Giro Stage 9: Milano

[idle eric]

Regardless off all this the riders are unprofessional and soft.
So much for the CSC boot camp, never I have been so embarrassed to be a cyclist.

what makes you such a stud to make a comment like that? just who are you to make a judgement like that on some of the toughest atheletes in the world?
my guess is that you'd have wet yourself on that stage 7 decent and gone home.

Athletes -- will do --toughest -- not to sure about that --aint what the crowd were shouting -- even my limited italian knows that --

 

[idle eric]

HA, Basso, what a courage! Wasn't he also the first cyclist who cracked instantly, squealed like piglet, and admitted guilt when it became clear he had something to do with OP and was faced with public humiliation, condemnation and disgust ...

he is such an opportunist haha

Basso aint such a bad lad he did make an effort to hand the kids out freebies later and sign lots of stuff
He did seem embarrassed by it all

 

[karlboss]

I'm too moderate

Communication...cycling has been rife with a lack of it recently. Between organisers, riders, UCI etc. Look at a map, ride the course, if you take issue with the course, raise it. Then you can make sure cars are moved, barriers erected, take out dangerous parts and we have a race.
Watching the stage's final laps i think they could have made it safe, but this was also when 150 out of 190 weren't really racing, but still with a few changes surely something could have been done.
Neutralising time and racing for the win in the last 2 laps i think is fine, but if you are going to do this, why make a 160km stage? Just do 2 laps, or start out of milano.
Disappointing stage. Was it the right thing to do? with 20/20 hind sight i think there were better solutions, but maybe a guy falling 60m was enough to shake guys up enough, maybe after a week most of the guys would have pushed. I don't know. Noone was asking me to ride.

But as we need a solid opinion on this forum: its all armstrongs fault, he didn't take his drugs and so much time sprinting out of the saddle would have killed him

 

[cyclelicious]

HA, Basso, what a courage! Wasn't he also the first cyclist who cracked instantly, squealed like piglet, and admitted guilt when it became clear he had something to do with OP and was faced with public humiliation, condemnation and disgust ...

he is such an opportunist haha

Basso had no qualms about being front and center yesterday. Funny how things change...

 

[ElChingon]

Look who is getting the announcers back, no one else but bottle

 

[180mmCrank]

...an d Cav looks non too impressed in the back

 

[lookkg386]

Isn't Jens some sort of spokesperson for the peleton in these situations, I certainly believe that if he thought it was too dangerous then it was, funny how it's Basso and company doing the apologising, what's the tour management had to say?

 

[rhubroma]

HA, Basso, what a courage! Wasn't he also the first cyclist who cracked instantly, squealed like piglet, and admitted guilt when it became clear he had something to do with OP and was faced with public humiliation, condemnation and disgust ...

he is such an opportunist haha

Now, hold on a minute. Basso vehemently denied having anything to do with OP (and even was contracted by Bruyneel at Discovery during the process), until CONI backed him into a corner by obtaining the Barillo blood sack. Only then did Basso confess.

To the contrary, in Spain not one athlete was put under pressure to confess. And it has taken the same Italian CONI to proove Valverde has been involved. Yet the Spainiard doesn't even have the integrity to admit his involvment, and even continues with his shameful insulence before the irrifutable proof that he has been!

In any case, I agree with Cipollini who said in Gazzeta dello Sport yesterday that the protest was shameful, that the cyclists dishonored the Giro and that the course was even bello...other than extremely dangerous. So it had an S curve near the finish. Are pro cyclist not expected to do an S anymore!

Perhapa big fish was just too tired and found an excuse to have a second rest day!

 

[Animal]

You watch the Moto Gp at LeMans in the rain and the Northwest 200 road motorcycle race live all day on the BBC internet then that load of crap at Milan. What a farce.

Clad in full leathers with long gravel runoffs if they skid out. I've seen them crash in the wet and they slide along, and then get up and trot off.

Milan is covered with polished granite cobbles, tram tracks, raised traffic islands, ped refuges, posts, pillars, arches, 8 inch high granite kerbstones*.

If you miss a corner at 50kph there clad in lycra, you might end up with broken bones or internal injuries.

*This is the correct English spelling.

 

[Bala Verde]

...

You are probably right about Basso in relation to OP. I just found it funny how quickly he changed his mind after his 'firm stance against the circuit' yesterday and the day before.

Anyhow, just come to Amsterdam and try to ride your road bike a little, even out of competition, over all the tram tracks. They should have strung the guy(s) who designed the circuit to the highest tree in Milan, merely for the inclusion of tram tracks... Only for the glorification of the city of Milan, did they do this, I can't see any other reason, and hence money prevailed over safety.

I couldn't care less about what Cipo said, and as I remember it well he confirmed my aforementioned suspicion, and said something to the extent that "Milan did not deserve such treatment". The guy has always fared well on provocation, going at great lenghts to establish himself as the odd one out, and taking the spotlight by wearing funky lycra. If not that, it's possibly the nature of the hypersensitive, easily insulted and indignified Italian speaking.... with his heart instead of his mind.

 

[idle eric]

Could we not start a woosh poll
Di lucy leads followed by ...............
dont know the northwest motorcycle race but know the Isle of man tt course and it is mad-- some of our circut races in switzerland --are as crazy as milano but everyone just goes for it regardless-- the ringleaders just wanted to show the power and have a rest--the old mutton led the lambs to slaughter

 

[rhubroma]

I couldn't care less about what Cipo said, and as I remember it well he confirmed my aforementioned suspicion, and said something to the extent that "Milan did not deserve such treatment". The guy has always fared well on provocation, going at great lenghts to establish himself as the odd one out, and taking the spotlight by wearing funky lycra. If not that, it's possibly the nature of the hypersensitive, easily insulted and indignified Italian speaking.... with his heart instead of his mind.

Frankly your assesment of the Italian mindset is racist. The mind and the soul work together. And it is the latter, not the former, which renders us more compasionate and human.

In any case, I think Cipo was onto something and that these modern pros have become a bit spoiled. I mean can you imagine the hard men of the past - a Kelly or a Martins, for example - wining about crossing some tracks or an S curve?

 

[Bala Verde]

Frankly your assesment of the Italian mindset is racist. The mind and the soul work together. And it is the latter, not the former, which renders us more compasionate and human.

Yes, I ironically embellished generalized and stereotypical assesments of the 'Mediterranean race' and projected them onto citizens of the state of Italy, as to the effect that I asserted that each and every Italian possesses these qualities innately, while seeing them confirmed by Cipo's statement.

Since I am at it, the Dutch/Scotts are stingy (who is stingier), American/French are arrogant (who is more arrogant), the Germans rude etc.

Now obviously I might be misinterpreting your statement '[the soul] renders us [Italians?] more compassionate and human', but at a first glance, it leads me to infer that you actually believe in the possibility of generalized assesments of innate qualities, however only when they add to the glorification of people sharing a passport.

The soul as well as the mind, if one accepts such terminology, are equally capable of compassion as well as violence. The desire for persecution of heretics in the Middle ages, the horrific slaughters in the Colloseum fueled by bloodlust, the mindless hunt for witches, the passionately systemic eradication of Jews in the 40s, the genocidal extermination of the Hutus, rationalized racist slavery, or the structural (mis)treatment of refugees on Lampedusa, the soul and the mind, as you said, work together... and execute barbarism...

In any case, I think Cipo was onto something and that these modern pros have become a bit spoiled. I mean can you imagine the hard men of the past - a Kelly or a Martins, for example - wining about crossing some tracks or an S curve?

Funnily enough the words spring from the mouth of one of the greatest prima donnas in cycling history, the much admired, good looking, well groomed Cipo, commenting from the sideline (on the phone in his Ferrari? or collecting hefty fees to ride a stage in the ToC).

Risk assesment is something personal. Some people do bungee jumping, others wouldn't even jump from a collapsible kitchen step. Some are afraid of non poisenous spiders, while others wrestle with alligators. That's why some participate in Paris Roubaix, and others leave the TdF in fear (of injury) when the first mountains come in sight.

However, contrary to these generalized fears, ie the cobblestones of Paris-Roubaix, or hors categorie mountains, no one could have foreseen the specific conditions in Milan, because the route had never been done by anyone before. It would be preposterous to assume that GC contenders check out a circuit in Milan to prepare for the Giro, and then file a complaint. However, when a bunch of riders breaks rims in the first 2-3 laps, cars are parked halfway on the track, people freely cross the streets, after 2 stages with rather spectacular/dangerous descents, and a rather unfortunate accident, I don't see why riders are not allowed to re-asses and 'whine' about their safety.

It's not a colloseum where gladiators are forced to draw blood in order to entertain the general population, or the particular population of Milan/Italy. Riders are not slaves, owned by the spectators and are free to make up their own minds.

But hey, didn't you say that the soul renders the human more compassionate... Or is the spectator's passion/lust for racing justifiably taking over from ratio, in effect making the riders less than human, as they are seemingly denied to (re)consider their own well-being?

 

[krebs303]

I am confused

Cyclingweekly:
"Lance Armstrong and Ivan Basso have both issued public apologies for their part in Sunday's rider protest during the ninth stage of the 2009 Giro d'Italia in Milan."

Velonews:
"Lance Armstrong defended Sunday’s rider protest and called for stronger representation among the peloton to protect its interests."

Which is it?

 

[Cobblestones]

LA is such a giant of cycling that he can be on both sides at the same time.

 

[rhubroma]

Yes, I ironically embellished generalized and stereotypical assesments of the 'Mediterranean race' and projected them onto citizens of the state of Italy, as to the effect that I asserted that each and every Italian possesses these qualities innately, while seeing them confirmed by Cipo's statement.

Since I am at it, the Dutch/Scotts are stingy (who is stingier), American/French are arrogant (who is more arrogant), the Germans rude etc.

Now obviously I might be misinterpreting your statement '[the soul] renders us [Italians?] more compassionate and human', but at a first glance, it leads me to infer that you actually believe in the possibility of generalized assesments of innate qualities, however only when they add to the glorification of people sharing a passport.


Funnily enough the words spring from the mouth of one of the greatest prima donnas in cycling history, the much admired, good looking, well groomed Cipo, commenting from the sideline (on the phone in his Ferrari? or collecting hefty fees to ride a stage in the ToC).

Risk assesment is something personal. Some people do bungee jumping, others wouldn't even jump from a collapsible kitchen step. Some are afraid of non poisenous spiders, while others wrestle with alligators. That's why some participate in Paris Roubaix, and others leave the TdF in fear (of injury) when the first mountains come in sight.

However, contrary to these generalized fears, ie the cobblestones of Paris-Roubaix, or hors categorie mountains, no one could have foreseen the specific conditions in Milan, because the route had never been done by anyone before. It would be preposterous to assume that GC contenders check out a circuit in Milan to prepare for the Giro, and then file a complaint. However, when a bunch of riders breaks rims in the first 2-3 laps, cars are parked halfway on the track, people freely cross the streets, after 2 stages with rather spectacular/dangerous descents, and a rather unfortunate accident, I don't see why riders are not allowed to re-asses and 'whine' about their safety.

It's not a colloseum where gladiators are forced to draw blood in order to entertain the general population, or the particular population of Milan/Italy. Riders are not slaves, owned by the spectators and are free to make up their own minds.

But hey, didn't you say that the soul renders the human more compassionate... Or is the spectator's passion/lust for racing justifiably taking over from ratio, in effect making the riders less than human, as they are seemingly denied to (re)consider their own well-being?

Well, I'm not Italian so...I just live in Italy. My response was in regard to your idea (as inferred from your ststement) that Italians only use their emotions and are incapabale of using their brains, an idea as stupid as saying the Dutch have no sense of humor and therefore are incapable of telling a joke (or laughing at one).

Yet I'm well aware of the various Euro steriotypes, between the passionate, immoral and corrupt Latin Mediterranean folk, to the stingy, emotionless, cold barbarians of the North. The stuff of bar jokes, though with little relevance to the nuances and complexities of the living societies and cultures which they superficially portray. Now I'm not saying that the Italians aren't an emotionally based people, especially when confronted with say the Dutch, but they also have an extraordinary abiltiy to rationally analyze very complex historical, political, artistic, religious and, yes, cycling issues. The bit about "the soul" as opposed to "the mind" was merely meant to counteract what appeared to have been rather insulting statement you made to Italians, as if anything based on the inner passions was some how an underdeveloped state and socially inferior to you Northern Rationalists.

Lastly you seem to be confusing today's Italian society with the ancient Roman culture out of which it has evolved, over many, many centuries, when making references to the Colessium and the gladiator spectacles as a metaphor for the supposed dangers presented at the Milan circuit.

Remember when the ancient Romans were watching the amphitheater killing as entertainment spectacles, the germanic barbarian tribal warriors like the gauls and belgae custmarilly kept decapitated heads of fallen enemies inside the family cupboard as war trophies! I doupt that folks up in your kneck of the woods would relate to such ancient barbary any more than contemporary Italians would relate to the munera (what the ancient romans called the gladiator combats).

 

[Bala Verde]

...The stuff of bar jokes...

I am glad we agree.

Lastly you seem to be confusing today's Italian society with the ancient Roman culture out of which it has evolved, over many, many centuries, when making references to the Colessium and the gladiator spectacles as a metaphor for the supposed dangers presented at the Milan circuit.

Today's Italian society did not emerge or evolve from 'Roman culture', for it requires the identification and essentialization of something that escapes stability. Cultures are fluid, unstable and hybrid, and any attempt to reduce it to a fixed, singular identity, ie Roman culture with a number of common traits and characteristics, will result in overgeneralizations and simplifications that do aformentioned complexities injustice. The myth of a(ny) preceding culture is ingenuously devised in retrospect, always by interpreters who benefit from the identification of certain features which serve and support the make-up of the succesor society. The fact that this historical association is still being made has more to to with the obsessive tendencies of nation states to create a common history and glorify their achievements to establish a shared bond that leads into a communal future.

Therefore, if my remark about the barbarity of the colloseum has been offensive, in particular to 'Italians', they might want to reconsider any reference to Roman Culture as a historical point of origin in the past, for the purpose of maintaining that shared Italian bond. I, for one, do not believe/feel there is a link between contemporary 'Italian' society and ancient Rome, so it's beyond me how it would be offensive to anyone, aside the misguided nationalist. If the Frisians had kept decapitated heads of slain enemies in their cabinets, I would point out that their culture and social mores, have nothing to do with my contemporary 'I'. I would not feel the least insulted.

However, my reference to the Colloseum (amongst others) was not only intended to illustrate how 'the soul' is not always as benevolent as and humane as you made it look, in this case, I used it purposely to emphasise how people guided by a passion, try to force others to accept certain self assesed risks and disallow them to rebel and/or change the situation, for the mere purpose of the continuation of their entertainment. That, is flatly silly.

You mentioned other, older riders who did not complain about their 'work' or riding conditions. That again is completely besides the point. To illustrate with an analogous example, if miners 50 years ago wouldn't have complained about going down shafts, toiling in hazardous conditions, does that imply that contemporary miners are not allowed to complain about their working conditions and standards, because seemingly no one did 50 years ago?

Another example, some people (not you) seem to be resonating something that comes close to ownership of the riders. Since they, the riders, entertain us, and I am a fan, they need to stop complaining about their working conditions, because they signed up for it, and I am waiting to be entertained. Some even got upset, because they paid money to go to Milan, and watch the race, while the race never really took off. I'd say, tough luck.

It is rather painfully unrealistic to expect in any given industry, that when you purchase a product or the enjoyment of a product, you get automatic ownership over the employees who manufacture that product and start dictating how they should (have) do(ne) their job. When you get cable subscription, entertainment for which you pay, and TV actors go on strike, who are we to tell them they should get back to work, because their grievances are interfering with our entertainment schedule, or are ill found.

That's why I have no problem with riders going on strike... but hey that's only my opinion.

 

[euphrades]

I agree with the above poster.....conditions of the previous generation riders shouldn't be used to compare today's. Things are supposed to get better for everyone.

Besides I think what the riders did was the right thing. Simoni I think said it best: Simoni, another Giro overall winner, did not backpedal. "We can't accept everything without doing something about it," he maintained. "Fourteen riders broke their wheels on the first lap [of the Milan circuit]. We are at the Tour of Italy, not in Paris-Roubaix. We all agreed [to neutralize the stage]."

I like Basso, but he has to learn to stop trying to please everyone and pick a side.

 

[Leopejo]

I like Basso, but he has to learn to stop trying to please everyone and pick a side.

He is a humble guy, and more humble since his comeback. "Those others have cycled in the past 2 years, I don't, so I am not entitled to make these kind of decisions" (re: Sunday's protest).

When joining Liquigas he didn't want to step on anyone's toes: "I am a newcomer here, Pellizzotti instead fared well last year at the Giro, etc. etc.".

I hope for them that they have precise plans and a hierarchy in the team, and that actions like yesterday's have definite goals, or it could turn into a mess.

 

[rhubroma]

I am glad we agree.



Today's Italian society did not emerge or evolve from 'Roman culture', for it requires the identification and essentialization of something that escapes stability. Cultures are fluid, unstable and hybrid, and any attempt to reduce it to a fixed, singular identity, ie Roman culture with a number of common traits and characteristics, will result in overgeneralizations and simplifications that do aformentioned complexities injustice. The myth of a(ny) preceding culture is ingenuously devised in retrospect, always by interpreters who benefit from the identification of certain features which serve and support the make-up of the succesor society. The fact that this historical association is still being made has more to to with the obsessive tendencies of nation states to create a common history and glorify their achievements to establish a shared bond that leads into a communal future.

Therefore, if my remark about the barbarity of the colloseum has been offensive, in particular to 'Italians', they might want to reconsider any reference to Roman Culture as a historical point of origin in the past, for the purpose of maintaining that shared Italian bond. I, for one, do not believe/feel there is a link between contemporary 'Italian' society and ancient Rome, so it's beyond me how it would be offensive to anyone, aside the misguided nationalist. If the Frisians had kept decapitated heads of slain enemies in their cabinets, I would point out that their culture and social mores, have nothing to do with my contemporary 'I'. I would not feel the least insulted.

However, my reference to the Colloseum (amongst others) was not only intended to illustrate how 'the soul' is not always as benevolent as and humane as you made it look, in this case, I used it purposely to emphasise how people guided by a passion, try to force others to accept certain self assesed risks and disallow them to rebel and/or change the situation, for the mere purpose of the continuation of their entertainment. That, is flatly silly.

You mentioned other, older riders who did not complain about their 'work' or riding conditions. That again is completely besides the point. To illustrate with an analogous example, if miners 50 years ago wouldn't have complained about going down shafts, toiling in hazardous conditions, does that imply that contemporary miners are not allowed to complain about their working conditions and standards, because seemingly no one did 50 years ago?

Another example, some people (not you) seem to be resonating something that comes close to ownership of the riders. Since they, the riders, entertain us, and I am a fan, they need to stop complaining about their working conditions, because they signed up for it, and I am waiting to be entertained. Some even got upset, because they paid money to go to Milan, and watch the race, while the race never really took off. I'd say, tough luck.

It is rather painfully unrealistic to expect in any given industry, that when you purchase a product or the enjoyment of a product, you get automatic ownership over the employees who manufacture that product and start dictating how they should (have) do(ne) their job. When you get cable subscription, entertainment for which you pay, and TV actors go on strike, who are we to tell them they should get back to work, because their grievances are interfering with our entertainment schedule, or are ill found.

That's why I have no problem with riders going on strike... but hey that's only my opinion.

Well, to say that modern Italian society has not evolved from ancient Roman civilization, is a complete negation of chronology and historical continuum. It's like saying that the Christian liturgical calendar and priesthood has not evolved from the feast days of the ancient Roman pagan one and its pontifices and sacerdotes, or that Italiano isn't a romance tongue, or that the modern city of Rome has no connection whatsoever with the urban planning of the ancient Roman city. That's just, frankly, absurd man. Sure the new Christian culture and the impact of the germanic migrators has, and in some significant ways, both distorted the connection, just as they have enriched Italian civilization in as many other ways. But to state that only a nationalist sentiment would try to create what history has brought about manifestly, is a false dialectic put forth by intellectuals of a post-modernist philosophy which I frankly find unsupportable.

I think, in any case, what I was getting at about the Milan course (let's get back to that, right), is that its so called dangers were exaggerated by this generartion of riders who seem (and Cipollini stated this too) to have gotten all worked up about what in the past was considered nothing and in this they seemed spoiled little whiners.

Comparing a tricky set of tracks and difficult curve to negotiate with work conditions in the mines is a rather far fetched notion. I think in the contemporary culture we have all become a little too over conditioned by an all to excessive fear of death which has translated in the Western World (and especially in the US where litigation has reached unseen levels of shamefulness) into a paranoia over "SAFTEY." It's gotten to the point where we can't do anything anymore, from driving a car, to riding a bike to practically a normal walk down the figgen street, without first obsessing about safety. And the damage we do to our children by passing on our cowardlyness! Man is a coward and can't accept his own mortality. We only fool ourselves into believing that safety and our technologies will make us immortal. And that we actually have the gall to think we are free. Nobody's free anymore. Too many lawyers and too much God damn SAFETY!

Like I said, Kelly would have just ridden that damn circuit and not whined about it. By contrast, these spoiled guys whine about everything, litterally everything.

Thank you, I feel better now.

 

[Leopejo]

Today's Italian society did not emerge or evolve from 'Roman culture', for it requires the identification and essentialization of something that escapes stability. Cultures are fluid, unstable and hybrid, and any attempt to reduce it to a fixed, singular identity, ie Roman culture with a number of common traits and characteristics, will result in overgeneralizations and simplifications that do aformentioned complexities injustice. The myth of a(ny) preceding culture is ingenuously devised in retrospect, always by interpreters who benefit from the identification of certain features which serve and support the make-up of the succesor society. The fact that this historical association is still being made has more to to with the obsessive tendencies of nation states to create a common history and glorify their achievements to establish a shared bond that leads into a communal future.

Well well. Don't dismiss cultural heritages so easily.

Therefore, if my remark about the barbarity of the colloseum has been offensive, in particular to 'Italians', they might want to reconsider any reference to Roman Culture as a historical point of origin in the past, for the purpose of maintaining that shared Italian bond. I, for one, do not believe/feel there is a link between contemporary 'Italian' society and ancient Rome

No, it wasn't offensive I think. Still dismissing all Roman Culture is too easy. Sure, in the "dark" high medieval times there was a tenuous link to it, but Rome was the base for the rebirth of every cultural aspect. It's not by chance that modern Italian is much more similar to Latin that the vulgar they spoke in early medieval times. We are a product of our society, which is always evolving but always traces back in the past.

so it's beyond me how it would be offensive to anyone, aside the misguided nationalist. If the Frisians had kept decapitated heads of slain enemies in their cabinets, I would point out that their culture and social mores, have nothing to do with my contemporary 'I'. I would not feel the least insulted.

It's not offensive, and not relevant.

However, my reference to the Colloseum (amongst others) was not only intended to illustrate how 'the soul' is not always as benevolent as and humane as you made it look, in this case, I used it purposely to emphasise how people guided by a passion, try to force others to accept certain self assesed risks and disallow them to rebel and/or change the situation, for the mere purpose of the continuation of their entertainment. That, is flatly silly.

Oh, that is done in the name of reason more often than in the name of the soul.

You mentioned other, older riders who did not complain about their 'work' or riding conditions. That again is completely besides the point. To illustrate with an analogous example, if miners 50 years ago wouldn't have complained about going down shafts, toiling in hazardous conditions, does that imply that contemporary miners are not allowed to complain about their working conditions and standards, because seemingly no one did 50 years ago?

We are not talking about Coppi's domestiques (Coppi's brother died on tram railways, by the way), but about the senators in the peloton. As an aside, your image of Cipollini is quite distorted, in my quite humble opinion.

Another example, some people (not you) seem to be resonating something that comes close to ownership of the riders. Since they, the riders, entertain us, and I am a fan, they need to stop complaining about their working conditions, because they signed up for it, and I am waiting to be entertained. Some even got upset, because they paid money to go to Milan, and watch the race, while the race never really took off. I'd say, tough luck.

Quite a strawman, isn't it?

It is rather painfully unrealistic to expect in any given industry, that when you purchase a product or the enjoyment of a product, you get automatic ownership over the employees who manufacture that product and start dictating how they should (have) do(ne) their job. When you get cable subscription, entertainment for which you pay, and TV actors go on strike, who are we to tell them they should get back to work, because their grievances are interfering with our entertainment schedule, or are ill found.

Actually, cycling is one of the sports where riders are most listened to. If they point out dangers or other problems, usually action is taken. Last year they complained about too long transfers? Good, let's cut tomorrow's stage shorter.

That's why I have no problem with riders going on strike... but hey that's only my opinion.

Not a problem with that, as long as it is justified.

 

[Bala Verde]

Well, to say that modern Italian society has not evolved from ancient Roman civilization, is a complete negation of chronology and historical continuum.

That is exactly what I was negating, historical continuum. History is not a natural series of events that neatly line up, but is a series of events constructed (spun like a story, a book of fiction) in a particular order and guided by a particular interpretation, done by historians, and especially historicists. Moreover, they emphasised the dialectic method to resolve 'historical' occurences, explain the continuation as well as breaks/revolutions of certain 'identifiable' periods in time. In their hubris, they feel they are capable of determining a so called evolutionary pathway of, for example, a nation, based on reductionist accounts of occurences that took place in the past, stressing events/artifices/thoughts that support their continuum, and downplaying the contradictions that seemingly distort such stable interpretations.

To illustrate, in the Netherlands, but I suppose in many other European countries, politicians have gone at greath lenghts to stress the greatness of 'THE Enlightenment' mostly in response to a perceived danger from 'backward' arabs. 'We' have Enlightenment, and observe how wonderful it was (often used keywords: democracy, bill of rights, splendor, economic growth, capitalism, wealth, inventions and great ideas), while dismissing the contradictory and simultaneous forces amongst others slavery, colonialism, political violence, exploitation (of white sailors, indentured servants) the emergence of racism as we know it. When we take a closer look at those great minds and their ideas, such as Voltaire, Rousseau, J.S. Mill, Herder, Hegel, Kant, there certainly is darker side. In reality, there was no unison of mind about what 'THE' Enlightenment was, as a matter of fact, many intellectuals were fiercely debating its meaning, and/or how they should go forward into the future (E. Burke comes to mind). To talk about THE Enlightenment, and identifying it as stable, fixed, and obviously positive entity, we are deluding ourselves, and jeopardizing an open argument about who and what we are now.

But to state that only a nationalist sentiment would try to create what history has brought about manifestly, is a false dialectic put forth by intellectuals of a post-modernist philosophy which I frankly find unsupportable.

Not only nationalist ideology, but since we were having a conversation about contemporary Italy, as well as Roman Culture, which were linked together based on a supposed historical continuum, I merely used nationalism to account for this particular association. In this regard, I also fail to identify any 'dialectic' relation. Most post-modern intellectuals (for whatever that might mean) explicitly reject dialectics, since it presupposes the existence of two singularly

I think in the contemporary culture we have all become a little too over conditioned by an all to excessive fear of death which has translated in the Western World (and especially in the US where litigation has reached unseen levels of shamefulness) into a paranoia over "SAFTEY." It's gotten to the point where we can't do anything anymore, from driving a car, to riding a bike to practically a normal walk down the figgen street, without first obsessing about safety. And the damage we do to our children by passing on our cowardlyness! Man is a coward and can't accept his own mortality. We only fool ourselves into believing that safety and our technologies will make us immortal. And that we actually have the gall to think we are free. Nobody's free anymore. Too many lawyers and too much God damn SAFETY!

I agree and on a lighter note here.: Man's concern for safety is especially prevalent in the US, with their knack for litigation and law suits, and more then hefty damages. Robert Gesink put it nicely after his visit to CA, for the ToC. When they rented a car, he had to 'sign his life away' filling out a stack of paperwork, rental companies disclaimers for damages and liability. He also noticed that even the side mirror had little stickers 'objects may be closer then the actually appear' to anticipate law suits in case of 'misjudgements' while operating the vehicle. On the other hand, the dutch, research suggests, have the most (diverse set of) insurances per capita. They/we are overinsured...

In response to your second comment, that man's not free anymore, I have to disappoint you. IMO, man has never been free at all, and due to the limited space available here, I think it's best to refer to Heidegger who gives away some cues. Some key ideas would be being shackled by 'technologies' as well as 'history' and 'language'. We fool ourselves into believing that we are free, or have liberated ourselves, and again, we base that on historical interpretation that we once belonged to a 'natural state of being', in which we acted like animals, or savages, or were ruled by monarchs and aristocrats. The present is always better then the past, but the future really holds Utopia.

Like I said, Kelly would have just ridden that damn circuit and not whined about it. By contrast, these spoiled guys whine about everything, litterally everything.

Thank you, I feel better now.

You are more then welcome!

 

[Animal]

Interesting discussion.

I like this forum! You can develop a coherent argument here.

Try that on veloriders.co.uk, and you get slagged off.

 

[Bala Verde]

Well well. Don't dismiss cultural heritages so easily

I merely highlighted that what you are calling 'cultural heritage' is a constructed/authored and authorized account of the past and, to put it bluntly and very unthoughtfully, contains as much or as little truth as a comic of Donald Duck, the bible or a book written by Plato.

However, I am dismissing the notion of a particular interpretation of the past as the only, singular and true account of that past.

We are a product of our society, which is always evolving but always traces back in the past.

The definition of 'our' society springs from an account of the past that consolidates and reinforces the defining parametes of the society 'we' currently (want to) belong to. To illustrate quickly, and way to simplified. Most notably, 'our' society is intricately wound up with the notion of spatial belonging and fixity. This geographical fixation of a society is obviously strenghtened by making/maintaining Rome as the center point of Italy, or Amsterdam of the Netherlands. It makes us believe that 'we' have a right to be '(t)here' because 'we' seemingly always have been '(t)here'. Cultural heritage forms the evidence of 'our' belonging to a community, spatially as well as psychologically, and therefore establishes 'us' as a community.

However, what is 'chosen' as cultural heritage, depends on the community one envisions to belong to. (Classical) Latin, and Italian are very similar you say, and different from vulgar latin in the Middle Ages. Linguistic communities and geographical fixation often go hand in hand, and are reinforcing the bonds of the community as well. 'We' are 'Italians', 'here' because this is where 'Latin' was originally spoken and that closely resembles 'Italian'. Why, one can ask, wasn't a larger 'European' community envisioned, since vulgar Latin, or even Classical Latin, was spoken across many parts of Europe. How come the current community is reduced/limited to the boot that constitues Italy. How come contemporary lower class Italians willingly identify with ancient Rome and are perhaps proud of the Classic Latin language, with its ancient associations, while Classical Latin was a written language, reserved for use of the elite.

For arguments sake, suppose 'our' society was defined by the inclusion only of long haired people and the exclusion of the bald. I'd reckon 'our' cultural heritage defining 'our' contemporary society, would have traced back to Samson in the philistines, and perhaps, since the growing of long hair is not limited to a space, 'our' community could have extend over the world. We would call a native Indian with long hair as much a 'brother' or 'compatriot' as well as someone who we currently identify as dutchman, or Italian, as long as they have long hair, while we would refuse to allow a neighbour to our community and accept him as a 'compatriot' because he is bald...

We are not talking about Coppi's domestiques (Coppi's brother died on tram railways, by the way), but about the senators in the peloton. As an aside, your image of Cipollini is quite distorted, in my quite humble opinion.

I don't see how someone's position, whether a domestique, a miner or senator, should affect our judgement about their attempts to improve their or change their working conditions. Are you saying that a miner is more allowed to protest than a senator, or perhaps a doctor?

About Cipo, yes, I flagrantly misrepresented his image, when I said that he was a well groomed, wealthy, much admired ex-cyclist, who rode a stage in teh ToC for which he collected a high fee, and who commented from the sideline. The only thing I am actually uncertain of is the brand of car he owns/drives. Obviously I applied this tactic for 'poisoning the well' reasons.

However, when someone initiates an attack by questioning someone's credentials or paints a certain picture of those he disagrees with, one is certainly allowed to point out the hypocritical nature of that attack. I was under the impression that Cipo somehow asserted that the riders on strike, are prima donnas, which I believe to be a misrepresentation, and is an argument of the type 'poisening the well' (questioning their motives, instead of engaging with their arguments). However, correct me if I am wrong, because my Italian is not good enough.

Since I was under that impression (Cipo intentionally misrepresenting and ridiculing the image of protesting cyclists as prima donnas), I don't see why one is not allowed to counter any such argument, by ironically misrepresenting the image of Cipo, in order to riducule his statement or expression of dissatisfaction.

Quite a strawman, isn't it?

Not so much. As you are well aware, a straw man is an argumentative technique, as well as a logical fallacy, to deliberately distort an opponent's (pro)position and attack that false (pro)position to refute the conclusion of the argument made. Since I was summarizing posts of other posters in this and other threads, and I even mentioned that the discussant was not in anyway affiliated with the newly introduced discussion point, a whole new dimension was intentionally added to the conversation I was having with the poster, in order to go beyond a repetition of moves. In other words, how can I distort someone's position if I indicate, that he has never actually held or expressed that position. To paint a picture that conflates the introduction of an entirely new argument with an allegation of a straw man seems like a rethorical technique in itself.

On top of that, I actually engaged with one of his arguments head on by drawing the analogy with the 'miners'. An analogy he refused to accept, because he stressed that the dangers were incomparable. Since he argued that older riders never complained, my case was not about the absolute/actual dangers (jumping tram tracks v. labouring deep underground), but about the 'right' to question ones current working conditions, regardless of how those working conditions (dangerous or not) were once commonly accepted or remained undisputed, for whatever reason.

Actually, cycling is one of the sports where riders are most listened to. If they point out dangers or other problems, usually action is taken. Last year they complained about too long transfers? Good, let's cut tomorrow's stage shorter.

I am glad to hear that their grievances are actually being dealt with as opposed to many other employees who barely get to imrpove their conditions. I didn't even know that cyclists were actually succesful in their attempts. I always thought they had to go by what the organizers/teams served them.

Not a problem with that, as long as it is justified.

I am doing my best.

 

[rhubroma]

That is exactly what I was negating, historical continuum. History is not a natural series of events that neatly line up, but is a series of events constructed (spun like a story, a book of fiction) in a particular order and guided by a particular interpretation, done by historians, and especially historicists. Moreover, they emphasised the dialectic method to resolve 'historical' occurences, explain the continuation as well as breaks/revolutions of certain 'identifiable' periods in time. In their hubris, they feel they are capable of determining a so called evolutionary pathway of, for example, a nation, based on reductionist accounts of occurences that took place in the past, stressing events/artifices/thoughts that support their continuum, and downplaying the contradictions that seemingly distort such stable interpretations.

To illustrate, in the Netherlands, but I suppose in many other European countries, politicians have gone at greath lenghts to stress the greatness of 'THE Enlightenment' mostly in response to a perceived danger from 'backward' arabs. 'We' have Enlightenment, and observe how wonderful it was (often used keywords: democracy, bill of rights, splendor, economic growth, capitalism, wealth, inventions and great ideas), while dismissing the contradictory and simultaneous forces amongst others slavery, colonialism, political violence, exploitation (of white sailors, indentured servants) the emergence of racism as we know it. When we take a closer look at those great minds and their ideas, such as Voltaire, Rousseau, J.S. Mill, Herder, Hegel, Kant, there certainly is darker side. In reality, there was no unison of mind about what 'THE' Enlightenment was, as a matter of fact, many intellectuals were fiercely debating its meaning, and/or how they should go forward into the future (E. Burke comes to mind). To talk about THE Enlightenment, and identifying it as stable, fixed, and obviously positive entity, we are deluding ourselves, and jeopardizing an open argument about who and what we are now.



Not only nationalist ideology, but since we were having a conversation about contemporary Italy, as well as Roman Culture, which were linked together based on a supposed historical continuum, I merely used nationalism to account for this particular association. In this regard, I also fail to identify any 'dialectic' relation. Most post-modern intellectuals (for whatever that might mean) explicitly reject dialectics, since it presupposes the existence of two singularly



I agree and on a lighter note here.: Man's concern for safety is especially prevalent in the US, with their knack for litigation and law suits, and more then hefty damages. Robert Gesink put it nicely after his visit to CA, for the ToC. When they rented a car, he had to 'sign his life away' filling out a stack of paperwork, rental companies disclaimers for damages and liability. He also noticed that even the side mirror had little stickers 'objects may be closer then the actually appear' to anticipate law suits in case of 'misjudgements' while operating the vehicle. On the other hand, the dutch, research suggests, have the most (diverse set of) insurances per capita. They/we are overinsured...

In response to your second comment, that man's not free anymore, I have to disappoint you. IMO, man has never been free at all, and due to the limited space available here, I think it's best to refer to Heidegger who gives away some cues. Some key ideas would be being shackled by 'technologies' as well as 'history' and 'language'. We fool ourselves into believing that we are free, or have liberated ourselves, and again, we base that on historical interpretation that we once belonged to a 'natural state of being', in which we acted like animals, or savages, or were ruled by monarchs and aristocrats. The present is always better then the past, but the future really holds Utopia.



You are more then welcome!

Bala Verde you are out of your mind!! But I truly like you...