Radio Revolt

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloFidelis said:
No, What will affect those lesser names of the sport is not having well sponsored teams to move up to. Sponsors want radios. They want as little as possible left to freak misfortune. They are looking for good investments, not risky opportunities.

As far as debating goes; you're telling me that you want to debate with a Pro, from the comfort of your couch, whether or not he feel's safer on the road and moving in the peloton, and the caravan with radios rather than without. Is that what I hear you saying? Because that was the original question. It has nothing to do with you ability post your opinion like the rest of us, and whether you're right or wrong, so please curb your dogma on that issue, and save the self righteous BS for another day.

Who are they to say? They are the guys with their asses on the line, they are the only ones that should have a say. If Coppi or Anquetil, or Merckx could have had this technology they would have. And they would say "F@ck Off" louder than anyone if you tried to take it away.

If you could somehow prove statistically this lame argument about their opinion of safety; who gives a sh!t! They don't feel a need to give this up and they shouldn't have to, any more than any other technology introduced into the sport in the last twenty years.

As far as disregarding their fans; they're not. Half of the fans posting here are against radios, the other half is not. Collectively we are less than a statistical rounding error. If you take a global poll, this is a non issue for the majority of fans, so unfortunately old school in this case, does not rule.

And asking VDV if radio contact might have kept him from crashing makes about as much sense as asking if you'd still have an opinion without the internet. If you want to debate the issue with intelligent comment, be my guest. Don't label an argument weak just because you have run out of things to say. That, my friend is Chicken Sh!t. You can do better.
You use a lot of words to say nothing.

There are riders who didn't think the radio ban was dangerous at all. Who are you to argue with them? See, the whole debate thing exists on more than one level for the both of us.

As to sponsorship, I guess you don't understand that they sponsor for marketing purposes. They don't spend money on riders, they spend money on human billboards. Without consumers to watch, you get no money. They couldn't care less about the health and welfare of the riders. If this was all a race off of a cliff into a sea of razorblades, and people would watch, they would sponsor it. They care fuck all about anything but a return on their investment.

Add to that the ridiculous idea that not being able to talk to the DS in the car endangers their lives, and what you have is an argument that merely allows you to think you are backed by all of the riders in the peloton, and therefore are part of them. You are just a fan. You and I have an equal amount of actual experience riding GT's. None. There are years upon years of cycling history that suggests that riding without radios is safe. You have much fewer that in no way show things are safer because of them unless you know of some study we don't know about. If so, its put up or shut up time, post it. Otherwise, all any of us (fans and riders) have is OPINION. Only my opinion is backed by far more historical evidence than is yours. Call it "chicken shit" if you want, but that is just tough guy talk, and I have little to no respect for it.
 
Jul 3, 2009
62
0
0
VeloFidelis said:
They don't feel a need to give this up and they shouldn't have to, any more than any other technology introduced into the sport in the last twenty years.
You mean like all of the aerodynamically superior gear they've been forced to give up? And the praying mantis TT position? And having to artifically add weight to their bikes to get them up to 6.8kg?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
UCI Rules, Chapter III, Section 2:
(Subsection 3) Technical innovations

No technical innovation regarding anything used, worn or carried by any rider or other license holder during a race (bicycles, equipment mounted on them, acces-sories, helmets, clothing, means of communication, etc.) may be used until authorised by the UCI Executive Committee. Requests for approval shall be submitted to the UCI before 31st August of any year, accompanied by all necessary documentation. If authorised , the inno-vation will be permitted only as from 1st January of the following year.

Authorisation shall refer solely to the fact that the innovation will be acceptable from a sporting point of view.
 
VeloFidelis said:
The world wide television and on line demand for coverage of Classics and Grand Tours is growing exponentially. So I guess the answer to your question is two fold; Yes, I see thousands of long term cycling fans coming in to sport. But are they as good a fan as you are? How could they possibly be?
In Italy, they know what it takes to put on a good bike race.
The most successful stages of the Giro have been those trying to emulate the retro era. Taking the riders off tarmac has proven very popular with fans.
Witness the incredible development of the Monte Paschi Eroica.

Where is your evidence for tv coverage?
Why did Versus pull out of covering the Giro?
Fact is that's total bullshit.

I can name half a dozen European stage races that have had reduced coverage, this year and a further half a dozen races that have been cancelled altogether.
The reason? A dramatic drop in viewing figures, resulting in a lack of sponsorship interest.
 
Apr 20, 2009
667
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
You use a lot of words to say nothing.

There are riders who didn't think the radio ban was dangerous at all. Who are you to argue with them? See, the whole debate thing exists on more than one level for the both of us.

As to sponsorship, I guess you don't understand that they sponsor for marketing purposes. They don't spend money on riders, they spend money on human billboards. Without consumers to watch, you get no money. They couldn't care less about the health and welfare of the riders. If this was all a race off of a cliff into a sea of razorblades, and people would watch, they would sponsor it. They care fuck all about anything but a return on their investment.

Add to that the ridiculous idea that not being able to talk to the DS in the care endangers their lives, and what you have is an argument that merely allows you to think you are backed by all of the riders in the peloton, and therefore are part of them. You are just a fan. You and I have an equal amount of actual experience riding GT's. None. There are years upon years of cycling history that suggests that riding without radios is safe. You have much fewer that in no way show things are safer because of them unless you know of some study we don't know about. If so, its put up or shut up time, post it. Otherwise, all any of us (fans and riders) have is OPINION. Only my opinion is backed by far more historical evidence than is yours. Call it "chicken shit" if you want, but that is just tough guy talk, and I have little to no respect for it.
Geez,... I'm sorry that my insinuation your argument was tempered with emotion and ended with a defamatory attack on me has set you off. My statements only dealt with your argument. I would never castigate a individual on the basis of their opinion, and I can see looking over some of your posts, that you would never, and have never done that either.

You are correct that there are riders who support the ban. It is a small minority, and their reasons are generally obvoius and deal with long shots and opportunity, which I am all for. But there opinions will change consummate with their future team affiliations. That is the nature of employment. If they were anything larger in number the racing would have been decidedly different.

You are wrong about what sponsors spend money on, and I do have a little more experience than you there. It's not the the human billboard, it's the athlete inside the human billboard and his ability to make people see that billboard. It's not anymore philanthropic than your assessment, just more accurate. And while there is little gain in sending that billboard off a cliff, it is safe to say that an athlete's ability to preform that task over time is the extent of the Sponsors concern.

The return on investment however is something that all cycling fans should have at least a passing interest in however because with out it, and without sponsors you are left with the Olympics and club racing.

The great irony in your argument is that you, as a fan, are advocating the cliff jump, not the sponsors. Sponsors want radios. It's more security for there investment, we've established that. Fans, a few fans, want more exciting racing and advocate limiting technology to manipulate the results. If the racers exercise no resistance to this idea that they consider dangerous, where does the quest for more "exciting" racing end? With a cliff jump?... no, probably too extreme. How about flaming arches at all the sprints?... Hmmm that's pretty cool! Where do you see it all ending? I think the riders would like to know.

As to your years and years of cycling history that suggest riding without radios is safe... It doesn't exist. All you have is years with out the technology. There have been crashes and deaths and extreme weather, riders left stranded, and nightmare scenarios played out at every turn, and they are all part of the great legend and mystique of the Tour. To say how things would have played out differently with radios back then is a non sequitur. But tell me what are you personally going to say to the rider who suffers a career ending scenario that based on what we now know, could have been prevented with radio communication?

As to an example in the past... well, like I said you can't accurately reflect. But I'd bet Luis Ocana might have wished for radio communication to keep him from plowing into a crahed Eddy Merckx on that rainy descent in the 71 Tour, But since they were so close it probably wouldn't have mattered. But if Van Impe and the chase had radios, maybe they wouldn't have hit the recovering Ocana and put him out of the race and into the hospital. Maybe he would have won the Tour. Maybe he would have beaten Eddy Merckx. Maybe he wouldn't have committed suicide a few years ago, Maybe, maybe, maybe... Who can say about these things?

The bottom line is that the riders want it. If safety is the issue they site, well you can't argue opinion, only facts. And the fact is they know better than we do. I have another valid reason why I think the all want it. It makes them more competitive. They perceive a disadvantage without it... that is their OPINION, and that is enough for me. I am happy that they have found the collective strength to make their opinion known with out the drama of a rider's strike. And I look forward to them getting back to racing as it is done in the present, not the past.
 
Apr 20, 2009
667
0
0
Coach Hawk said:
You mean like all of the aerodynamically superior gear they've been forced to give up? And the praying mantis TT position? And having to artifically add weight to their bikes to get them up to 6.8kg?
You are absolutely right!! Let's get them all back on steel frames, minimum weight 20lbs, down tube shifters, no clipless pedals, no cycling computers, no heart rate monitors, eliminate Time Trial bikes, and make them wear leather hair net helmets and wool kits.

All hail the good old days!!
 
Jul 3, 2009
62
0
0
VeloFidelis said:
You are absolutely right!! Let's get them all back on steel frames, minimum weight 20lbs, down tube shifters, no clipless pedals, no cycling computers, no heart rate monitors, eliminate Time Trial bikes, and make them wear leather hair net helmets and wool kits.

All hail the good old days!!
Just saying some changes are allowed (e.g. carbon fibre anything and everything) and some are not, but it is the UCI powers that decide, not the riders.

It wasn't too far back that the rider's whined and complained and protested about wearing helmets, but we see where they are now. Yes, radios make their lives easier and all of us like it when our lives easier. But that doesn't necessarily make it more sporting, and THAT is their job--to provide sporting entertainment that draws fans which draws sponsors which pays their paychecks.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloFidelis said:
Geez,... I'm sorry that my insinuation your argument was tempered with emotion and ended with a defamatory attack on me has set you off. My statements only dealt with your argument. I would never castigate a individual on the basis of their opinion, and I can see looking over some of your posts, that you would never, and have never done that either.

You are correct that there are riders who support the ban. It is a small minority, and their reasons are generally obvoius and deal with long shots and opportunity, which I am all for. But there opinions will change consummate with their future team affiliations. That is the nature of employment. If they were anything larger in number the racing would have been decidedly different.

You are wrong about what sponsors spend money on, and I do have a little more experience than you there. It's not the the human billboard, it's the athlete inside the human billboard and his ability to make people see that billboard. It's not anymore philanthropic than your assessment, just more accurate. And while there is little gain in sending that billboard off a cliff, it is safe to say that an athlete's ability to preform that task over time is the extent of the Sponsors concern.

The return on investment however is something that all cycling fans should have at least a passing interest in however because with out it, and without sponsors you are left with the Olympics and club racing.

The great irony in your argument is that you, as a fan, are advocating the cliff jump, not the sponsors. Sponsors want radios. It's more security for there investment, we've established that. Fans, a few fans, want more exciting racing and advocate limiting technology to manipulate the results. If the racers exercise no resistance to this idea that they consider dangerous, where does the quest for more "exciting" racing end? With a cliff jump?... no, probably too extreme. How about flaming arches at all the sprints?... Hmmm that's pretty cool! Where do you see it all ending? I think the riders would like to know.

As to your years and years of cycling history that suggest riding without radios is safe... It doesn't exist. All you have is years with out the technology. There have been crashes and deaths and extreme weather, riders left stranded, and nightmare scenarios played out at every turn, and they are all part of the great legend and mystique of the Tour. To say how things would have played out differently with radios back then is a non sequitur. But tell me what are you personally going to say to the rider who suffers a career ending scenario that based on what we now know, could have been prevented with radio communication?

As to an example in the past... well, like I said you can't accurately reflect. But I'd bet Luis Ocana might have wished for radio communication to keep him from plowing into a crahed Eddy Merckx on that rainy descent in the 71 Tour, But since they were so close it probably wouldn't have mattered. But if Van Impe and the chase had radios, maybe they wouldn't have hit the recovering Ocana and put him out of the race and into the hospital. Maybe he would have won the Tour. Maybe he would have beaten Eddy Merckx. Maybe he wouldn't have committed suicide a few years ago, Maybe, maybe, maybe... Who can say about these things?

The bottom line is that the riders want it. If safety is the issue they site, well you can't argue opinion, only facts. And the fact is they know better than we do. I have another valid reason why I think the all want it. It makes them more competitive. They perceive a disadvantage without it... that is their OPINION, and that is enough for me. I am happy that they have found the collective strength to make their opinion known with out the drama of a rider's strike. And I look forward to them getting back to racing as it is done in the present, not the past.
I simply do not agree that radios to the DS make it safer. The race radio can do everything you suggest to benefit safety. I have no problem with that. Interesting note also, the race radio gives the DS's the info on dangers. It isn't like the team cars are out there scouting ahead of the riders. They are right back there where they always were.

The issue was never about safety, it was about being able to talk to their DS for sporting advantage. If they want safety, then give race feed to all riders through a single source. End of problem. But that was in no way what this was about, that was just the argument put forth by the protesters because it has more weight than the real reasoning.

As to sponsorship and their weighted concerns, if it is the rider, why no health insurance for riders after they retire? They make decisions based on bottom line period. Nobody wants to see riders die regardless, but sponsors are not about providing for rider safety. I would also like to see where it is the sponsors who like radios and the safety they provide. Please cite a source for that if possible, because I am willing to bet they have never weighed in on the subject. In fact, if they found that a majority of fans disliked the radios, they would push for their removal.

The fact is that this is entertainment, and it isn't entertainment for the riders anymore than gladiators were entertainment for the participants. We are the audience, and ultimately we are who matters in this. Not me as an individual, but the collective sentiment regarding any given issue involving cycling. In this case, I think you will find that most couldn't care less, and that people like JB know the effect of a well placed argument on that sentiment regardless of the truth of the argument.

Also note that I honestly couldn't care less which way they go on the issue. I fully recognize that if I were in their shoes, I would want every advantage I could get. My point was never about which way they should go, it was about the fact that a bunch of spoiled athletes decided to show contempt for not just the race, but the fans in their protest yesterday. Spit in our faces enough times (3 spits thus far this year by one particular team), and we will begin to voice our opinions regarding such things. To suggest that fans are a less integral part of professional cycling than anyone else involved it completely contrary to the economics of the sport. We do matter whether you or they agree or not.

Also note that it isn't like this was just sprung on them yesterday morning. They knew coming to the race what was in the works. They chose at the last minute, when they realized the organizers were holding firm, to slow the race as a protest. They happen to have done that two days after one of the most useless stages in the history of the Tour. I find it interesting that they were willing to do so considering what had just taken place.
 
Apr 20, 2009
667
0
0
Mellow Velo said:
In Italy, they know what it takes to put on a good bike race.
The most successful stages of the Giro have been those trying to emulate the retro era. Taking the riders off tarmac has proven very popular with fans.
Witness the incredible development of the Monte Paschi Eroica.

Where is your evidence for tv coverage?
Why did Versus pull out of covering the Giro?
Fact is that's total bullshit.

I can name half a dozen European stage races that have had reduced coverage, this year and a further half a dozen races that have been cancelled altogether.
The reason? A dramatic drop in viewing figures, resulting in a lack of sponsorship interest.

The lack of sponsorship dollars in cycling is due to two very pressing issues; the doping problem associated with the sport, and the economic downturn. Example; Tour of Georgia / Gone!... Sponsor / Ford (Gee??)

The Giro was dropped on Versus because their cultivating a motor-sport / cage fighting demographic, and Americans only know The Tour. Which by the way has significantly increased it's coverage. The Tour of California had increased daily coverage and more importantly a huge increases in viewers.

The Giro had daily coverage for the first time in years on Universal Sports Network and they will also cover the Vuelta, the World Championships and other Pro Tour races.

The demand for the live feed from the Tour is where ASO is turning most of their considerable and ever increasing profits from the Tour. Why do you think they welcomed Lance back?

Americans may not know Tirreno Adriadico from Paris Nice, but the European feed for them is in high demand and basically runs live for the length of each stage.

Live attendance for the Tour of California was up, the Giro was up, and the Tour is up...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloFidelis said:
The lack of sponsorship dollars in cycling is due to two very pressing issues; the doping problem associated with the sport, and the economic downturn. Example; Tour of Georgia / Gone!... Sponsor / Ford (Gee??)

The Giro was dropped on Versus because their cultivating a motor-sport / cage fighting demographic, and Americans only know The Tour. Which by the way has significantly increased it's coverage. The Tour of California had increased daily coverage and more importantly a huge increases in viewers.

The Giro had daily coverage for the first time in years on Universal Sports Network and they will also cover the Vuelta, the World Championships and other Pro Tour races.

The demand for the live feed from the Tour is where ASO is turning most of their considerable and ever increasing profits from the Tour. Why do you think they welcomed Lance back?

Americans may not know Tirreno Adriadico from Paris Nice, but the European feed for them is in high demand and basically runs live for the length of each stage.

Live attendance for the Tour of California was up, the Giro was up, and the Tour is up...
According to the sponsors. I think you will find comments by many that belie this particular assertion. Some of those comments came from the riders.

Coverage by Universal Sports does mean that some people who could not have watched the race, did watch the race. That does not mean interest in the sport is increasing.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
And when I said cite a sponsor that wants radios, Motorola doesn't count.;)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloFidelis said:
Dude, Networks don't make seven figure media buys and expand coverage on idle speculation
What does that have to do with safety? Nothing. Dude, Networks make seven figure media buys to make a profit. I am sure the best selling point in all of that isn't pointing out bumps in the road to riders who could get that information elsewhere.

Motorola: "Your DS will be able to tell you about the dog up the road."

Also note that if Professional cycling were the main market for two way communication, they wouldn't have paid 7 figures for it. That would just be plain stupid.
 
Apr 20, 2009
667
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
What does that have to do with safety? Nothing. Dude, Networks make seven figure media buys to make a profit. I am sure the best selling point in all of that isn't pointing out bumps in the road to riders who could get that information elsewhere.

Motorola: "Your DS will be able to tell you about the dog up the road."

Also note that if Professional cycling were the main market for two way communication, they wouldn't have paid 7 figures for it. That would just be plain stupid.
I can't be the only one unable to follow your thought process here. Maybe you can tie these random thoughts together?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloFidelis said:
I can't be the only one unable to follow your thought process here. Maybe you can tie these random thoughts together?
Nah, they make complete sense in light of your previous comment and the greater discussion. In short, the idea that a sponsor (even Motorola) would base its opinion on 2 way radios on rider safety or that they would pay 7 figures for anything based on improved rider safety is nonsensical.
 
VeloFidelis said:
You either have dementia or amnesia. Eddy Merckx WON 1/3rd of all the races that he entered as a Pro, and I can't count how many more podiums. Talk about a scripted scenario...

There is no doubt that racing has evolved, but just maybe the biggest change is a more homogeneous level of fitness, talent and ability in the peloton. Blame that on what ever you like, the result is more potential winners and that necessitates a different style of racing.
Comparing cycling in Merckx's day with cycling in the Armstrong era is nonsensical. Merckx existed precisely because the corporate world, with its obsessive monitoring of everything, litteraly everything, hadn't forced everybody to get better or take a hike. Whereas the corporate style riding of Armstrong meant that we got to see him only once a year at the Tour.

So at least the Merckx era script was good! It's like comparing Clockwork Orange to Spiderman.

And Merckx was a phenomenon who lasted about 5 years when he truly dominated everything. Before, and after, cycling returned to its normal vicissitudes.

In any case, the corporate style cycling of Postal-Discovery-Astana, with in the latter case money to buy all the top 3,4,5 Tour contenders is all about maximising the investement, as you say, and perfection, but leaves little room for romance in a sport that used to be so romantic and enjoyable to watch.

Call me whatever you like, but I truly believe that sport reached its apogee in the 80's when tradition, innovation - but also before the corporate world had totally taken over (and not just in sport) - had arrived at a perfect balance. Afterword everything rapidly progressed to the scientificaly engineered and corporate monitored athletics we get today, where everything boils down to nickle and diming one's investment and where the radios in the cycling peleton are just a more obvious example of how Big Brother has taken the place of individual freedom and responsibility and how, consequently, spontaneity and fantasy have been eliminated in the wider sense.
 
VeloFidelis said:
Geez,... I'm sorry that my insinuation your argument was tempered with emotion and ended with a defamatory attack on me has set you off. My statements only dealt with your argument. I would never castigate a individual on the basis of their opinion, and I can see looking over some of your posts, that you would never, and have never done that either.

You are correct that there are riders who support the ban. It is a small minority, and their reasons are generally obvoius and deal with long shots and opportunity, which I am all for. But there opinions will change consummate with their future team affiliations. That is the nature of employment. If they were anything larger in number the racing would have been decidedly different.

You are wrong about what sponsors spend money on, and I do have a little more experience than you there. It's not the the human billboard, it's the athlete inside the human billboard and his ability to make people see that billboard. It's not anymore philanthropic than your assessment, just more accurate. And while there is little gain in sending that billboard off a cliff, it is safe to say that an athlete's ability to preform that task over time is the extent of the Sponsors concern.

The return on investment however is something that all cycling fans should have at least a passing interest in however because with out it, and without sponsors you are left with the Olympics and club racing.

The great irony in your argument is that you, as a fan, are advocating the cliff jump, not the sponsors. Sponsors want radios. It's more security for there investment, we've established that. Fans, a few fans, want more exciting racing and advocate limiting technology to manipulate the results. If the racers exercise no resistance to this idea that they consider dangerous, where does the quest for more "exciting" racing end? With a cliff jump?... no, probably too extreme. How about flaming arches at all the sprints?... Hmmm that's pretty cool! Where do you see it all ending? I think the riders would like to know.

As to your years and years of cycling history that suggest riding without radios is safe... It doesn't exist. All you have is years with out the technology. There have been crashes and deaths and extreme weather, riders left stranded, and nightmare scenarios played out at every turn, and they are all part of the great legend and mystique of the Tour. To say how things would have played out differently with radios back then is a non sequitur. But tell me what are you personally going to say to the rider who suffers a career ending scenario that based on what we now know, could have been prevented with radio communication?

As to an example in the past... well, like I said you can't accurately reflect. But I'd bet Luis Ocana might have wished for radio communication to keep him from plowing into a crahed Eddy Merckx on that rainy descent in the 71 Tour, But since they were so close it probably wouldn't have mattered. But if Van Impe and the chase had radios, maybe they wouldn't have hit the recovering Ocana and put him out of the race and into the hospital. Maybe he would have won the Tour. Maybe he would have beaten Eddy Merckx. Maybe he wouldn't have committed suicide a few years ago, Maybe, maybe, maybe... Who can say about these things?

The bottom line is that the riders want it. If safety is the issue they site, well you can't argue opinion, only facts. And the fact is they know better than we do. I have another valid reason why I think the all want it. It makes them more competitive. They perceive a disadvantage without it... that is their OPINION, and that is enough for me. I am happy that they have found the collective strength to make their opinion known with out the drama of a rider's strike. And I look forward to them getting back to racing as it is done in the present, not the past.
You are such a conformist.

The irony is that technology and the corporate mindset has transformed innovation into conformism, so that to truly become innovative today and anti-conformist, one has to reject so-called "advancement" visa-vie the corporate tech products, when they are superfluous and only benifical to the corporate goal of the absolute control of human lives.
 
I might have guessed. Using US viewing trends as a benchmark.
An average of 3 million watch each Tour stage, in France.
Any idea what that figure is for the US?

Anyhow, I'm not going to bang on about the real state of pro cycling, in respect of this.

What about yesterday? Earpieces restored and another plod.
Only this time, 20 riders injured in crashes.
Popovych, Sastre and Schleck snr down and as for poor Caisse:-
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/caisse-depargne-down-a-man-after-massive-pile-up

So much for the safety argument, as if we didn't know.

rhubroma said:
You are such a conformist.

The irony is that technology and the corporate mindset has transformed innovation into conformism, so that to truly become innovative today and anti-conformist, one has to reject so-called "advancement" visa-vie the corporate tech products, when they are superfluous and only benifical to the corporate goal of the absolute control of human lives.
+1
All technology is new, therefore it must be better: Buy into it or be a loser.
 
VeloFidelis said:
The lack of sponsorship dollars in cycling is due to two very pressing issues; the doping problem associated with the sport, and the economic downturn. Example; Tour of Georgia / Gone!... Sponsor / Ford (Gee??)

The Giro was dropped on Versus because their cultivating a motor-sport / cage fighting demographic, and Americans only know The Tour. Which by the way has significantly increased it's coverage. The Tour of California had increased daily coverage and more importantly a huge increases in viewers.

The Giro had daily coverage for the first time in years on Universal Sports Network and they will also cover the Vuelta, the World Championships and other Pro Tour races.
This goes to show you that the American cycling fan has only been bred on the corporate mentality and his own patriotism, where everything is reduced to a mere economic and patriotic issue. Which is hardly the stuff of romance and love of a great sport.

So why don't we, following the American corporate and patriotic mindset, eliminate all the other races and just have Armstrong by himself ride around France till he arrives in Paris, preferably on the 4th of July? I'm sure everybody across the Atlantic would just love it.
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,844
1
0
rhubroma said:
You are such a conformist.

The irony is that technology and the corporate mindset has transformed innovation into conformism, so that to truly become innovative today and anti-conformist, one has to reject so-called "advancement" visa-vie the corporate tech products, when they are superfluous and only benifical to the corporate goal of the absolute control of human lives.
+1 totally agree here!! If you have not, you should read the Unibomber manifesto...don't get me wrong...I do not support his killing of anyone, but his manifesto is really well put together and makes a lot of sense...especially where technology is concerned. Exactly as you say!
 
TRDean said:
+1 totally agree here!! If you have not, you should read the Unibomber manifesto...don't get me wrong...I do not support his killing of anyone, but his manifesto is really well put together and makes a lot of sense...especially where technology is concerned. Exactly as you say!
Was in no way siding with a deranged megalomaniac and terroist, but I'm sure it will be a good read...Cheers
 
Mar 19, 2009
941
0
0
rhubroma said:
Was in no way siding with a deranged megalomaniac and terroist, but I'm sure it will be a good read...Cheers
It is a good read.

He does go off the rails, and he attacks the status quo from both the right and the left, so you can't nail him down on a specific ideology.

But on the sheer emptiness of the technological mindset he's spot on.
 
Mar 15, 2009
349
0
0
Well I think it worked, after all despite the riders strike in the road it was more interesting stage than 70k of flat after tourmalet and we saw a race pausing crash the very next days when radios were back.

Of course to prevent the riders from striking again a whole race has to be run under no radio rules, I recommend the dauphine libere. With the tour de cancellara all the tour contenders will be in it and if they don't ride seriously they only hurt themselves.
 
Apr 20, 2009
667
0
0
rhubroma said:
You are such a conformist.

The irony is that technology and the corporate mindset has transformed innovation into conformism, so that to truly become innovative today and anti-conformist, one has to reject so-called "advancement" visa-vie the corporate tech products, when they are superfluous and only benifical to the corporate goal of the absolute control of human lives.
An anti technology non conformist blogging on the internet... no irony there.
 
Jul 9, 2009
517
0
0
VeloFidelis said:
The return on investment however is something that all cycling fans should have at least a passing interest in however because with out it, and without sponsors you are left with the Olympics and club racing.
The great irony in your argument is that you, as a fan, are advocating the cliff jump, not the sponsors. Sponsors want radios. It's more security for there investment, we've established that. Fans, a few fans, want more exciting racing and advocate limiting technology to manipulate the results. If the racers exercise no resistance to this idea that they consider dangerous, where does the quest for more "exciting" racing end? With a cliff jump?... no, probably too extreme. How about flaming arches at all the sprints?... Hmmm that's pretty cool! Where do you see it all ending? I think the riders would like to know.
you sure like to type, but it's alot of gogo. absolute nonsense. more exciting races > more fans > more sponsor money

lol at the 'security for there investment' argument. as that would be more important than attracting alot of viewers.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY