Not signed in (Sign In)

General: In the News

Bottom of Page

1601 to 1650 of 2053

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. ...
  4. 29
  5. 30
  6. 31
  7. 32
  8. 33
  9. 34
  10. 35
  11. 36
  12. ...
  13. 42
  14. >
    • CommentAuthorSerge2
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2012
     
    It's my OPINION that Armstrong's performance in the Tours, as well as Wiggins' performance in this Tour (along without countless others), was unnatural and unfair. I do not advocate the conviction of anyone on that opinion alone.

    But I do support the process of obtaining evidence to convince an arbitration panel of cheating per the rules the athletes all agree to when they get their licenses. Calling that "witch hunting" is just replicating yet another meme floated by the Armstrong PR machine.

    Speaking of Armstrong memes, did you notice that among the points challenged by the USADA in their motion to dismiss the case, was the "tested over 500 times" claim that he keeps making? That's another one that keeps getting repeated, without basis.
    •  
      CommentAuthorHMeins
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2012
     
    The term "witch hunt" to describe an investigation that seeks a conviction based merely on accusations without hard evidence dates to the 1930s and is most infamously applied to the Second Red Scare of the 1950s during which numerous Hollywood writers, producers, and actors were blacklisted and had their careers ruined based solely on suspicion that they were affiliated with the Communist Party and on coerced testimony from associates.

    Arthur Miller set "The Crucible" in 17th Century New England as a metaphor for what Sen. Joseph McCarthy (Travis Tygart) and the HUAC (USADA) were doing to creative minds in the film industry. Hollywood had become the face that the U.S. was presenting to the rest of the world and the anti-Communist crusaders reasoned that if subversive activities were to manifest themselves through the American film industry, the image of the U.S. as staunchly anti-Communist could be compromised and that it could even invite the thin end of the revolutionary wedge to find purchase here at home. They suspected that the subversive spirit was entrenched in Hollywood and that the reason for this was due to the influence of left-leaning people in the film industry. They went into the hunt with the preconceived notion that Communists existed. When they had trouble finding obvious examples, they set about manufacturing suspects based on coerced testimony: "Rat out your associates or we will destroy you."

    Miller counted on McCarthy and his cronies being too square to actually recognize themselves in his play, and when they finally did, they came after him with a vengeance.

    The parallel with 17th Century Massachusetts is this: when the investigators failed to uncover hard evidence of witchcraft, they set about manufacturing witches by whipping up hysteria in the populace and then using their panic to lead them to implicate their neighbors.

    Armstrong is one thing, but implying that Wiggins and Froome succeeded due to cheating rather than by proper preparation borders on the hysterical. This is the side of human nature Miller exposed so deftly in "The Crucible."

    Having said that, I personally believe that athletes are generally four to five years ahead of testing, but digging into the past ex post facto is treading on a slippery slope.
    • CommentAuthorJSnook
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2012
     
    I'd love to hear the rationale for Wiggins being a doper beyond "lance was a doper, therefore Wiggins is too"
    •  
      CommentAuthorPacMUle
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2012
     
    http://grist.org/list/new-york-city-is-making-cyclists-go-to-remedial-bikers-ed-classes/
    New York City is treating wayward cyclists the same way a driver who’s racked up one too many DUIs might be: It’s sending them to class to review the basic rules of the road.
    • CommentAuthorbilld
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2012
     
    •  
      CommentAuthorHMeins
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2012
     
    Hopefully this program will be accompanied by a traffic calming strategy for the college area. It was brutal when I was studying there as an undergraduate and as a graduate student and it's worse now. I rode a Puch moped from Encinitas to SDSU four days a week. This was before the Montezuma/Fairmount interchange was reconfigured to make cycling to campus even more dangerous than it was previously.

    A couple of weeks ago I had my first appointment at San Diego Sports Medicine - Alvarado. I looked at bike routes from Adams Avenue and decided it would be safer and more pleasant to take the trolley, which has a stop right in front of the doctor's office. Five dollars for a one day pass is affordable.
    •  
      CommentAuthorPaul
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2012
     
  8.  
    Well done! I couldn't make it down there tonight.
    • CommentAuthorbilld
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2012
     
    Sam and Penny got interviewed. Nice!
    •  
      CommentAuthorHMeins
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2012
     
    Check out the comments! These Neanderthals are worse than the U-T readers. At least newspaper readers READ!
    •  
      CommentAuthorPacMUle
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2012
     
    nice piece... i refuse to read the comments so that i can take joy in the coverage. good job guys! wish i could have been there with ya...
    • CommentAuthormfutch
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2012
     
    Anonymous commenting is the worst. It's usually a bit more civil when linked to your real identity.
    •  
      CommentAuthorPaul
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2012 edited
     
    Also annoying was the sudden appearance of the "rider education" advocates who unfortunately also got some media interviews. The ride was organized to demand changes from local government, as the three of us mentioned on channel 8. Unfortunately, the brief stories on KPBS and channel 6 and some of the local print/web stories didn't get this message across as they focused on interviews with the SDCBC.
    •  
      CommentAuthorsvelocity 
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2012
     
    @Cecil - My mother and wife will never let me take a photo of them from below (a major faux pas). You should demand better on the next interview!! LOL...

    All kidding aside, well done!!
    •  
      CommentAuthorSigurd
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2012 edited
     
    Cecil:Unfortunately, the brief stories on KPBS and channel 6 and some of the local print/web stories didn't get this message across as they focused on interviews with the SDCBC.
    Yes - the KPBS coverage was totally hijacked by the SDCBC - WTF?
    •  
      CommentAuthorPaul
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2012
     
    svelocity:@Cecil - My mother and wife will never let me take a photo of them from below (a major faux pas). You should demand better on the next interview!! LOL...

    All kidding aside, well done!!


    I thought he was shooting my chamois. It could have been much worse.

    Sigurd:
    Cecil:Unfortunately, the brief stories on KPBS and channel 6 and some of the local print/web stories didn't get this message across as they focused on interviews with the SDCBC.
    Yes - the KPBS coverage was totally hijacked by the SDCBC - WTF?


    The SDCBC came out in force and ran to the microphone. I feel like it changed the focus into a potential blame the victim mentality. Angel Bojorquez was an infrequent bike commuter who needed a safe way home from work to Escondido in the early morning. He needed a safe transit corridor of they type that the Coalition has consistently failed to support
  17.  
    With all the recent bike related deaths here in san diego, has there been any type of charity for the families or anything along those lines?
    •  
      CommentAuthorPaul
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2012
     
    •  
      CommentAuthorPaul
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2012
     
    • CommentAuthorVeloCafé
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2012
     
    Sigurd:
    Cecil:Unfortunately, the brief stories on KPBS and channel 6 and some of the local print/web stories didn't get this message across as they focused on interviews with the SDCBC.
    Yes - the KPBS coverage was totally hijacked by the SDCBC - WTF?
    I noticed someone going around handing out business cards claiming to be with SDCBC telling news crews to contact him if they want further information. Seems they were trying to steal the scene of a memorial to further their own personal gains. That's just damn tacky and cost them a lot of respect IMO.
    • CommentAuthorSerge2
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2012
     
    JSnook:I'd love to hear the rationale for Wiggins being a doper beyond "lance was a doper, therefore Wiggins is too"

    It's based on the assumption that most of the peloton, certainly the top 20, are all dopers. And that assumption is based on the fact that Tour podiums of the past 20 years are riddled with proven dopers, and that performances like that of Wiggins is comparable to that of proven dopers in the past.

    Anyone interested in more details about the source for specific suspicions about Wiggins and his Sky team might want to read this thread at The Clinic forum on cyclingnews.com.

    http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=17412

    Warning: that discussion started in June and is now over 430 pages long. I presume we don't want to have a similar one here.
    • CommentAuthorSerge2
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2012 edited
     
    Cecil:
    The SDCBC came out in force and ran to the microphone. I feel like it changed the focus into a potential blame the victim mentality. Angel Bojorquez was an infrequent bike commuter who needed a safe way home from work to Escondido in the early morning. He needed a safe transit corridor of they type that the Coalition has consistently failed to support

    That's quite an accusation.

    Is this just an impression you have, or do you have any specific examples that support this idea that the Coalition has "consistently failed to support" this type of "safe transit corridor"?

    I've been on the Coalition board almost 10 years now, and can't think of a single instance where anything like this was not supported consistently by the Coalition. I suppose it's possible that some promising initiatives were shot down by the staff and never brought to the board attention, but I have a hard time believing that actually happened. Are you saying you know of such instances?
    •  
      CommentAuthorHMeins
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2012 edited
     
    The most suspicious instance in recent memory that goes well beyond the hysterical notion, parrotted by U-T sports "writer" Mark Zeigler, that all professional riders are still doping, is the gold medal ride by Vinokourov. I could also argue against it by chalking it up to the fact that the sprinters' teams allowed a break to go too far up the road, enabling no hopers like Vino' and Colombian climber Rigoberto Uran to win the stage.

    I can't stand the recent trend of journalistic writing in jerky, stop and go sentence fragments without so much as a verb and punctuated as sentences. This style looks more like advertising copy than news writing and discourages me from reading the rest of the article.
    • CommentAuthorbossvoss
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2012
     
    NCTimes: To flee, or not to flee; Punishment lighter for hit and run than DUI in fatal crashes

    Not news to this forum, but good that it is getting wider acknowledgement
    •  
      CommentAuthorKathy
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2012
     
    VeloCafé:
    Sigurd:
    Cecil:Unfortunately, the brief stories on KPBS and channel 6 and some of the local print/web stories didn't get this message across as they focused on interviews with the SDCBC.
    Yes - the KPBS coverage was totally hijacked by the SDCBC - WTF?
    I noticed someone going around handing out business cards claiming to be with SDCBC telling news crews to contact him if they want further information. Seems they were trying to steal the scene of a memorial to further their own personal gains. That's just damn tacky and cost them a lot of respect IMO.


    I'll take the blame for that one. I encouraged Andy to give his business card to the reporters in case they were working on any other bike stories. It wasn't meant as a sign of disrespect or to steal the scene. I blew it - my apologies.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSigurd
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2012
     
    Kathy:I'll take the blame for that one. I encouraged Andy to give his business card to the reporters in case they were working on any other bike stories. It wasn't meant as a sign of disrespect or to steal the scene. I blew it - my apologies.
    Hey Kathy - appreciate it; it takes a lot of chutzpah to stand up and accept responsibility for anything gone wrong!
    •  
      CommentAuthorPacMUle
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2012
     
    ... so thats how you spell chutzpah :D
    •  
      CommentAuthorPaul
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2012
     
    Sigurd:
    Kathy:I'll take the blame for that one. I encouraged Andy to give his business card to the reporters in case they were working on any other bike stories. It wasn't meant as a sign of disrespect or to steal the scene. I blew it - my apologies.
    Hey Kathy - appreciate it; it takes a lot of chutzpah to stand up and accept responsibility for anything gone wrong!


    No worries, Kathy.
    The attendees were experienced cyclists and commuters gathering to grieve and vent. I was concerned that the intended messaging focused toward external actors not be diluted by focusing on cyclist education and that has already been addressed. Glad to see as many riders as possible come out to support our united demand for changes in local infrastructure and policy.
    • CommentAuthorJSnook
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2012
     
    Good to know were tarring TdF winners as dopers based on assumptions that are based on assumptions. It would be a shame if things like facts got in the way.

    According to that logic serge Bobby Julich was a doper too since he finished on the podium in the Tour, putting him in the top 20.
    • CommentAuthorSerge2
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2012 edited
     
    Of course Julich was a doper. He was riding on CSC for admitted doper Bjarne Riis. And he won the 2005 Criterium International!

    I mean, how naive can we be? Look, this is like saying members of the Mafia or a known drug gang are criminals. We still have to have evidence to actually arrest them, but we don't need that to know they are criminals. To lose a title and get sanctioned... evidence is required, of course. But to simply acknowledge they have to dope to compete with (much less beat) the other dopers? That's just reason and logic.

    For a variety of reasons, the testing system is notoriously horrible at catching them. The number of athletes who never tested positive but were busted never-the-less (like Ullrich) is plenty of evidence for that. To suggest that a pro peloton rider never testing positive is somehow indicative of him being clean is ridiculous. Of course they dope, especially those that get into the top 20. To get in the top 20 clean among these extraordinary athletes who are doping would require a superhuman. Julich was good, but not that good.

    1 Bobby Julich (USA) Team CSC 10.05
    2 Jens Voigt (Ger) Team CSC 0.03
    3 Kurt-Asle Arvesen (Nor) Team CSC 0.11
    4 Thomas Dekker (Ned) Rabobank
    5 Levi Leipheimer (USA) Gerolsteiner 0.12 (USPS)
    6 José Alberto Martinez (Spa) Agritubel 0.17
    7 Ruben Plaza Molina (Spa) Comunidad Valenciana 0.18
    8 David Blanco (Spa) Comunidad Valenciana
    9 Brian Vandborg (Den) Team CSC 0.22
    10 Joost Posthuma (Ned) Rabobank 0.23

    Here is a thread about Julich at The Clinic.
    http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=10848
    •  
      CommentAuthorHMeins
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2012 edited
     
    If this is so, then that is even less of a reason to go after Armstrong ex post facto. Why isn't Vinokourov on the list?

    If an athlete has never tested positive for banned substances, what is the rationale for accusing him?

    "He looks like one!"

    "Bring him forward."

    "I'm not a doper."

    "But you are dressed as one."

    "They dressed me up like this. And this isn't my nose. It's a false one."

    "Well, we did do the nose. And the hat. He's a doper!"

    (all) "Ban him!"

    "Did you dress him up like this?"

    "No! No! No! Yes, yes. A bit."

    "What makes you think he is a doper?"

    "Oh, he turned me into a newt!"

    "A newt?"

    "I got better."

    (all) "Ban him anyway!"

    The point is this: if we ban the entire peloton from racing based on a Napoleonic Law accusation that since they are professionals they must have doped (witch hunt), what happens to the sport? If we throw the baby out with the bathwater, where do we start anew? At some point the hysteria has to stop and we have to get on with competition.

    If we assume that athletes are four to five years ahead of the testing process, the only fair and consistent metric for an accusation is the presence of a positive test. Intimidating associates into turning in their peers by threatening to ruin their careers is specious since the resulting testimony is obtained under duress. I'm not an attorney, but I do have a sense of fairness based on logic and the rule of law. As Thomas Paine said, arguing with people who have renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.
    • CommentAuthorJSnook
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2012
     
    Obviously serge doesn't know many of the riders in the peloton to suggest Bobby Julich was a doper. I would suggest getting out from behind your computer reading "the clinic" or whatever it is and traveling to some pro races and getting to know some of the people involved in the sport. It becomes pretty obvious once you get to know riders, physios, docs, DS's and others in the sport who is riding clean and who is not.
    • CommentAuthorSerge2
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2012
     
    Right. Just like it was "pretty obvious" that Ullrich, Millar, Basso, Di Luca, Frigo, Heras, Hondo, Landaluze, Vino, Aitor Gonzalez, Boonen, Astarloa, Beltran, Jimmy Casper,Gusev, Piepoli, Sevilla, Rasmussen, Fuyu, Ricco, Contador, Jorg Jaksche, Scarponi, Pettachi, Sinkewitz, Tyler, Floyd, Lance, George, Levi (to name just a few) and we'll-see-who-else-admits-it-soon were doping.

    These guys all have inner inner circles - some so tight that it's only them and a doctor - who are the only ones with first hand knowledge of the doping. Everyone else knows first hand as little as you and I do. But, come on. Let's get our heads out of the sand already.
    • CommentAuthorlisi 
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2012
     
    Serge2:
    Anyone interested in more details about the source for specific suspicions about Wiggins and his Sky team might want to read this thread at The Clinic forum on cyclingnews.com.

    http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=17412

    Warning: that discussion started in June and is now over 430 pages long. I presume we don't want to have a similar one here.


    Let's let that discussion stay there then. I hardly think you or anyone else on this forum is qualified to make accusations. Looks like it might be time to agree to disagree. Perhaps there are more interesting things in the news to report on... Or maybe we should get out from in front of the computer screens and ride a bit more or at least get some fresh air.
    • CommentAuthorSerge2
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2012
     
    HMeins:If this is so, then that is even less of a reason to go after Armstrong ex post facto. Why isn't Vinokourov on the list?

    What list?

    HMeins:
    If an athlete has never tested positive for banned substances, what is the rationale for accusing him?

    It depends. In Ullrich's case, it was finding his blood in Dr. Fuentes' office. In Marion Jones' case (who never tested positive), it was eyewitness testimony.

    HMeins:
    The point is this: if we ban the entire peloton from racing based on a Napoleonic Law accusation that since they are professionals they must have doped (witch hunt), what happens to the sport? If we throw the baby out with the bathwater, where do we start anew? At some point the hysteria has to stop and we have to get on with competition.

    No one is suggesting banning anyone without specific and solid evidence of their doping.

    HMeins:
    If we assume that athletes are four to five years ahead of the testing process, the only fair and consistent metric for an accusation is the presence of a positive test.

    What? You will almost never get a positive case when they are 4-5 years ahead of the testing process. That's the point. The testing process is a joke. Especially when administered by an organization (UCI) of people whose livelihoods depend on keeping a lid on the doping.

    HMeins:
    Intimidating associates into turning in their peers by threatening to ruin their careers is specious since the resulting testimony is obtained under duress. I'm not an attorney, but I do have a sense of fairness based on logic and the rule of law. As Thomas Paine said, arguing with people who have renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.

    I don't know of a single case of anyone "intimidating associates into turning in their peers by threatening to ruin their careers", but that is the spin being churned out by the incredible Armstrong PR machine.

    At most they get evidence of doping on an athlete and offer a break in sanction in return for cooperation in an investigation. Unless you're suggesting that people like George Hincapie and Levi Leipheimer are going to be making up stuff to lie about Armstrong doping, which would be legal suicide (not only opening themselves up to perjury charges, but surely a brutal civil libel/slander suit from Armstrong), what is your point?
    •  
      CommentAuthorSigurd
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2012
     
    lisi:Let's let that discussion stay there then. I hardly think you or anyone else on this forum is qualified to make accusations. Looks like it might be time to agree to disagree. Perhaps there are more interesting things in the news to report on... Or maybe we should get out from in front of the computer screens and ride a bit more or at least get some fresh air.
    Seconded. There are indeed other news out there more relevant to the San Diego bicyclists. Let's stop making hollow, unfounded, and speculative accusations and assumptions, and instead go ride our bicycles.

    Or get involved in other more productive ways.
    •  
      CommentAuthorHMeins
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2012 edited
     
    Supressing civil free discussion on a discussion board is as anathema as joining the torch and pitchfork crowd. Perhaps, as with the Vehicular Cycling discussion, we need to consider creating a new thread to discuss cheating in sport (which might also include such local subjects as sitting out a lap on the backside of an understaffed criterium course), or perhaps even move it to the bicycle racing thread. I'd be good with either of those choices.

    But my question remains: where do we start anew once all the present athletes are "banishèd" since testing seems to lag several years behind the athletes? We may have to carry on the way we have been, reeling in the ones farthest off the curve and prosecuting them as they are caught, just like Floyd Landis. He wasn't doing anything that anyone else wasn't doing. His security apparatus was not as good as that of Armstrong and others. Phonak were not as careful as were Discovery/USPS.

    Millar got caught. Vino' got caught. Careless and arrogant Riccò almost died. There is something suspicious when a healthy 22 year old near the top of his form like Frederiek Nolf dies in his sleep at a stage race.

    I never suggested I didn't think Armstrong's coaches and soigneurs weren't doing everything they possibly could to seek any advantage short of detection. That's their job. One of Armstrong's former coaches, Eddie Borysewicz is a good friend of mine. He discovered Greg Lemond. He didn't lead the U.S. Olympic Cycling Team to nine medals in 1984 without pushing it to the limit. Even so, he was criticized for using unethical practices and fined a month's pay by USCF. Blood doping was subsequently banned the next year.

    The sport needs to be cleaned up. I think it is happening, but at the glacial pace one would expect from so thoroughly entrenched a practice. Nevertheless, I do not support the notion of going back seven years or more to single out one high profile rider for alleged misdeeds. That can only serve to further damage the sport. If there are irregular test results from 2009, then take away Armstrong's third place and make him serve a ban. He shouldn't be treated differently than any other rider under suspicion.

    Doping may be destroying the sport, but it's taking an awfully long time to do it, since ingesting or injecting chemicals to gain an advantage dates back 120 years.

    (rural west midlands accent): "Cider drinkin'll kill ya! Killed my father, it did! Took it 93 years to do it, though!"
    • CommentAuthorlisi 
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2012
     
    HMeins:Supressing civil free discussion on a discussion board is as anathema as joining the torch and pitchfork crowd. Perhaps, as with the Vehicular Cycling discussion, we need to consider creating a new thread to discuss cheating in sport (which might also include such local subjects as sitting out a lap on the backside of an understaffed criterium course), or perhaps even move it to the bicycle racing thread. I'd be good with either of those choices.


    I didn't intend to "suppress" civil free discussion so I apologize if my comment was taken that way. I think your idea is fantastic - start a new thread and rock out!
    •  
      CommentAuthorSigurd
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2012
     
    HMeins:Supressing civil free discussion...
    Nobody's suppressing anything - the suggestion is that the marginal utility of debating this subject any longer is quickly diminishing, and that debating it incessantly in a "News" thread detracts from the intended purpose of the thread.

    Move the discussion to the "Racing" thread. Or start a new thread if you have to.
    • CommentAuthorSerge2
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2012
     
    HMeins:Supressing civil free discussion on a discussion board is as anathema as joining the torch and pitchfork crowd. Perhaps, as with the Vehicular Cycling discussion, we need to consider creating a new thread to discuss cheating in sport (which might also include such local subjects as sitting out a lap on the backside of an understaffed criterium course), or perhaps even move it to the bicycle racing thread. I'd be good with either of those choices.

    But my question remains: [snip]...


    Replied in a new thread, Doping in bicycle racing.
    •  
      CommentAuthormarkphilips
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2012 edited
     
    Folks. I suggested Adams 100 on UBSC, along with FB, this forum, and other online means. When 3 or more people RSVP to attend a suggested MeetUP (by any member), it is announced as an upcoming event. I will be attending but I doubt I will do the hundred miles but who knows? Let's get out there and ride. Let's take our forum discussion on a rolling conversation. Also, please use this opportunity to tell people about this forum.

    I have suggested a pop-up bike mob (bike boulevard is a much better) in the past in another FB group but nothing came of it. I'm glad that Adam's Avenue created the event.
    • CommentAuthorModerator
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2012
     
    HMeins:Supressing civil free discussion on a discussion board is as anathema as joining the torch and pitchfork crowd. Perhaps, as with the Vehicular Cycling discussion, we need to consider creating a new thread to discuss cheating in sport (which might also include such local subjects as sitting out a lap on the backside of an understaffed criterium course), or perhaps even move it to the bicycle racing thread. I'd be good with either of those choices.


    How would this discussion encourage present and future sdbikecommuter forum members to ride their bikes for recreation or commuting?
    •  
      CommentAuthorHMeins
    • CommentTimeAug 2nd 2012
     
    Same question could be asked about all three bicycle racing threads as well as about Soundtrack of the Day. Perhaps we should narrow discussions to those which encourage riding for recreation or commuting. And no negativity; positive sentiments only.
    • CommentAuthorSerge2
    • CommentTimeAug 2nd 2012
     
    In general, there seems to be a high correlation between interest in bicycle racing and interest in bicycle riding. That is, anything that fuels interest in bicycle racing is like to ultimately inspire some riding.

    We had the Lemond and Armstrong effects in the U.S. I predict a spike in bicycling popularity in the UK now with Wiggins' wins at the TDF and the Olympics.
    •  
      CommentAuthorPaul
    • CommentTimeAug 6th 2012
     
  46.  
    Excellent article, Paul.
    •  
      CommentAuthorHMeins
    • CommentTimeAug 6th 2012
     
    If Kant were a New York City cyclist he would never in all of his life travel more than ten miles from NYC. In his entire life Kant never went beyond ten miles of his native Königsberg. He could still ride at Kissena and the new Brooklyn Velodromes and out on the old cinder path to Coney Island where generations of cyclists, including Brooklyn born Henry Miller, raced.
    • CommentAuthorerik
    • CommentTimeAug 6th 2012
     
    Ten miles? That is pretty much normal for New Yorkers. Not sure if this is still the case, but it used to be reasonably easy to find someone who has never left his or her borough.
    •  
      CommentAuthorbikingbill
    • CommentTimeAug 6th 2012
     
    Cecil:If Kant Were a New York Cyclist


    I'll agree with the 'rolling stops' at stop signs for the same reason I'll disagree with the "running red lights if the coast is clear."

    The first is generally accepted behavior by all road users ... motorists and cyclists both, the second causes us grief every time we go before a political entity (town, county) and ask for some sort of accommodation (as in the Encinitas sharrows) as it is not generally acceptable by road users. So it does me harm by hurting the perception of cyclists as legitimate users of the roads. You can see this anytime theres a cycling accident in the comments section of the article. I'd really wish cyclist would just stop that.

    Meanwhile ... the first thought that popped into my head when I read this was:

    Immanuel Kant was a
    real pissant who was very rarely stable,
    Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could
    think you under the table, David Hume could
    out-consume Schopenhauer and Hegel, And
    Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as
    schloshed as Schlegel. There's nothing Nietzsche
    couldn't teach ya 'bout the raising of the wrist,
    Socrates himself was permanently pissed... John
    Stuart Mill, of his own free will, with half a
    pint of shandy was particularly ill, Plato, they
    say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey
    every day, Aristotle, Aristotle was a beggar for
    the bottle, Hobbes was fond of his dram, And Rene
    Descartes was a drunken fart, "I drink therefore I
    am." Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's
    pissed.
  50.  
    My first thought also...

    Thank you MP!

1601 to 1650 of 2053

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. ...
  4. 29
  5. 30
  6. 31
  7. 32
  8. 33
  9. 34
  10. 35
  11. 36
  12. ...
  13. 42
  14. >