Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives

[Rechtschreibfehler]

People coming into this thread and in some other discussions didn't address or provide any proof of such decline, the argument was more or less always the same, Rogla is 35 years old ... Or in previous years Rogla is XY age old. I just wanted to point out such behaviour and talking, when excessive, is somewhere in the same line of throwing out ethnic slurs.

As for the video i posted i feel it clearly addresses some issues Rogla is bound to face. For example winning the Tour, that should put him in great position, when negotiating for new contract. In terms of pay and similar. Video clearly addresses on how, when older, people are automatically faced with different treatment, due to the age and not on merit of being fit to do some job.

The problem is that noone is saying he's unfit for the job because of his age, people are saying his level will start to decline because of age at some point. Because it does for everybody. Your argument, to give an example, is like saying prostate cancer prevention is based an ageism, because it operates with something that is known to become much more likely when you hit a certain age.

Decline in your 30ies as a pro-athlete is totally expectable and happens to almost all pro athletes. There are some exceptions but as a general rule it makes complete sense. Your position on the other hand seems to be: "Untill proven otherwise, Rogla should be treated as if he would not decline like a normal athelete would",

Edit:
I should add that I think you are not doing the fight against ageism any favors, if you misuse the concept to make a fantastical point, while also accusing others of being unfair to Rogla or discriminate against him, because of his age. While all they do, albeit somethimes overexagerating it, is point out that peak physical ability has an expiry date.

 

[CyclistAbi]

@Rechtschreibfehler

That was kinda my point, wasn't it, you proving it case in point with what you just wrote. You are basically discriminating Rogla based on his age, by assuming what you find to be normal(ity), pro athletes hitting 30s to decline, applies to Rogla, so basically in lets say last half a decade, considering Rogla is now 35. Reality, on the other hand, being that in the last half a decade, that was by far the most fruitful era of Rogličes professional career.

Your sentiment goes well in line with the title of the video i posted:

Why is ageism still so pervasive?

First hit on Google and from Oxford dictionary on the term pervasive:

(especially of an unwelcome influence or physical effect) spreading widely throughout an area or a group of people.
"ageism is pervasive and entrenched in our society"

In western countries and professional environments and beyond, sport fans, laws protect workers/athletes from being discriminated based on race, age and sex, all three fall in rather the same category in terms of severnes. Race is something that likely got a bit more attention in the past and hence racial slur will get you a ban, ageism AFAIK currently not, discriminating based on sex currently somewhere in the middle.

All in all you likely wouldn't wrote Rogla is declining based on the fact he is caucasian and a man? And yet you feel you can claim that based on his age. Note that i am not accusing you of spreading ageism slurs. I am just explaining it to you on why you might, by simply not being aware of it.

The thing is EU countries are demanding from workers to work 65 and up, lifespan is different then in the past, science improved, older population is more and more, so likely it makes sense to compete in pro sports till around mid 40s. Rogla hopefully to still win GTs well into 40s.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

@Rechtschreibfehler

That was kinda my point, wasn't it, you proving it case in point with what you just wrote. You are basically discriminating Rogla based on his age, by assuming what you find to be normal(ity), pro athletes hitting 30s to decline, applies to Rogla, so basically in lets say last half a decade, considering Rogla is now 35. Reality, on the other hand, being that in the last half a decade, that was by far the most fruitful era of Rogličes professional career.

Let's be precise. "In their 30ies" does mean "In their 30ies" not "hitting the age of 30" or "early 30ies" or even "mid 30ies". It denotes a span of 10 years within which it is the case for most pro athletes to start declining in physical ability. It's safe to say that Rogla isn't in the "declines in early 30ies" group and maybe not even in the "declines in mid 30ies group", he could still be in the "declines in late 30ies" group though. Or he might be an exception to the rule, a possibility I granted in my argument to begin with.
That being said, for it to be discrimination to say that age plays a role in an athletes performance possibilities, this assumption would have to be unfair or just prejudice not rooted in reality. And you are yet to show how this applies to Rogla, in fact you simply assume that the statement doesn't apply to him, although it's a reality that most pro-athletes physically have declined in their 30ies, just as most people die before they reach the age of 100, or that prostate cancer get's more likely with age. These expectation aren't unfair or have no basis in reality.

All in all you likely wouldn't wrote Rogla is declining based on the fact he is caucasian and a man? And yet you feel you can claim that based on his age. Note that i am not accusing you of spreading ageism slurs. I am just explaining it to you on why you might, by simply not being aware of it.

The thing is EU countries are demanding from workers to work 65 and up, lifespan is different then in the past, science improved, older population is more and more, so likely it makes sense to compete in pro sports till around mid 40s. Rogla hopefully to still win GTs well into 40s.

I didn't even write that Rogla is declining, in fact I still believe that Rogla can win GTs, I just don't think it's likely based on experience that he'll not decline within his 30ies. Note that I am not saying it's a necessity, just that it's expectable within established knowledge about athlete career trajectories relative to their age. The simple mention of 'age' in an explanation or as an explanation, does not make an argument "ageist". It needs to be unfair or simply untrue to make that assumption based on age and then act upon said assumption and thereby to discriminate against someone. In this case Rogla. Your entire point would only make sense if it was indeed the case that given the chance, athletes could just perform as in their 20ies when they are in, or well into their 40ies, hell why not 50ies even. Experience does not seem to confirm that though. Even someone who might be the pinnacle of professionalism and access to the best science and coaches like Christiano Ronaldo isn't close to his peak level any more.

To your other points:
That age, race and sex are subject to discrimination does not make them interchangeable categories because of it. Neither does the usage of these categories in explanations or expectations automatically make an argument ageist, racist or sexist per se. It is again important that the usage is unfair or not based in reality.

Maybe an example would help:
If I said Rogla couldn't become a philosopher any more because he's already in his 30ies and that means he's washed, that would be ageist. If I say Zizek can't become a GT winner, let alone pro-cyclist anymore because he's 75, that's not ageist.

The point that you are raising about us being expected to work up to 65 and longer isn't totally off, yet it ignores any context and nuance. It also simply doesn't apply to the discussion because NO ONE has claimed that Rogla can't do his Job anymore. He might just not do it for another 10 years, let alone 20. In his case if he played his cards right, he'll not have to work afterwords, unlike us mere mortals. That we are expected to work longer doesn't mean that we also can work longer in certain professions.

 

[AmRacer]

@Rechtschreibfehler

That was kinda my point, wasn't it, you proving it case in point with what you just wrote. You are basically discriminating Rogla based on his age, by assuming what you find to be normal(ity), pro athletes hitting 30s to decline, applies to Rogla, so basically in lets say last half a decade, considering Rogla is now 35. Reality, on the other hand, being that in the last half a decade, that was by far the most fruitful era of Rogličes professional career.

Your sentiment goes well in line with the title of the video i posted:



First hit on Google and from Oxford dictionary on the term pervasive:



In western countries and professional environments and beyond, sport fans, laws protect workers/athletes from being discriminated based on race, age and sex, all three fall in rather the same category in terms of severnes. Race is something that likely got a bit more attention in the past and hence racial slur will get you a ban, ageism AFAIK currently not, discriminating based on sex currently somewhere in the middle.

All in all you likely wouldn't wrote Rogla is declining based on the fact he is caucasian and a man? And yet you feel you can claim that based on his age. Note that i am not accusing you of spreading ageism slurs. I am just explaining it to you on why you might, by simply not being aware of it.

The thing is EU countries are demanding from workers to work 65 and up, lifespan is different then in the past, science improved, older population is more and more, so likely it makes sense to compete in pro sports till around mid 40s. Rogla hopefully to still win GTs well into 40s.

We humans start to decline physically in the 30ies.

 

[SHAD0W93]

We humans start to decline physically in the 30ies.

Don’t tell me that, I have the Spartan Ultra in 5 months. Though on that topic, this 60 plus year old does 4-6 spartan races a weekend. Man is a fing tank.

 

[CyclistAbi]

Let's be precise. "In their 30ies" does mean "In their 30ies" not "hitting the age of 30" or "early 30ies" or even "mid 30ies". It denotes a span of 10 years within which it is the case for most pro athletes to start declining in physical ability. It's safe to say that Rogla isn't in the "declines in early 30ies" group and maybe not even in the "declines in mid 30ies group", he could still be in the "declines in late 30ies" group though. Or he might be an exception to the rule, a possibility I granted in my argument to begin with.

OK, then people using age as an argument, using it against Rogla, past half a decade, that was indeed ageism?

That being said, for it to be discrimination to say that age plays a role in an athletes performance possibilities, this assumption would have to be unfair or just prejudice not rooted in reality.

Exactly.

And you are yet to show how this applies to Rogla, in fact you simply assume that the statement doesn't apply to him, although it's a reality that most pro-athletes physically have declined in their 30ies, just as most people die before they reach the age of 100, or that prostate cancer get's more likely with age. These expectation aren't unfair or have no basis in reality.

There you go again. You acknowledge there is no real proof of it and yet you go on demand further proof it didn't happen. The quote from above, example from Oxford dictionary:

"ageism is pervasive and entrenched in our society"

What does entrenched mean:

(of an attitude, habit, or belief) firmly established and difficult or unlikely to change; ingrained.

It's amazing isn't it. On how this exact example was given. So true.

I didn't even write that Rogla is declining, in fact I still believe that Rogla can win GTs, I just don't think it's likely based on experience that he'll not decline within his 30ies.

Indeed a good example again, on pervasive and entrenched thinking right there. Isn't it? The rest of your thinking in my opinion doesn't apply to this debate in such way i would need to respond further and widen the debate. Maybe i will add an example of another athlete, on where the mob went mental, Lindsey returning.

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

View: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DJptFeGSr1t/


Hitting 40s.

 

[CyclistAbi]

We humans start to decline physically in the 30ies.

Most start to decline much sooner than that. On top of that there is a lot of brain rot involved too. In this day and age.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

OK, then people using age as an argument, using it against Rogla, past half a decade, that was indeed ageism?



Exactly.



There you go again. You acknowledge there is no real proof of it and yet you go on demand further proof it didn't happen. The quote from above, example from Oxford dictionary:



What does entrenched mean:



It's amazing isn't it. On how this exact example was given. So true.



Indeed a good example again, on pervasive and entrenched thinking right there. Isn't it? The rest of your thinking in my opinion doesn't apply to this debate in such way i would need to respond further and widen the debate. Maybe i will add an example of another athlete, on where the mob went mental, Lindsey returning.

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

View: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DJptFeGSr1t/


Hitting 40s.

You quite literally didn't address a single one of my arguments, rather you choose to misunderstand me an then give Lindsay Vonn as an example, who can still do her job in her 40ies, but isn't close to being as dominant as she has been when she was younger. Your example in contrast to what you are thinking is making my point.

And my point again, wasn't to say that Rog is already in decline, just that it's within reasonable expectations given what we know about athletes and humans to expect his decline to start soon and within his 30ies. I didn't say with a single word he can't ride a bike any more, even for money in his 40ies.

Your point is: Rogla is defying justified expectations about humans and athletes. This is possible, but (1) needs to be seen and (2) because we are talking about established knowledge here, you are the one who has to argue for why established knowledge does not apply and with what kind of specific knowledge you want to replae it.

The general mistake that you are making in your line of reasoning is that it does not follow from there being exceptions to the rule, that it applies to Rogla, just because you want it to. Unwilling to do this you could still argue that the general rule is actually wrong in general, doesn't represent established knowledge, and should be replaced. The replacement then needs to be suggested by you. I on the other hand don't have to prove that Rogla is declining, for claiming that the general rule is true, because said rule is a generic statement about athletes in general, not about singular athletes specifically. You see it's like me saying that the average life expectency in Roglas birth cohort is X and you then argue, no no no Rogla will live on forever, because not everyone (almost noone I guess even) dies exactly when he average life expectency in their birth cohort is reached.

 

[Rackham]

It's not Rogla's age that'll end his winning ways first. It's the damn shoulder. From what we know, that's his Achilles heel and he needs to be really, really careful here. Any major problem again on the shoulder he's already had operated on would be real bad news. Especially at almost 36.

But otherwise, if Geraint Thomas almost won the Giro at 37 or Valverde became world champ in his late 30's, then I think all things being equal Rog can snag a few major wins as well. As long as he doesn't seriously hurt himself.

 

[fenns]

I doubt he's as good as when he was second in the Tour - but he was still good enough to win the Vuelta spotting O'Connor a few minutes start. I think he's got a good chance of finishing on the podium in Paris.