i've been back for a bit now, but i really haven't had a lot of time to type shit out...
and i still don't really.
i do, however, have some observations about minneapolis since my return.
you wouldn't think much could really change in 2.5 weeks, but it kinda does.
one, it's hotter here than in southern spain.
total b.s.
also, the track needs a revamp of upgrade policy.
there are some glaring mistakes right now, and it came to a head last thursday.
i also really have a problem with the cat 3's being allowed to race with the 1/2's at the end of the night.
you know, right when they've just finished their endurance race and are blown.
how is that a good idea?
when i moved up from cat 3 i was all but winning at will, and totally in control (i felt) of the cat 3 races... but my first 1/2 races i was just hanging onto the back. ...and barely.
it was a big jump in ability level, and there is no way i could have raced after completing a cat3 60 lap race.
i think tuesday night structured training is the place for cat3's to gain more skill, not in the 1/2 race.
i don't think there is any argument that 2 tired cat 3's caused the crash in the 1/2 race that broke doug regesters collarbone. it probably could have been avoided.
and also in the 4/5 crash as well, as outlined by dan-o and kruse, here.
another thing is this, from the mcf board:
Personally I think that the Tour/UCI making the riders sign a document stating that they will give up a years salary if found to be doping is total bull.this is one of the captains of the mn junior racing program.
They(Tour/UCI) has known for years the extent of the doping and have profited from it. You could argue that doping has made bike races much more exciting with the higher speeds and number of riders that can win on any given day.you could argue that... if you support a culture of dope, and don't give a fuck about the athletes over your entertainment.
What's is the [rider] supposed to do? Go back to nothing or do what it takes to keep playing/working?if by "what it takes", you mean training... then yes.
if by "what it takes" you mean dope, then no. absolutely not.
Yes, doping to win is wrong BUT When is the Tour/UCI going to give money back to the sponsors? When are the sponsors going to give money back to consumers(that purchased products because of cycling sponsorship)? When is any Professional league [NFL, MBL, etc.] going to refund season tickets holders? So why should the riders give back money if nobody else is?this is missing the point. in my opinion.
the tour/uci isn't so much giving "money back to the sponsors", as the sponsors are going to stop giving money to cycling.
liberty mutual, and wurth pulling sponsorship is a huge blow.
they know that.
i think if any more major sponsors pull out, cycling will become a pretty marginalized (even in europe) sport.
maybe it's unfair that pro cyclists get tested 500% more than any other athletes, but that is the way it is.
what's actually b.s. is that they can't pass the tests...
i think we have a right to expect a clean race.
i for one think immediate lifetime bans is not out of line.
if the reason for doping is the "pressure to win" from management and sponsors, maybe we should apply greater pressure not to.
minneapolis is a funny, backwards place.
your thoughts?
9 comments:
The signing statement is total bull. My argument is here. That doesn't mean that I, the author you're quoting, or others support doping. It just means that this worthless scrap of paper is not the way to fix it.
i don't think there is any argument that 2 tired cat 3's caused the crash in the 1/2 race
FYI - I dropped out after 9 laps because it became glaringly apparent that I didn't belong there. The crash happened ~20 laps later.
I don't think there's anything wrong with 3's racing with the 1/2's. I remember a specific incident last year where smithers and I were staring each other down in the cat 3 50-lap scratch and neither of us rode very hard, and I was perfectly comfortable in the nat. qualifier points race that immediately followed.
but I would hope that they pull themselves from the race when they are out of contention or so redlined that they are riding dangerously. But really, there are 2's that are in that same situation that need to learn to pull themselves when they are out of contention too....
I was one of the Cat 3's in the 1-2 race, and in the crash. I was the last one, or perhaps second-last one, into the crash in the 1/2 race, so I wasn't near enough to the source to know what the exact cause was. But I got up and finished the race with the field.
I was cooked, that's true. I didn't score any points; the last end-of-night 1/2 race I did, I won the last sprint and finished 5th because four guys lapped the field. Two of them were Cat. 3's, so there were three Cat. 3's in the top five of the 1-2 race.
That's a measure of strength, but not of skill and safety. Skill and safety are the issue in upgrades, so it's just important not to conflate the two. Bob is very good about holding the upgrade line. I'm not close to being a 2 . . . fear me not.
dgc
some responses:
stevencx- i agree that the statement the uci is requiring is bull, but because it is not enough. if no one is doping, (as they all claim), then there is no problem.
i for one, will never fear a dope test, even if "the testing is flawed", because i don't even take asprin. and even though "not cheating" is implied when you buy a racing liscence, this is supposed to be a way to show the public that doping is not tolerated.
i just think they need to be more harsh.
i'd sign a contract giving away my first born for a doping offence.
(of course i won't win the tour either).
sickboy/dgc: i know what your saying, i did the same thing. last year i raced a cat 3 race, then jumped into the cat1/2 points race and got 2nd place. to me that means i should have been a 2 at that point. the issue is with reletively new 3's. should they be allowed in the 1/2 race? i don't think so. and since there is no "fair" way to decide, i figure no 3's at all is the only reasonable way to do it.
a 3 can be fast enough to race 1/2, but the skill level is very different. everything is tighter, closer, and so forth.
that said, i don't doubt that the 1/2's tend to be a close knit crowd, in that we know how each other races. so when new folks mix in maybe we forget that if we flick up right in front of them they may react (or not react) how we might expect them to...
i still think it's not a god idea.
but, i loved racing with the 1/2's when i was a 3...
a bigger issue is the 4/5 fields.
that needs to be dealt with.
what i read in that was that riders are being unfairly singled out when everybody from the UCI to the DSs are all leaning on the rider to do the opposite.
I don't have a problem the statement as a sign of good faith, but blaming the rider should be only one part of it. How about putting some heat on doctors, DSs, and teams as a whole?
This whole charade just detracts from the bigger systemic problems and blames the victim.
it doesn't matter what category you are on the track when it comes to riding safely. The main thing you have to do is fucking pay attention. Don't make quick moves up or down track, look before you move, if you're up front don't slow down drastically, don't block if you're teammate is off the front, don't swerve, pass over the top, don't cross wheels, don't freak out when someone nudges you, keep your hands on the bars, ride a straight line, etc.... enuf said, and Kruse what the hell are you talking about being comfortable in last years points race qualifer, I don't remember you doing shit in that race...
And that my friend, is why he was 'comfortable'.
skibbitch, that's because you were at the back with your eyes fixed on the rear hub of the bike ahead of you....
I *did* score points in that race, the first time I had ever raced with the 2's.... I didn't keep them, because I later quit but I did score.
dipshit.
Post a Comment