Radio Revolt

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 9, 2009
517
0
0
VeloFidelis said:
An anti technology non conformist blogging on the internet... no irony there.
come on. does it have to be either or for you all the time?

jus because people dont want radios in cycling they have to be anti-technology in general? :rolleyes:
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,844
1
0
Futuroscope said:
come on. does it have to be either or for you all the time?

jus because people dont want radios in cycling they have to be anti-technology in general? :rolleyes:
Thank you for that comment...give me a break. It is just a way of trying to win an argument by crapping on someone elses opinion.
 
Jul 9, 2009
517
0
0
TRDean said:
Thank you for that comment...give me a break. It is just a way of trying to win an argument by crapping on someone elses opinion.
no, i was commenting Velofidelis style of argumentation not his opinion.

his opinion on this issue i commented in the post before that.
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,844
1
0
Futuroscope said:
no, i was commenting Velofidelis style of argumentation not his opinion.

his opinion on this issue i commented in the post before that.
I didn't mean a comment about my post...never mind...I was agreeing with you. Misunderstanding.
 
Apr 20, 2009
667
0
0
Mellow Velo said:
I might have guessed. Using US viewing trends as a benchmark.

You 're a very confusing guy. You ask a question and get an answer, then you change the question. Name your benchmark, please and be specific

An average of 3 million watch each Tour stage, in France.

This number is low

Any idea what that figure is for the US?

33 million watched the 2008 Tour on Versus, and are up 83% so far this year. You do the math.

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.

What a surprise, taking it easy on a sprint stage two days before the Alps, never seen that before.

Only this time, 20 riders injured in crashes.

Anyone who thinks radios are going to stop a crash in the peloton is a Moron. Anybody who thinks that is what the riders are referring to when they mention safety is also a Moron. The issue is a lot bigger then a some lost skin.

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.

I know this is a concept that is hard to grasp. It is the opinion of the riders that their safety is enhanced with radios. Since it is opinion you cannot argue with it, only the facts used in reaching it's conclusion. If "safety" for the riders really means, more secure, more competitive, more reactive, better informed, having a better understanding of the current strategic position, not having to wonder what's for dinner... these are all valid reasons for wanting the technology. There is more riding on there individual decisions in a race than ever before. It's all on live TV in front of 2,000,000,000 (yes, that is the real number) world wide.

They should have that say. When technology all around them is through the roof with media coverage and communication for every aspect race coverage, why should they suffer a disadvantage. It is obviously important to them. They will have a collective reaction if they try to take it away again, so why have the confrontation?

Their reaction to the small percentage of fans, and it is a VERY small percentage is; "Get over it" And we all should. The collective memory for how racing used to be is not as clear as the nostalgia buffs seem to think.

+1
All technology is new, therefore it must be better: Buy into it or be a loser.


Dude, your posting on the internet... enough said
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloFidelis said:
[/B]
Dude, your posting on the internet... enough said
Posting on the internet contributes to rider safety? Or are you just willing to drag in any argument you can in order to avoid admitting your points are weak in places?
 
VeloFidelis said:
[/B]
Dude, your posting on the internet... enough said

So, ALL new technology is great and useful and anyone who uses any of it selectively is a hypocrite, right?
Wow! That's certainly an argument clincher.

Still, I suppose if you have nothing better to bring to the table.

So, why do the teams that protest really demand the use this equipment?

Safety? My ass.
It's gone way past that and into the realms of John le Carre.
It's now really all about spying in on the opposition.
Listening in on their tactics, to avoid getting jumped.
Neutralising before inception.

How that can be good for the sport, is beyond me.

Of course, if you worship at the alter of bright new shiny things, this will of little consequence.
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
From Astana's press officer about the news that radios would be allowed on stage 13:

"No, we have not heard anything. I knew that they would announce something today but this morning we hadn't heard anything yet," said Maertens. "Our team is not against the experiment, we were against the fact that it is being done at the Tour de France."

So is he still talking about safety, or tactics? Is a flat Tour stage really that much more dangerous than other races?
 
Kennf1 said:
From Astana's press officer about the news that radios would be allowed on stage 13:

"No, we have not heard anything. I knew that they would announce something today but this morning we hadn't heard anything yet," said Maertens. "Our team is not against the experiment, we were against the fact that it is being done at the Tour de France."

So is he still talking about safety, or tactics? Is a flat Tour stage really that much more dangerous than other races?
He's actually talking Astanabollocks, yet again.
The official announcement was made yesterday, and read out on French tv around 14-00CET.
 
Apr 20, 2009
667
0
0
Yikes!!

Talk about tangents! It never ceases to amaze me where people will go with an argument. I find the fantasy musing into my opinions on unrelated topics to be pretty comical.

But since we are down to that, and not really the issue anymore, and it seems that the same four or five of us are pretty much agreed to disagree. I thought a summary might be appropriate, and then you can argue the extraneous tangents.

Today in the peloton the riders have radio communication with in the teams. A a small but obviously vocal group would like to eliminate them. The riders and teams do not want them gone. The vast majority of fans do not even know it is an issue. Everyone who posts here thinks it is a huge issue and does not realize what a microcosm we all are. At least that's my take on it all.

So with that said, here is the prediction: Radio communication within the team is here to stay. It will never be eliminated. The riders and teams have a collective voice and they have made their opinions known. Any future attempts to remove radios will be met with a similar reaction from the teams, and no race director wants that controversy connected to their event.

A lot of time will be spent here talking about the tangential issues, and most will continue to ignore the one very simple truth: you cannot go back in time. And if you could, it would not be as you remember it. More than just radios has changed in cycling, and it will only move forward not back. I suggest that we all do the same.
 
VeloFidelis said:
An anti technology non conformist blogging on the internet... no irony there.
Better so, for people lacking an ironic sense aren't very intelligent, nor interesting in their views.

In any event, it's about the human side of the sporting issue. And these radios, as I have previously mentioned, are about giving little Napoleons with over-inflated egos and a sense of self-worth, a CEO leadership capacity (like general managers, which is different from being the coaches they really are) to order each rider to do what previously used to be partially done with his own intuition and athletic sense. And this is what made the sport less "script" like and more "human," and "aesthetic" in it's athletic gestures and greater spontaneity. Plus they give an unfair advantage to the dumber cyclists, who should be by the laws of human nature outwitted by the more clever ones. At times this has allowed a more intelligent racer, but a less strong one, to excel beyond his mere physical capabilities. And this too is more entertaining to watch. For all these reasons, the radios are just crappola, in addition to the disagreeable conformism interms of the corporate mindset on the part of those who support them. In the end it's about the human and aesthetic issues, over those of the general manager/DS/riders who offer us a much more sterile spectacle. And the history of the sport has offered us so much more in the riders gestures during the 90 years before the radios, than in the 10 years since they have widely been used that's for sure.
 
VeloFidelis said:
An anti technology non conformist blogging on the internet... no irony there.
Better so, for people lacking an ironic sense aren't very intelligent, nor interesting in their views.

In any event, it's about the human side of the sporting issue. And these radios, as I have previously mentioned, are about giving little Napoleons with over-inflated egos and a sense of self-worth, a CEO leadership capacity (like general managers, which is different from being the coaches they really are) to order each rider to do what previously used to be partially done with his own intuition and athletic sense. And this is what made the sport less "script" like and more "human," and "aesthetic" in it's athletic gestures and greater spontaneity. Plus they give an unfair advantage to the dumber cyclists, who should be by the laws of human nature outwitted by the more clever ones. At times this has allowed a more intelligent racer, but a less strong one, to excel beyond his mere physical capabilities. And this too is more entertaining to watch. For all these reasons, the radios are just crappola, in addition to the conformism issue regarding the corporate mindset on the part of those who support them. In the end it's about the human and aesthetic issues, over those of the general manager/DS/riders, who offer us a much more sterile spectacle. And the history of the sport has offered us so much more in the riders gestures during the 90 years before the radios, than in the last 10 years or so since they have widely been used that's for sure.
 
Jul 3, 2009
62
0
0
rhubroma said:
Better so, for people lacking an ironic sense aren't very intelligent, nor interesting in their views.

In any event, it's about the human side of the sporting issue. And these radios, as I have previously mentioned, are about giving little Napoleons with over-inflated egos and a sense of self-worth, a CEO leadership capacity (like general managers, which is different from being the coaches they really are) to order each rider to do what previously used to be partially done with his own intuition and athletic sense. And this is what made the sport less "script" like and more "human," and "aesthetic" in it's athletic gestures and greater spontaneity. Plus they give an unfair advantage to the dumber cyclists, who should be by the laws of human nature outwitted by the more clever ones. At times this has allowed a more intelligent racer, but a less strong one, to excel beyond his mere physical capabilities. And this too is more entertaining to watch. For all these reasons, the radios are just crappola, in addition to the disagreeable conformism interms of the corporate mindset on the part of those who support them. In the end it's about the human and aesthetic issues, over those of the general manager/DS/riders who offer us a much more sterile spectacle. And the history of the sport has offered us so much more in the riders gestures during the 90 years before the radios, than in the 10 years since they have widely been used that's for sure.
*applause, cheers...*
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
rhubroma said:
Sorry for posting the same thing twice. It was an accident though. :eek:
If you click on the little 'attention' sign next to the post number, you can ask a friendly moderator to remove the double post. ;)

Oh, and I echo Coach's applause for your piece!

 

runninboy

BANNED
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
If you click on the little 'attention' sign next to the post number, you can ask a friendly moderator to remove the double post. ;)

Oh, and I echo Coach's applause for your piece!

ditto.
I love that chapeau smiley too
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
3
0
Amsterhammer said:
If you click on the little 'attention' sign next to the post number, you can ask a friendly moderator to remove the double post. ;)
Or you could just delete the post yourself with the edit feature instead of bothering a moderator...
 
Apr 20, 2009
667
0
0
rhubroma said:
Comparing cycling in Merckx's day with cycling in the Armstrong era is nonsensical.
I could not agree more. And thinking that you can take cycling back to some idea of how it used to be makes little sense as well.
 
Apr 20, 2009
667
0
0
Futuroscope said:
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.
You seem to be laboring under two misapprehensions: The first being that removing radios would attract new viewers and fans. The only thing it would accomplish is placating a small group of disgruntled fans who will continue to watch regardless of how much they complain.

The other is that cycling needs to do something / anything to attract more fans. World wide viewer ratings for the Tour are up double digit percentages. U.S. viewer ratings on Versus network are up 83% over 2008.

Cycling is not suffering from the affect of radios. Your opinion of cycling is.
 
Jul 9, 2009
517
0
0
VeloFidelis said:
I could not agree more. And thinking that you can take cycling back to some idea of how it used to be makes little sense as well.
no, it makes alot of sense to remove the radio communication and thus open up the races and make them more interesting. making cycling more interesting is a good thing for the sport as it will hopefully attract more viewers (obviously you need to do other things too) and thus more sponsors. potentially a win-win situation in other words.

the safety argument you have been using is not the real reason for the resistance against the radio ban among the cyclist, the real reason is because they have gotten used to being remote controlled. if radio use was banned tomorrow the riders would whine for a while, then they would adapt and cycling would be better off.

and your earlier argument about sponsors wanting to keep radio communication inorder to 'protect their investments' is flawed , as it is not nearly as important as attracting viewers to the sport. basic marketing.
 
Jul 9, 2009
517
0
0
VeloFidelis said:
You seem to be laboring under two misapprehensions: The first being that removing radios would attract new viewers and fans. The only thing it would accomplish is placating a small group of disgruntled fans who will continue to watch regardless of how much they complain.

The other is that cycling needs to do something / anything to attract more fans. World wide viewer ratings for the Tour are up double digit percentages. U.S. viewer ratings on Versus network are up 83% over 2008.


Cycling is not suffering from the affect of radios. Your opinion of cycling is.

trying to be sneaky huh? ever heard of a guy named lance armstrong. is his comeback directly related to radio communication?

you do understand that there are different things you can do to attract more fans? one such thing is banning radio communication. no one has said its the only thing.
 
Apr 20, 2009
667
0
0
Futuroscope said:
trying to be sneaky huh? ever heard of a guy named lance armstrong. is his comeback directly related to radio communication?

you do understand that there are different things you can do to attract more fans? one such thing is banning radio communication. no one has said its the only thing.
Sneaky... uh no... you lost me there. The Lance and radio connection is not making a lot of sense to me either.

I will agree the Lance has brought hundreds of thousands of people out to watch the Tour as well as the Giro, but you can't say something like that here without some knuckle-head accusing you of blind Lance worship. I saw for myself at the Giro what an impact his participation had, so I am willing to grant you that.

But he is not solely responsible for the increasing viewer count worldwide. Conversly I don't know of anyone personally who has thrown his hands up in disgust over the radio issue, and has abandoned watching the Tour or any other cycling event. They complain about it, but they still watch. So explain to me how eliminating radios will increase the cycling fan base.

I will admit that it is the one issue of this argument that has puzzled me most. I don't perceive that there is a large contingent of former fans who will come back when radios are eliminated. Just a small group of vocal fans who, while unhappy about radios, will continue to tune in. If the racing was not compelling to the masses in it's current incarnation, why would the rest of us watch, and why does the fan base continue to grow?
 
VeloFidelis said:
I could not agree more. And thinking that you can take cycling back to some idea of how it used to be makes little sense as well.
It's not about taking cycling back 20 years, but taking out the overbearing general management issue which hinders, not helps, the spectacle. Because the more general management comes in, the more humanity goes out. And not just in cycling.

In any event, the DSs have won (as the radios were admitted on today's stage, so the UCI took a step back), but cycling has lost. In its human aspect, which is infinately more epic and aesthetic than any so-called corporate "improvements," cycling is all the poorer in its conformism to the automatonization of the peleton resulting from the corporate take-over we have been witnessing over the last decade. Cheers.
 
Mar 20, 2009
156
0
0
VeloFidelis said:
. U.S. viewer ratings on Versus network are up 83% over 2008.
That means Versus now has 500 viewers? Versus is the worst TDF coverage in the world. Anyone that can sit through that blather with or without a tivo deserves a medal.

Stephan Roche said on Eurosport UK "that the teams agreed to the non-use of radios during some stages of the the Tour in June."

I think Bernard Hinault summed it up best, “It is just a ‘Game Boy’ that has a gigolo attached at the end telling the racer when to take a p!ss.”
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY