Bow to Lance Armstrong!!

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

New developments in sport equipment are helping Olympic athletes to improve their winning odds in a wide range of events. Subtle material substitutions, such as stronger, lighter carbon for aluminum in a sailboat mast, as well as more radical new designs such as the sprint bike, can provide advantages that mean the difference between silver and gold at elite competitions (Schrof et al 42), (http://exploratorium 1995).

I assure you that in all the professional sports combined, Chemistry and Medicine have done ALOT more for breaking records than advances in equipment have since the end of WW2.

Without the gene therapies, growth hormones, steroids, supplements, eight week hydration studies, macronutrients, and everything else athletes shovel down their gullets there would have been very few records broken in the last half-century. Lance's titanium & carbon fiber bike may have given him an extra 5mph, but the chemical enhancements he and other cyclists use gave him an extra 10.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

I would like to clarify that I do not consider chemical assistance of any sort "cheating" or poor sportsmanship in any regard. Yes, there may be something said for competeing and winning au natural, but it is unrealistic to expect professional athletes (and many amateur ones) to "put the genie back in the bottle". Medicine and chemistry are now the most important sciences of exercise.

 

[Mudcat]

Does Anyone Remember the LA Olympics?

That year, our cycling team garnered more medals than in all other olympics combined. On the Track, Team events, and on the road. Why, technology. Believe it or not, the lowly manufacturer named Huffy (of target and walmart and other deeply discounted stores fame) got the contract to provide the bikes for the olympic team. Prior to these olympics, no-one had a carbon fiber bike, no-one had and aero bike, on-one had a bike that weighed less than 17 lbs. One month after the olympics, everyone (and I do mean everyone) had one and the playing field was level once again.

In high school I race on a Schwinn Paramount that weighed about 20 lbs, now my bike is a 17 lb marvel of Italian/Japanese engineering with tires that hold 160 psi of air (that in itself is the biggest factor) - an 18mm wide tire at that pressure holding 250 lbs of rider and bike still has virtually no rolling resistance and all thats left to fight is the air. Compare to bikes fitted with 30mm plus tires inflated to not more than 70 psi and you will feel the difference.

Greg Lemond made up more that 50 seconds on Laurant Fignon in a 15 mile time trial on the last day of the 89 TDF, in large part because of technology. He was the only rider in the TDF using those Tri aero bars extensions that kept his head down (granted Laurant probably slacked a little thinking his lead secure and Greg rode like a man possessed, but the technology that no-one else was using helped). Now, everyone uses aero bars during time trials. Greg also rode a large 54 tooth chain ring while most if not all others rode a 52 tooth ring - all had a 12 tooth sprocket (11's weren't made yet).

As far as I am aware, the only bike rule in the TDF is that the bike weigh not less than 15 lbs 3 oz or whatever the metric equivelent is.

Whatever the next great technology leap is, I hope I'm in on it.

 

[hopjohn]

The weight requirement is 6.8kg. There are several mfg. of carbon fiber frames Cervelo, Trek, Giant, that can easily get bikes below this with a light enough wheelset and other light parts. I know a recent Trek design (SSLX) for Mtn. stages included brazeons at the base of the drop tube to add lead weights should it be deemed necessary by the UCI. I've also heard some speculation that a few riders have cheated by icing their frames for the weigh in, and then of course by the time they hit the ascents the ice has melted away to an illegal weight. They may have started doing weigh ins aferward now also, not sure.

Anyway the weight of the bike has become pretty much a moot factor in many ways. Even teams who are forced to use a technologically inferior frame can still drop down to the weight limit through the use of other lighter components (pedals, bars, stem, crank etc.) The rider himself is where weight is the largest consideration. Typically a bigger heavier rider will have more surface area which causes more drag, though they do often have a larger muscle mass. But, with more drag comes more resistance, and more work to move a bigger, heavier, though powerful guy like Jan Ullrich.

I don't get into velo racing or other non-road cycling events, but I would presume that technology would play a slightly larger role in these types of racing. Much like it does in time trails because of the short distances where the effort provided by the elite riders is nearly identical due to a lack of drop off and very minuscule advantages can mean the difference between winning and losing.

My point of all this is that LA is a genetically superior freak of nature. His body has been tested and measured in countless ways. These tests have shown that his physical capabilities are far superior not just to regular humans, but to well conditioned athletes. It's pretty obvious that he is as close to superhuman as is possible and to discredit him as a product of technology is absurd, ridiculous, and insulting to anyone that knows better.

 

[shokhead]

The weight requirement is 6.8kg. There are several mfg. of carbon fiber frames Cervelo, Trek, Giant, that can easily get bikes below this with a light enough wheelset and other light parts. I know a recent Trek design (SSLX) for Mtn. stages included brazeons at the base of the drop tube to add lead weights should it be deemed necessary by the UCI. I've also heard some speculation that a few riders have cheated by icing their frames for the weigh in, and then of course by the time they hit the ascents the ice has melted away to an illegal weight. They may have started doing weigh ins aferward now also, not sure.

Anyway the weight of the bike has become pretty much a moot factor in many ways. Even teams who are forced to use a technologically inferior frame can still drop down to the weight limit through the use of other lighter components (pedals, bars, stem, crank etc.) The rider himself is where weight is the largest consideration. Typically a bigger heavier rider will have more surface area which causes more drag, though they do often have a larger muscle mass. But, with more drag comes more resistance, and more work to move a bigger, heavier, though powerful guy like Jan Ullrich.

I don't get into velo racing or other non-road cycling events, but I would presume that technology would play a slightly larger role in these types of racing. Much like it does in time trails because of the short distances where the effort provided by the elite riders is nearly identical due to a lack of drop off and very minuscule advantages can mean the difference between winning and losing.

My point of all this is that LA is a genetically superior freak of nature. His body has been tested and measured in countless ways. These tests have shown that his physical capabilities are far superior not just to regular humans, but to well conditioned athletes. It's pretty obvious that he is as close to superhuman as is possible and to discredit him as a product of technology is absurd, ridiculous, and insulting to anyone that knows better.

What you said. So little difference between teams and there equipment. LA drops them in the mountains where the bike come in play the least.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

My point of all this is that LA is a genetically superior freak of nature. His body has been tested and measured in countless ways. These tests have shown that his physical capabilities are far superior not just to regular humans, but to well conditioned athletes.

Good genetics? yes, of course. But comparing LA against any Joe 6-pack the greater difference is caused by his three decades of constant physical training, for much of his career exceeding what doctors, trainers, and former racers have taught was safe or even possible. His gruelling life is rewritting our knowledge of what the body is capable of, not only in cycling but for all of human physicality.

 

[racquetman]

I'm glad to see we have some A/V nuts out there that appreciate what a marvel Lance is.

Now if I could just convince more people that Roger Federer is a genius and that you should watch him every chance you get, I could die a happy man .

By the way, if you didn't know, Federer is a tennis player. Everyone watch and support the U.S. Open in August!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[shokhead]

I'm glad to see we have some A/V nuts out there that appreciate what a marvel Lance is.

Now if I could just convince more people that Roger Federer is a genius and that you should watch him every chance you get, I could die a happy man .

By the way, if you didn't know, Federer is a tennis player. Everyone watch and support the U.S. Open in August!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll be watching the babes for sure.

 

[malvado78]

Federer

I'll agree totally with Federer (Although I would rather talk about Sampras). I think that LA has gotten the right amout of press. It was in the papers, on TV, the radio, and everywhere else. I think what he did was amazing (7 TDF's). But I really don't like the guy or the sport (It's more boring than NASCAR. Not even any good crashes). I am glad the only reason America ever paid any attention that sport is now retiring and I won't need to hear about him or it again.

 

[racquetman]

I'll agree totally with Federer (Although I would rather talk about Sampras). I think that LA has gotten the right amout of press. It was in the papers, on TV, the radio, and everywhere else. I think what he did was amazing (7 TDF's). But I really don't like the guy or the sport (It's more boring than NASCAR. Not even any good crashes). I am glad the only reason America ever paid any attention that sport is now retiring and I won't need to hear about him or it again.

The Lance story will be gone before you know it (in fact it's probably fading to nothing as we speak). I guess the accomplishment wasn't worthy of keeping a running commentary going for more than a couple weeks.

Meanwhile I go to MSN's homepage and what do I have to see staring me in the face? Britney's hillbilly husband didn't buy his son (with another woman) a f***ing birthday present. What the hell kind of mixed up society do we live in when that is a top story? For the love of God please post on this thread if you actually give a rat's *** what some dumb blonde's husband did or didn't do for his son's birthday. I just need to know that this is important to someone. I'm sure this story was an inspiration to all the deadbeat dads out there, so please, let's hear from you!! Just makes me sick, gentlemen.

On a smaller matter, Federer kills Sampras any day of the week, and twice on Sunday (2001 Wimbledon comes to mind) - sorry, just had to add that malvado78

 

[jaxvon]

I agree. I wish our media networks could get their heads out of their asses and show some real news. No one cares about Britney. If they do care enough to want more news like that, people need to get their heads out of their asses and start thinking and caring about stuff that matters.

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

I agree. I wish our media networks could get their heads out of their asses and show some real news. No one cares about Britney. If they do care enough to want more news like that, people need to get their heads out of their asses and start thinking and caring about stuff that matters.

Actually, EVERYONE cares about Britney. That's why they show it. Just because you, or I, don't is meaningless. Ratings show that talking about Britney's latest pregnancy sells. If it didn't sell, they wouldn't bother. The sad fact is the public is extremely interested in the lives of "stars" and not so interested in current events, politics, international affairs or anything like that.

But so what? Live and let live. They want to be informed about Britney and not about Iraq, that's their choice.

 

[racquetman]

Actually, EVERYONE cares about Britney. That's why they show it. Just because you, or I, don't is meaningless. Ratings show that talking about Britney's latest pregnancy sells. If it didn't sell, they wouldn't bother. The sad fact is the public is extremely interested in the lives of "stars" and not so interested in current events, politics, international affairs or anything like that.

But so what? Live and let live. They want to be informed about Britney and not about Iraq, that's their choice.

I disagree on two fronts. I don't think people care that much about Britney. If all these tabloid magazines stopped writing articles on her I doubt there would be an outcry from the public demanding to know what she was doing. People just read what is put in front of their faces. It gives them something to talk about with their friends and families and is used as a form of entertainment. If this smut was taken away, people would find other ways to entertain themselves. The media is the evil entity here. They could find a much more worthy story and report it and people would read about it and discuss it with each other.

I disagree with the "so what" comment. The so what is that people's lives are invaded for the sake of other's entertainment. Please don't tell me that you condone celebrities being stalked from sun-up to sun-down. These people deserve a little privacy too, regardless of whether or not you like them or not. The last time I checked having money isn't a crime, so why should the lives of celebrities be dissected and scrutinized, especially when they just have to grin and bare it. No one deserves to be stalked like this. In my opinion there is no lower form of life on the planet than a paparazzi photographer!!

These tabloids could write up a great story on Lance Armstrong and people would read it. Instead we have to hear about Britney's 3rd cousin running a red light while eating a sandwich (actually that wasn't a headline - YET!!).

 

[shokhead]

I only care about her boobs.

 

[JohnA]

Now this is news!

http://comingsoon.net/news/topnews.php?id=10537

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/636/636750p1.html

 

[racquetman]

Now this is news!

http://comingsoon.net/news/topnews.php?id=10537

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/636/636750p1.html

Damn straight!! Now that should be front page in the National Enquirer!!

Voltron rules!!

 

[Tsunamii]

I only care about her boobs.

From your mouth to Gods ears... LMAO what a lucky Baby indeed

 

[RhapsodyInBlack]

from lance armstrong to britanny spears...christ,how did this thread go so far astray. I suppose i'll help it wobble out even farther. I, personally, have a hard time feeling sorry for the hollywood and musical ' elite ' who parade their bodies around and whore themselves out to the media when their next big movie, reality tv show, or cd release is taking place.....and then magically,they want it all stopped when it intrudes on their lunch dates. If a star is truly sick and tired of being followed around and having flashbulbs dancing inside their heads at every turn....move to montana...wyoming..oklahoma...Fame comes at a price,and this is it...For every ' star ' that is sick of this obsessive media culture,there are two former stars that wish they still had all that attention. I have read about quite a few celebrities that moved away from new york and california and lo and behold,guess what....the press didnt follow them. I do think that this celebrity worship is way out of hand and it truly sickens me. However,i will not blame a photographer for americas obsession with this crap. I can think of a few more careers that have damaged the fabric of society far more than a geek with a camera. Someone commented on the fact that " money isnt a crime " and other than that being a completely true statement,what does that have to do with anything ? No one is following the founders of google around. No one is following the CEO and president of pepsi, coke, or wal-mart around. Why ? Because their pictures dont sell three million magazines everytime they are put on the supermarket check out stand. These hollywood actors arent followed around because they have money,they are followed around because over the last 20 years,we have shown the media conglamorates that we will devour every bit of crap that is put out on the market to buy....I'm not all that old,however..I could almost guarantee that the amount of magazine rack space devoted to these " poor,poor and abused " actors and actresses has increased threefold. And the only ones to blame for that are me and you....not someone who is doing a job and taking a picture.

 

[racquetman]

from lance armstrong to britanny spears...christ,how did this thread go so far astray. I suppose i'll help it wobble out even farther. I, personally, have a hard time feeling sorry for the hollywood and musical ' elite ' who parade their bodies around and whore themselves out to the media when their next big movie, reality tv show, or cd release is taking place.....and then magically,they want it all stopped when it intrudes on their lunch dates. If a star is truly sick and tired of being followed around and having flashbulbs dancing inside their heads at every turn....move to montana...wyoming..oklahoma...Fame comes at a price,and this is it...For every ' star ' that is sick of this obsessive media culture,there are two former stars that wish they still had all that attention. I have read about quite a few celebrities that moved away from new york and california and lo and behold,guess what....the press didnt follow them. I do think that this celebrity worship is way out of hand and it truly sickens me. However,i will not blame a photographer for americas obsession with this crap. I can think of a few more careers that have damaged the fabric of society far more than a geek with a camera. Someone commented on the fact that " money isnt a crime " and other than that being a completely true statement,what does that have to do with anything ? No one is following the founders of google around. No one is following the CEO and president of pepsi, coke, or wal-mart around. Why ? Because their pictures dont sell three million magazines everytime they are put on the supermarket check out stand. These hollywood actors arent followed around because they have money,they are followed around because over the last 20 years,we have shown the media conglamorates that we will devour every bit of crap that is put out on the market to buy....I'm not all that old,however..I could almost guarantee that the amount of magazine rack space devoted to these " poor,poor and abused " actors and actresses has increased threefold. And the only ones to blame for that are me and you....not someone who is doing a job and taking a picture.

The stalking is taken too far. Take some pictures when they're out in public. Try and solicite them for an interview. I have no problem with that. 24 hour a day surveillance, harrassing their families, running them off the road to take a picture, hiding on their property, etc . . . is taking it too far. I'm sure that we don't know the half of what actually goes on. Do you think these tabloids are going to report on their own bad behavior???? Should I be able to follow you around 24 hours a day until I catch you scratching your *** and looking like an idiot and then snap a picture for all to see? Apparently you think I should as long as America is interested. Don't take your right to some privacy for granted. Put yourself in their positiion.

Money is the common denominator for all this crap. You don't see a lot of stories on celebrities that lost all their money and what they are up to now. The paparazzi don't stalk poor people. They follow the rich and glamorous lifestyles of people.

I'm certainly not to blame for any of this stuff. You would never catch me paying a dime for any of this information. I don't have to. It's thrown in my face at every opportunity!!

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

I disagree on two fronts. I don't think people care that much about Britney. If all these tabloid magazines stopped writing articles on her I doubt there would be an outcry from the public demanding to know what she was doing. People just read what is put in front of their faces. It gives them something to talk about with their friends and families and is used as a form of entertainment. If this smut was taken away, people would find other ways to entertain themselves. The media is the evil entity here. They could find a much more worthy story and report it and people would read about it and discuss it with each other.

I disagree with the "so what" comment. The so what is that people's lives are invaded for the sake of other's entertainment. Please don't tell me that you condone celebrities being stalked from sun-up to sun-down. These people deserve a little privacy too, regardless of whether or not you like them or not. The last time I checked having money isn't a crime, so why should the lives of celebrities be dissected and scrutinized, especially when they just have to grin and bare it. No one deserves to be stalked like this. In my opinion there is no lower form of life on the planet than a paparazzi photographer!!

These tabloids could write up a great story on Lance Armstrong and people would read it. Instead we have to hear about Britney's 3rd cousin running a red light while eating a sandwich (actually that wasn't a headline - YET!!).

First you sort of made my point. The tabloits EXIST because people want to read this stuff. It isn't the other way around. It's also why there are stations almost solely devoted to this stuff, like E! and many shows on VH1.

Second, not sure how you went from my saying people are interested in celebrity lives to saying I condone stalking. Although I do disagree that they deserve privacy. They are public figures who crave the attention or they wouldn't be in that field to begin with. There is a kind of symbiotic relationship between stars and paparazzi, as much as either complains, they need each other.