
> should tell you what that guy's all about, anyway.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Magilla
>
I don't disagree with you here. I'm as disappointed as anyone when a
race ends in a field sprint. I was only disagreeing with the lottery
comment.
Bret
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 05:55:52
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
"Bret Wade" <bretwade@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:13gb4951t6kb5f9@corp.supernews.com...
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> Any one day road race is basically a lottery unless it's held on a
>> selective course.
>
> People who can't sprint like to say that but field sprints are probably
> more deterministic than any other race result. It only seems like a
> lottery because you never win.
Deterministic of what? Whose team can block the most effectively? Bret -
have you ever been in a sprint?
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 09:53:32
From: Bret Wade
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Bret Wade" <bretwade@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13gb4951t6kb5f9@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>> Any one day road race is basically a lottery unless it's held on a
>>> selective course.
>>
>>
>> People who can't sprint like to say that but field sprints are
>> probably more deterministic than any other race result. It only seems
>> like a lottery because you never win.
>
>
> Deterministic of what? Whose team can block the most effectively?
Deterministic in the sense that the result is repeatable. That's why you
see dominant sprinters win multiple stages in Grand Tours. You could
make a case that leadout trains are a big part of that, but blocking?
> Bret - have you ever been in a sprint?
Hmmm... Back in 1998 you called me an elite sprinter:
http://tinyurl.com/3dxnz8
The truth is, I have been in many hundreds of sprints at a non-elite
level, winning over 300 races. In the mid-90's during a five year span,
I won the CO 35+ crit championship three times,was 2nd once and third
once. In those five races I was only outsprinted once by an ex-pro (HW)
who I'd never had much success against.
Bret
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 12:26:56
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
"Bret Wade" <bretwade@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:13gcnhbqs1dij5c@corp.supernews.com...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> "Bret Wade" <bretwade@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:13gb4951t6kb5f9@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>
>>>> Any one day road race is basically a lottery unless it's held on a
>>>> selective course.
>>>
>>>
>>> People who can't sprint like to say that but field sprints are probably
>>> more deterministic than any other race result. It only seems like a
>>> lottery because you never win.
>>
>>
>> Deterministic of what? Whose team can block the most effectively?
>
> Deterministic in the sense that the result is repeatable. That's why you
> see dominant sprinters win multiple stages in Grand Tours. You could make
> a case that leadout trains are a big part of that, but blocking?
>
> > Bret - have you ever been in a sprint?
>
> Hmmm... Back in 1998 you called me an elite sprinter:
> http://tinyurl.com/3dxnz8
>
> The truth is, I have been in many hundreds of sprints at a non-elite
> level, winning over 300 races. In the mid-90's during a five year span, I
> won the CO 35+ crit championship three times,was 2nd once and third once.
> In those five races I was only outsprinted once by an ex-pro (HW) who I'd
> never had much success against.
So you like the idea of a final sprint because you're a sprinter? This is
unfortunately almost the same thing because you don't have the competition
against you either way.
I am for a race that has a hard climb within spitting distance of the finish
line so that groups cannot run down the real climbers and the real climbers
have to be fast and in the pack until at least the start of the climb.
A winner of such a course has to be fast and able to ride in the front
group, would have to be able to climb with the best and to descend with the
best. Flat road races are fine for part of the circuit but there should be
hard climbing races as well as those who have a good mix. I think that
climbing races should end at the top of a climb and "normal" races with some
climbing in them should have a finish line close enough to the bottom of the
climb at a solo breakaway up the climb has the possibility of staying away
from the pack from the top to the finish line given a good enough climbing
speed.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 02:30:46
From: Davey Crockett
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
* MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com > a écrit profondement:
|
| | |
Date: 04 Oct 2007 17:18:29
From: Mark Fennell
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Alright, now all you beta chimps listen up and listen good. And that
> includes all you Landis-lovers in here - so put down your little fantasy
> pipedream of a successful appeal and listen because I don't like having to
> toss this Samsonite suitcase around more than once.
OK, I'll climb into your cage and play...
> First of all, 7 Springs is not going to be the host resort this year.
True that.
> The reason is... <snip>
...because it's in the middle of nowhere, and far, far away from the
center-of-mass of good riders ...which might explain the rumor that it will
be back on the west coast in 2008.
> Second, nationals in '08 plays no role whatsoever as an "Olympic trials"
> venue, unlike in past Olympic years where winning it meant you had an
> automatic selection to the Olympics.
Of course amateur elite nationals (7 springs, etc.) is irrelevant for
Olympic-team selection, and the pro nationals are irrelevant too, especially
if it continues to be in September. Not sure why US nationals aren't around
late June/early July like most other countries. They should just add a day
at the beginning of those other three PA races in June.
BTW, automatic spots only go to podium finishers in UCI grand tours and/or
world championships.
http://www.usacycling.org/forms/selection/08-SOGRoad.pdf
> And third...and here's that part I really want you losers to pay attention
> to: nationals doesn't matter and it's a meaningless race. So stop talking
> about it like it's 1976 and your name is Jackie Simes.
Actually, nationals was also irrelevant in 1976, since they held a unique
series of races specifically for olympic-team selection.
> Any one day road race is basically a lottery unless it's held on a
> selective course. That's why top guys like Lance and LeMond never even
> bothered to race nationals once they went over to Europe.
True that too. Lance did it twice before going to Europe. 1990
back-of-the-pack finish in Albany NY, and then in 1991 he rode away solo on
a 100 mile Park City time trial. LeMond only did it as a Jr... 1st, 2nd, and
1st.
> Not sure why Hincapie annd Leipheimer contine to try to win nationals -
That's easy... So he can get a little bonus and wear a special jersey.
> USAC has turned nationals into an excuse to give out 45,780 stars and
> stripes jerseys in age-graded categories that require calculus equations
> to differentiate. It's a fucking joke. And wearing a stars & stripes
> jersey is now the equivalent of wearing a kit from Team Noble House.
Differentiating is easy. If the red bars are vertical, then the jersey means
something. If they're horizontal, well, then the jersey is one of the
45,780.
I think a Noble House jersey would be a collectors item--much more rare and
valuable than a stars-and-horizontal-bars jersey.
> Fuck everyone in here,
No thanks.
Mark
http://marcofanelli.blogspot.com
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Oct 2007 23:05:49
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Nationals 2008?
|
Mark Fennell wrote:
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>First of all, 7 Springs is not going to be the host resort this year.
>
>
> True that.
>
>
>>The reason is... <snip>
>
>
> ...because it's in the middle of nowhere, and far, far away from the
> center-of-mass of good riders ...which might explain the rumor that it will
> be back on the west coast in 2008.
>
>
> Mark
> http://marcofanelli.blogspot.com
>
>
Marky Mark,
The reason why 7 Springs is no longer hosting nationas was the choice of
7 Springs, not USAC. Also, USAC doesn't really determine where
nationals will be...a promoter must apply for the venue and USAC selects
from only those applicants. Few promoters want to take it on.
The next thing you're going to tell me is the best crit riders are in
Downer's Grove.
But the biggest farce in U.S. nationals is USAC has duped promoters into
thinking it's better to pay them money than put that same money into a
prize fund. So nationals ends up being a little or no prize money
event. What a scam.
Magilla
|
|
