How's this for unrepentant?

[JMBeaushrimp]

On a few points, Elite leval sport cannot exist outside of the society in which it takes place.

Your thoughts on "true" human nature are basicly the Raymond Dart "Killer Ape" theory of human evolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_ape_theory now widely rejected by scollers.

You probably are an Idealist but dont let the xxxxx drive ya down ... ...it`s Idealism that drives change...best served with a healthy dose of humanistic understanding rather than at the barall of a gun. .

I understand that sport cannot exist outside of society, my contention is that it needs to be maintained WITHIN society for the above-stated reasons, and that that is a component of society with inherent value.

I'm not sure I mentioned 'true' human nature, but I like your reference to Dart. Add a little Glendon Schubert (evolutionary politics), Gwynne Dyer (war and society), Bernard-Henry Levy (natural evil), Nietzsche (ubermensch), and even a bit of Plato and you're getting close. Dart's contentions may be rejected by schollars (or scollers), but some of the key points maintain their relevancy.

There's no 'probably' about me being an idealist. I am an unadulterated idealistic ***. Too much time racing bikes, too much time in school, and too much time interacting with racers (ex-DS) has pushed me to be a voice of idealism on this site (self-appointed, I must add).

You're right, and I really hope that idealism CAN drive change. That's pretty much my whole point...

 

[Darryl Webster]

I understand that sport cannot exist outside of society, my contention is that it needs to be maintained WITHIN society for the above-stated reasons, and that that is a component of society with inherent value.

I'm not sure I mentioned 'true' human nature, but I like your reference to Dart. Add a little Glendon Schubert (evolutionary politics), Gwynne Dyer (war and society), Bernard-Henry Levy (natural evil), Nietzsche (ubermensch), and even a bit of Plato and you're getting close. Dart's contentions may be rejected by schollars (or scollers), but some of the key points maintain their relevancy.

There's no 'probably' about me being an idealist. I am an unadulterated idealistic ***. Too much time racing bikes, too much time in school, and too much time interacting with racers (ex-DS) has pushed me to be a voice of idealism on this site (self-appointed, I must add).

You're right, and I really hope that idealism CAN drive change. That's pretty much my whole point...

I`d say the key point of Darts relevency are social perspective...there are those who seek to excuse war and those who seek to stop it.
Dart came up with a theory that made many think of war as an aspect of our nature when in fact it`s an aspect of socialisation.
When Orwell sugested serious sport is like war fare without bullets he was bang on the money. Serious sport is exactly that...so the question is, is that an ideal worth chasing, holding up as a vertue, an exemplifier and roll model?...serious sport = the attitude of war?

 

[Oldman]

[QUOTE=JMBeaushrimp;363332]I understand that sport cannot exist outside of society, my contention is that it needs to be maintained WITHIN society for the above-stated reasons, and that that is a component of society with inherent value.
There's no 'probably' about me being an idealist. I am an unadulterated idealistic ***. Too much time racing bikes, too much time in school, and too much time interacting with racers (ex-DS) has pushed me to be a voice of idealism on this site (self-appointed, I must add).

You're right, and I really hope that idealism CAN drive change. That's pretty much my whole point...[/QUOTE]


"Society" or such as the order of the minute may be; is the problem and you can't hang it on those over 35. Sport has generally been an extension of play but meant as a representation of the best spirit and atheletic ability one can participate with. If you have a genetic disadvantage you play with what you have. If someone is born with an advantage, they have the representative spirit/ethics to develop that talent; they rightfully deserve to represent the zenith of accomplishment. Not someone that has a bigger checkbook or ability to manipulate the governance of the sport. That the discussion is turning to degrees of equalization is a societal justification and the root of the problem. You want sport pure it has to be free of the creeping degrees of advantage that aren't available to everyone, other wise call it what it is: enhanced sport and franchise it accordingly.
Get rid of TUEs and excuses and let the kids play. If you're sick, get well and then play.
Crying about the impact on professional sports prolongs the lie that is what much of big time broadcast sporting events have become: spectacle. If you want spectacle go with ChrisE's open format and call it what it is. This b*tch session is about participants in the cycling world knowlingly lying to themselves and us about their purity and right to money and fame.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I`d say the key point of Darts relevency are social perspective...there are those who seek to excuse war and those who seek to stop it.
Dart came up with a theory that made many think of war as an aspect of our nature when in fact it`s an aspect of socialisation.
When Orwell sugested serious sport is like war fare without bullets he was bang on the money. Serious sport is exactly that...so the question is, is that an ideal worth chasing, holding up as a vertue, an exemplifier and roll model?...serious sport = the attitude of war?

Dart's not the only one to think that war is an aspect of human nature. Check out Gwynne Dyer's "War". War's been around a lot longer than culture and/or society. Not saying it's right, just saying it's inexrticable. It's part of the why and how we're here. ALL of our ancestors were cannibals as well at some point. That's a trip...

Sport as an expression of our inherent urge/need to wage war is manifestly worth chasing. It allows an outlet for something neccesary in an atavistic sense without actually having to kill people.

This comes back to my argument that it should kept clean for all the social reasons/values we've talked about. It's the last vestige of true meritocracy we've got (apart from picking pointless wars), and it's got a lot of inherent lessons and values wrapped up in it.

If I wasn't so entrenced in cycling I'd probably be picking arguments at a different locale, but with the same motif. This is the sport I love more than any other, and can see how it can manifest a lot of great qualities that all humans can appreciate...

Back to the idealism...

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

[QUOTE=JMBeaushrimp;363332]I understand that sport cannot exist outside of society, my contention is that it needs to be maintained WITHIN society for the above-stated reasons, and that that is a component of society with inherent value.
There's no 'probably' about me being an idealist. I am an unadulterated idealistic ***. Too much time racing bikes, too much time in school, and too much time interacting with racers (ex-DS) has pushed me to be a voice of idealism on this site (self-appointed, I must add).

You're right, and I really hope that idealism CAN drive change. That's pretty much my whole point...

"Society" or such as the order of the minute may be; is the problem and you can't hang it on those over 35. Sport has generally been an extension of play but meant as a representation of the best spirit and atheletic ability one can participate with. If you have a genetic disadvantage you play with what you have. If someone is born with an advantage, they have the representative spirit/ethics to develop that talent; they rightfully deserve to represent the zenith of accomplishment. Not someone that has a bigger checkbook or ability to manipulate the governance of the sport. That the discussion is turning to degrees of equalization is a societal justification and the root of the problem. You want sport pure it has to be free of the creeping degrees of advantage that aren't available to everyone, other wise call it what it is: enhanced sport and franchise it accordingly.
Get rid of TUEs and excuses and let the kids play. If you're sick, get well and then play.
Crying about the impact on professional sports prolongs the lie that is what much of big time broadcast sporting events have become: spectacle. If you want spectacle go with ChrisE's open format and call it what it is. This b*tch session is about participants in the cycling world knowlingly lying to themselves and us about their purity and right to money and fame.[/QUOTE]

Right on, Oldman. I think...

I'm not sure what 'the creeping degrees of advantage that aren't available to everyone' refers to. That's sort of my point to exclude doping. I'm not talking about everyone being forced to ride on wooden bikes with carved stone wheels...

Care to clarify? Just for my own enlightenment, not to pick a fight...

 

[Oldman]

"Society" or such as the order of the minute may be; is the problem and you can't hang it on those over 35. Sport has generally been an extension of play but meant as a representation of the best spirit and atheletic ability one can participate with. If you have a genetic disadvantage you play with what you have. If someone is born with an advantage, they have the representative spirit/ethics to develop that talent; they rightfully deserve to represent the zenith of accomplishment. Not someone that has a bigger checkbook or ability to manipulate the governance of the sport. That the discussion is turning to degrees of equalization is a societal justification and the root of the problem. You want sport pure it has to be free of the creeping degrees of advantage that aren't available to everyone, other wise call it what it is: enhanced sport and franchise it accordingly.
Get rid of TUEs and excuses and let the kids play. If you're sick, get well and then play.
Crying about the impact on professional sports prolongs the lie that is what much of big time broadcast sporting events have become: spectacle. If you want spectacle go with ChrisE's open format and call it what it is. This b*tch session is about participants in the cycling world knowlingly lying to themselves and us about their purity and right to money and fame.

Right on, Oldman. I think...

I'm not sure what 'the creeping degrees of advantage that aren't available to everyone' refers to. That's sort of my point to exclude doping. I'm not talking about everyone being forced to ride on wooden bikes with carved stone wheels...

Care to clarify? Just for my own enlightenment, not to pick a fight...[/QUOTE]

We agree and by "Creeping" it was a reference to any acceptance of "levels" of drug use to allow cyclists to perform. I used to be less rigid on the subject but after having doctors prescribe inhalants and low level steriods for asthma I only experienced during allergy season and while racing my mind was changed. The doctors were the first to offer up that I was not gaining an advantage, merely equalizing my "disadvantage". Again, I only experienced this "disadvantage" in the early season. Largely through discussions on these forums and my own unease with taking medication just to race my own opinion became simpler: don't take anything to race. If I couldn't hang during the early season it would be just training. If I couldn't hang at all I should just ride for fun. As an ideal it seemed really simple and acceptable for me.
As for equipment; if it's available to all and within the weight limits the toys add to the fun. If something emerges technologically that fundamentally changes the sport it could be dealt with.

 

[TubularBills]

I`d say the key point of Darts relevency are social perspective...there are those who seek to excuse war and those who seek to stop it.
Dart came up with a theory that made many think of war as an aspect of our nature when in fact it`s an aspect of socialisation.
When Orwell sugested serious sport is like war fare without bullets he was bang on the money. Serious sport is exactly that...so the question is, is that an ideal worth chasing, holding up as a vertue, an exemplifier and roll model?...serious sport = the attitude of war?

"Orwell suggested serious sport is like warfare without bullets."

If we're going to run with this analogy/comparison - it is perhaps important to analyze it.

Wars are most often fought for some sort of economic gain, resources or ideology. In sports it seems to focus on economic gain - a winning team or athlete is worth more than a losing team or athlete; And an amateur has a much greater chance of becoming a professional if they outperform the other amateurs.

In war the victor seeks any and all competitive advantages - i.e. a superior force, superior technology, superior intelligence, and/or covert operations and the element of surprise. Usually these elements are controlled by the wealthier nation state.

Considering the stakes in Pro Cycling - I submit that the motivations have become purely economic and are far removed from any virtuous or ethical mandates. The sport is about victories, sponsorships and maximizing your sponsors Return on Investment and for the riders, endorsements and maximizing earning potential over a limited and finite career.

In addition, the teams and riders have become so sophisticated in training and in race communications - strategies and tactics have been equalized with, of course, some exceptions.

In this environment the best funded teams win - better riders, better bikes, more time in the wind tunnels, more efficient and organized training, better and larger support crews, systems, vehicles, training camps, travel arrangements, etc.

But, in a world of multiple well funded teams with similarity and equality, it is then reduced to better "Doctors" and "Programs" focused on the richest highest stake events, GT's, Monuments and Classics. With those teams rewarded by high sponsorship dollars and therefore more access to all of the above. In a self perpetuating cycle:

The governing bodies are the corrupt warlords exerting tithes

The Owners, Sponsors and Doctors are the war profiteers

The DS's are the Generals, and will do anything to preserve their sponsors

The Riders are Special Forces, with the additional Training and Superior "gear" - trying to maximize career earnings, before an untimely injury, doping positive or simply the passage of time, kills their career.

i.e. Pro Cycling is War and War is Hell, unfortunately like any well established corruption, dismantling it is equally vicious.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

"Orwell suggested serious sport is like warfare without bullets."

If we're going to run with this analogy/comparison - it is perhaps important to analyze it.

Wars are most often fought for some sort of economic gain, resources or ideology. In sports it seems to focus on economic gain - a winning team or athlete is worth more than a losing team or athlete; And an amateur has a much greater chance of becoming a professional if they outperform the other amateurs.

In war the victor seeks any and all competitive advantages - i.e. a superior force, superior technology, superior intelligence, and/or covert operations and the element of surprise. Usually these elements are controlled by the wealthier nation state.

Considering the stakes in Pro Cycling - I submit that the motivations have become purely economic and are far removed from any virtuous or ethical mandates. The sport is about victories, sponsorships and maximizing your sponsors Return on Investment and for the riders, endorsements and maximizing earning potential over a limited and finite career.

In addition, the teams and riders have become so sophisticated in training and in race communications - strategies and tactics have been equalized with, of course, some exceptions.

In this environment the best funded teams win - better riders, better bikes, more time in the wind tunnels, more efficient and organized training, better and larger support crews, systems, vehicles, training camps, travel arrangements, etc.

But, in a world of multiple well funded teams with similarity and equality, it is then reduced to better "Doctors" and "Programs" focused on the richest highest stake events, GT's, Monuments and Classics. With those teams rewarded by high sponsorship dollars and therefore more access to all of the above. In a self perpetuating cycle:

The governing bodies are the corrupt warlords exerting tithes

The Owners, Sponsors and Doctors are the war profiteers

The DS's are the Generals, and will do anything to preserve their sponsors

The Riders are Special Forces, with the additional Training and Superior "gear" - trying to maximize career earnings, before an untimely injury, doping positive or simply the passage of time, kills their career.

i.e. Pro Cycling is War and War is Hell, unfortunately like any well established corruption, dismantling it is equally vicious.

I think Orwell's point was to show the social love of battle and it being explicated through sport. But, the heavy milita-centic analogy is well taken.

As to the viciousness of dismantling... Bring it on! I want (guilty) blood up to my knees!

Well, now I'm sounding even more crazy than normal...

 

[buckwheat]

There's no 'probably' about me being an idealist. I am an unadulterated idealistic ***. Too much time racing bikes, too much time in school, and too much time interacting with racers (ex-DS) has pushed me to be a voice of idealism on this site (self-appointed, I must add).

You're right, and I really hope that idealism CAN drive change. That's pretty much my whole point...

Keep Hope alive! I'm with you brother.