Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Also I never said theres not a lot of thought in the tour de france. all i was saying is that other sports have WAY higher ratings. not saying this makes any sport better than the other, some are just less exciting to the majority of people. hence more exciting in general.

Again, its all in what someone personally considers exciting. So yeah, more people may watch football, doesn't necessarily make it more exciting for all of them.. I know plenty of people who's only interest in football, is how their pool or fantasy team is doing and beyond that couldn't give two feths about it.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Also I never said theres not a lot of thought in the tour de france. all i was saying is that other sports have WAY higher ratings. not saying this makes any sport better than the other, some are just less exciting to the majority of people. hence more exciting in general.

Again, its all in what someone personally considers exciting

Not to advertisers and TV producers.

 Glorioski wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

 Glorioski wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

I personally dont think he was doping or really care because while an extremely amazing event of sheer endurance, the tour de france to me is incredibly boring. like how many people actually sit around and watch like 2 weeks of just dudes pedaling?

Right because that's all it is. It's not one of the most tactical sports on earth it's just a glorified exercycle session.

If you're trying to say bike riding is one of the most tactical sports on earth I'm honestly confused. I understand theres plenty of thought about whos leading, how far they go per day, how much energy to expend, etc.

It sounds like your only knowledge of the TDF is the time trial stages.

Pretty sure your confusing tactics with strategy, as another poster already alluded to,

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

 Glorioski wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

 Glorioski wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

I personally dont think he was doping or really care because while an extremely amazing event of sheer endurance, the tour de france to me is incredibly boring. like how many people actually sit around and watch like 2 weeks of just dudes pedaling?

Right because that's all it is. It's not one of the most tactical sports on earth it's just a glorified exercycle session.

If you're trying to say bike riding is one of the most tactical sports on earth I'm honestly confused. I understand theres plenty of thought about whos leading, how far they go per day, how much energy to expend, etc.

It sounds like your only knowledge of the TDF is the time trial stages.

Pretty sure your confusing tactics with strategy, as another poster already alluded to,

Pretty sure any difference between the two is fairly nebulous. Not that it would make any sense of what you just said if it wasn't.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Also I never said theres not a lot of thought in the tour de france. all i was saying is that other sports have WAY higher ratings. not saying this makes any sport better than the other, some are just less exciting to the majority of people. hence more exciting in general.

Again, its all in what someone personally considers exciting. So yeah, more people may watch football, doesn't necessarily make it more exciting for all of them.. I know plenty of people who's only interest in football, is how their pool or fantasy team is doing and beyond that couldn't give two feths about it.

But if more people are saying something is more exciting doesn't that make it by extension more exciting? I dunno getting OT so.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Glorioski wrote:


Pretty sure any difference between the two is fairly nebulous.

Except to every general ever...

Pointless argument in this case anyway.

What you said...

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
If you're trying to say bike riding is one of the most tactical sports on earth I'm honestly confused. I understand theres plenty of thought about whos leading, how far they go per day, how much energy to expend, etc.

Suggests you have no experience of the TDF aside from the time trial stages. That point has nothing to do with the difference between tactics and strategy.

 Glorioski wrote:
Pointless argument in this case anyway.

What you said...

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
If you're trying to say bike riding is one of the most tactical sports on earth I'm honestly confused. I understand theres plenty of thought about whos leading, how far they go per day, how much energy to expend, etc.

Suggests you have no experience of the TDF aside from the time trial stages. That point has nothing to do with the difference between tactics and strategy.

Please tell me the tactics?

1. Pedal Hard.
2. Pedal Not As Hard.
3. Not Pedal.

But to put that all together over multiple days and still have the juice to win? Strategy my friend. They are different. Unless pedaling has been taken out of the tour de france. And Im not naive enough to think there arent a lot of very smart people behind the scene there, just doesnt make bike riding a tactical sport. and sorry rest of Dakka for taking this OT.

Hhhhhmmmmm the only highlight I'm interested in on TDF is the wrecks.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

 Glorioski wrote:
Pointless argument in this case anyway.

What you said...

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
If you're trying to say bike riding is one of the most tactical sports on earth I'm honestly confused. I understand theres plenty of thought about whos leading, how far they go per day, how much energy to expend, etc.

Suggests you have no experience of the TDF aside from the time trial stages. That point has nothing to do with the difference between tactics and strategy.

Please tell me the tactics?

1. Pedal Hard.
2. Pedal Not As Hard.
3. Not Pedal.

But to put that all together over multiple days and still have the juice to win? Strategy my friend. They are different. Unless pedaling has been taken out of the tour de france. And Im not naive enough to think there arent a lot of very smart people behind the scene there, just doesnt make bike riding a tactical sport. and sorry rest of Dakka for taking this OT.

You're only proving your ignorance.

Road races are comprised of thousands of tactics. For example if a team is controlling the peleton a single rider can attack the group to try and form a breakaway. If a breakaway contains a team member a rider can try to slow down the peleton. etcetera etcetera. An example of a strategy would be working together the entirety of the race as a team in order to achieve a sprint finish, where your sprinter, who has been sitting behind the group doing less work, will then attack.

The point is all you seem to have ever seen is individual time trials where the riders are nowhere near each other.

You know what Glorioski? I'm gonna concede your victory. Your right. I dont know all too much about the tour de france. since this thread is heading OT and especially with your last example Im gonna say I was speaking from ignorance. Sorry.

In my defense its Friday night and Im drunk. Sorry for any inflammatory comments.

Still think football is more tactical though. And I used to HATE it!

Fair enough.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
You know what Glorioski? I'm gonna concede your victory. Your right. I dont know all too much about the tour de france. since this thread is heading OT and especially with your last example Im gonna say I was speaking from ignorance. Sorry.

In my defense its Friday night and Im drunk. Sorry for any inflammatory comments.

Still think football is more tactical though. And I used to HATE it!

go figure you used to hate it.. your sign says you're from Buffalo.. I'd hate football more if I were from Buffalo as well


As it stands, the USADA seems to be clutching at straws, or going Inquisition on Lance... sort of a "we'll absolve you of your sins once you confess, but to help you along with that, we're gonna put you on this wooden bench and attach these chains to your wrists and ankles"

Dont touch the BuffaLOVE man. I dont care if we rank in the top ten for poorest, fattest, and rudest cities in America. We still got.... pretty dope city hall? seriously if your a fan of art deco architecture google it.

 Glorioski wrote:
The tests were inadequate, that has been proven. The only thing he can do is contest the charges, it would be the best thing for him to do whatever the result. It makes no sense for him to ignore the charges because he's sick of it when that action itself will mean he has to deal with the speculation for the rest of his life.

edit: seems his titles have officially been stripped now.

Let me ask you this - Would you participate in a "trial" where the prosecutor was also the judge, handpicked the jury, and required you to prove you were innocent, rather than they prove you guilty? Because that is the exact situation here. Participating in that system only lends to it's legitimacy. Since it has none really, why bother? He would have lost anyway, and not because the charges were too damning, but because out of 60 cases, USADA has only found 2 people innocent of charges.

Also, his titles have not been officially stripped. USADA does not have that authority.

 olympia wrote:
It was, and perhaps still is, the dirtiest professional sport other than MLB and the NFL.

On the BBC news this morning they mentioned that the 'power to weight ratio' (or what ever it is) of the cyclists in the TDF this year is approximately 10% lower than it was in previous years. I think thats quite suggestive.

I talked with my dad yesterday who is one of those guys who enjoys watching the Tour De France. He's friends with a semi-pro cyclist (didn't name him) who has trained with some of these guys, and the guy said that EVERYONE who was doing it was doping-likely including Lance (he didn't flat out confirm or deny Lance's usage). All he did was level the playing field-everyone else was doing it, he'd be performing at a lesser ability if he didn't. I was told the doping improved times by 1%, which seems miniscule, right? But the difference between 1st and 2nd had been 7 seconds in one race-now, that 1% difference, out of the length of the race actually changes the differences in time to 700 seconds: over a full ten minutes on their non-drugged ability. That's how it was explained to me. Again, if he was doping, he leveled the playing field-he didn't do anything the other racers didn't. And if they strip his title, they have to strip the title itself for the past ten years-nobody was clean. Anyway, that's the message I got yesterday-this kind of stuff is actually really important to my dad, so there was no reason for him to pass me false information.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The thing is, Lance has never failed a drug test (not without secondary sample validation, suggesting possible sample tampering?) In, well, ever...

Most of the 'evidence' that the USADA apparently has, is former teammates who may or may not be jealous...and according to espn, most of the 'people evidence' gathered are guys wno have tested positive, go figure.


I think lance himself said it best, that this is an unconstitutional witch hunt.

Nah, that's not even half plausible. The guy dominated the sport at a time when most everyone was on something. He 'retired' right when they were to bring in a test for the compound people have testified he was taking. There's strong evidence he recieved tip-offs as to when he was about to be tested.

And now he just gives up all the titles he worked so hard to earn? It'd be absolutely amazing if he wasn't taking drugs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
As noted I said no to cheating. My point is why should it be against the rules?

Because it would produce a competitive environment where the only way to win would be to take dangerous, life reducing chemicals?

Do we want the life of every athlete to match that of Flo Jo?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I talked with my dad yesterday who is one of those guys who enjoys watching the Tour De France. He's friends with a semi-pro cyclist (didn't name him) who has trained with some of these guys, and the guy said that EVERYONE who was doing it was doping-likely including Lance (he didn't flat out confirm or deny Lance's usage). All he did was level the playing field-everyone else was doing it, he'd be performing at a lesser ability if he didn't. I was told the doping improved times by 1%, which seems miniscule, right? But the difference between 1st and 2nd had been 7 seconds in one race-now, that 1% difference, out of the length of the race actually changes the differences in time to 700 seconds: over a full ten minutes on their non-drugged ability. That's how it was explained to me. Again, if he was doping, he leveled the playing field-he didn't do anything the other racers didn't. And if they strip his title, they have to strip the title itself for the past ten years-nobody was clean. Anyway, that's the message I got yesterday-this kind of stuff is actually really important to my dad, so there was no reason for him to pass me false information.

Basically, in last Armstrong's last win for instance they can't give them to the second placed performer as he's already been convicted, and a guy at work told me the third place guy is likely to be found guilty before long as well.

The idea that Armstrong was absolutely dominating over a drug fueled field while staying clean himself is kind of silly.

 sebster wrote:

Do we want the life of every athlete to match that of Flo Jo?

Flo Jo died for congenital reasons.

 dogma wrote:
Flo Jo died for congenital reasons.

Just looked it up, and fair enough, her condition was entirely unrelated to her (almost certain) drug use. I thought that the autopsy was inconclusive on any drug use.

Thanks for the correction.

Good, damn cheater deserves it.

He'll give back the seven titles, but he'll keep the millions he made on endorsements based on winning those titles.

I'm just curious why they are backtracking. Seems silly to me.

If Armstrong was "doping" he was doing it in a way that wasn't tested for and therefore wasn't wrong until recently. Now they can test for this type of thing and he's retiring. As was already stated, everyone seems to have been on an even field and now that they have a test to prevent it in the future everyone will be again. So he's still an athlete that won those competitiions. Seems stupid to change the rules on some of his wins over a decade later.....

But it wasn't an even field. There are riders like Graeme Obree who took a hard no stance on drugs and was sacked by his team because of it. The cheaters don't deserve credit because they pushed people like him out of the sport.

Ahhh, so now we are including people that didn't compete in the races in question. We should totally hand the titles to the peole that were standing at the finish line, odds are they weren't using.

I hate to break it to you. This isn't like baseball where the majority of players weren't using while Bonds & McGuire were. It appears all the top racers were using. Meaning it's likely that Armstrong would have won if no one was using.

And I'll admit to limited knowledge on blood doping. Why is it bad?

 Hulksmash wrote:
I'm just curious why they are backtracking. Seems silly to me.

If Armstrong was "doping" he was doing it in a way that wasn't tested for and therefore wasn't wrong until recently. Now they can test for this type of thing and he's retiring. As was already stated, everyone seems to have been on an even field and now that they have a test to prevent it in the future everyone will be again. So he's still an athlete that won those competitiions. Seems stupid to change the rules on some of his wins over a decade later.....

So if he's not being tested for slightvariantPED1001 vs slightvarientPED1000 and can get away with cheating it's ok?

Those tests must be hella specific to not pick up on minor variants.

And from what I understood, and maybe I misunderstood it, was that he may be guilty of blood doping. Which didn't seem like it could be against the rules if they couldn't measure it and that only now can they measure it it breaks the rules and now they are going back and retro-ing past tournament wins for something they can't prove.

I'm just confused as to why the hell it would matter. Even if he was doping so was everyone else in the top level of his sport (which is ridiculous but that's another story) so it was an even race. Not seeing why it's necessary to go backward with it instead of just going forward.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Ahhh, so now we are including people that didn't compete in the races in question. We should totally hand the titles to the peole that were standing at the finish line, odds are they weren't using.

I hate to break it to you. This isn't like baseball where the majority of players weren't using while Bonds & McGuire were. It appears all the top racers were using. Meaning it's likely that Armstrong would have won if no one was using.

And I'll admit to limited knowledge on blood doping. Why is it bad?

If they're doping by using EPO then it is very dangerous.

EPO boosts red blood cell production which increases the amount of oxygen that can be transported through the body. It was developed to treat anaemia. I've been prescribed it before.

By increasing the level of red blood cells it increases the viscosity of the blood, which has resulted in several athletes dying of heart attacks in their sleep. To get the performance boosts they want they have to take a dose which is beyond what any doctor would prescribe which will raise their blood viscosity to dangerous levels. If they then sleep their heart rate drops and becomes unable to push the thickened blood around their body. There are instances of cyclists who had to ride an exercise bike non-stop after taking EPO to keep their heart rate up to avoid cardiac arrest.

If they're doing it through transfusions (siphon blood after strenuous exercise or after spending time at high altitude when the red blood cell count is naturally higher then put it back in at a later date) then the dangers lie in the storage, transportation and infusion of the blood. If the blood is improperly stored then it could give the athlete blood poisoning when introduced to their bloodstream.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Those tests must be hella specific to not pick up on minor variants.

And from what I understood, and maybe I misunderstood it, was that he may be guilty of blood doping. Which didn't seem like it could be against the rules if they couldn't measure it and that only now can they measure it it breaks the rules and now they are going back and retro-ing past tournament wins for something they can't prove.

I'm just confused as to why the hell it would matter. Even if he was doping so was everyone else in the top level of his sport (which is ridiculous but that's another story) so it was an even race. Not seeing why it's necessary to go backward with it instead of just going forward.

Doping has always been against the rules, whether they could detect it or not.

Thank you. I understand much better now. I'll stand by my I don't care because I feel it's a level playing field but understand better the concerns and issues surrounding this at least a little better.

Sidenote: Since EPO is a medication wouldn't that have show up on a test? Or does it move through the system to fast? Just curious.

 Jihadin wrote:
Hhhhhmmmmm the only highlight I'm interested in on TDF is the wrecks.

Same here. Also, they should have some chicks in bikinis passing out beer on their bikes if they want my attention. OR, get this, drunken biking. I beer/shot per mile. THAT I'd totally watch.

I like biking, don't get me wrong. I'm getting a bike rack for my car so that I can go to Brazos Bend State Park and take some pictures of Gators and such.

I just don't find the Tour de France to be compelling TV, not to take anything away from you fine gents that enjoy it, naturally...

 kronk wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Hhhhhmmmmm the only highlight I'm interested in on TDF is the wrecks.

Same here. Also, they should have some chicks in bikinis passing out beer on their bikes if they want my attention. OR, get this, drunken biking. I beer/shot per mile. THAT I'd totally watch.

I like biking, don't get me wrong. I'm getting a bike rack for my car so that I can go to Brazos Bend State Park and take some pictures of Gators and such.

I just don't find the Tour de France to be compelling TV, not to take anything away from you fine gents that enjoy it, naturally...

Brazos bend baby. Don't forget to take a picture of the sign "do not feed or molest the aligators" (ok who tried to 'molest' an alligator - thats top ten in historical bad moves). Whe i was a younger they noted there was something like 3mm ducks in the region in winter. Seriously. I don't know about now.
Is Crabb River Road still windy? Used to wind out the gears on a Z28 through there for fun.