Fashionistas you have arrived 3-25-03 - 10-3-03

[dtb]

Originally posted by purse junkie
True. But while I can't bear arrogance, he is literally the best athlete on the planet right now, so I can hardly blame him for pointing out the truth (even if we all prefer humility). At least he gives credit to his team and still openly lauds Hamilton. And before yesterday, at least he gave Ullrich his due as the other best cyclist of his generation. (I thought Ullrich did slack off a bit post-Lance-crash, but maybe he was just bonking, game face on or not.)

He certainly has every right to be arrogant about his cycling abilities -- and his being a prick does not detract from his significant accomplishments, but I don't see how being the best at something has anything to do with being a prick.

He is, or he isn't. I don't think his being the best athlete makes it ok for him to treat others badly (when it has nothing to do with cycling); and that's the sense I get from reports that he is a prick.

No "free pass" on being a dick just 'cause you're the best at something.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by leagleaze
No shit. I was gonna say, that it is impressive that was the stupidest thing you have ever written.

You write stupid things a lot.


]

I'm always pissing off the establishment. You AND E/O?

I will never learn.

[evenodds]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Hey, don't sell me so short. I've written some pretty stupid things.

Precisely.

Cycling is purely an endurance sport like running and long distance swimming.

You are the engine, the bike does not propel you forward. The bike is like a good pair of shoes. It's just a tool.

Like running, lung capacity is key. Lance has off the chart lung capacity which is why he can attack up a mountain after riding for 5 hours at 40 kph.

I'd prefer to leave this to our tri folks to make the true comparison.

[W.W.L.D.]

Originally posted by leagleaze
Gigli, which was originally slated for release last November, is the biggest waste of talent since Full Frontal. Or maybe even Ishtar.

Waste of "talent?" That is a bit imaginative.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by evenodds
Precisely.

Cycling is purely an endurance sport like running and long distance swimming.

You are the engine, the bike does not propel you forward. The bike is like a good pair of shoes. It's just a tool.

Like running, lung capacity is key. Lance has off the chart lung capacity which is why he can attack up a mountain after riding for 5 hours at 40 kph.

I'd prefer to leave this to our tri folks to make the true comparison.

I don't think one is better than the other. In fact, I'll retract my comment regarding running being more athletic than cycling and replace it with: neither are that high on the athleticism scale compared to skill sports.

Edited to add: :flowers:

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
You're not using a $5k piece of equipment to propel you. Just your own body.

Yeah, those bicycles just move by themselves.

Both running and cycling take training. And the elite athletes in both sports suffer immense amounts in getting to the top. To me, what makes the Tour more impressive than a marathon, is that they do it day after day for three weeks. Marathoners run a big race one a month, at the most. Even if it were 10ks, it's not like they go day after day.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
neither are that high on the athleticism scale compared to skill sports.

Yeah, when I think athlete, my mind turns immediately to interior linemen and/or David Wells.

[evenodds]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Hey, don't sell me so short. I've written some pretty stupid things.

And your bias is so blatant is disgusting. It's obvious you worship the sport of cycling and it's athletes. I have no problem with that. But, I'm trying to be a little bit more objective here.

Response to your edit:

Seriously?

I never said running was easy or that cycling was harder. I said they are both endurance sports. I don't think cycling, running, or ld swimming are easy. In fact, I think running is harder than you seem to think it is.

My objection is to your characterization of cycling as something other than an endurance sport.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yeah, those bicycles just move by themselves.

Both running and cycling take training. And the elite athletes in both sports suffer immense amounts in getting to the top. To me, what makes the Tour more impressive than a marathon, is that they do it day after day for three weeks. Marathoners run a big race one a month, at the most. Even if it were 10ks, it's not like they go day after day.

I've never said that a marathon was more impressive than the Tour. That would be ridiculous. The Tour IS more difficult. However, cycling is a much more fluid motion than running. Hence the ability to perform back to back (to back, etc.).

[bilmore]

Originally posted by evenodds
You are the engine, the bike does not propel you forward. The bike is like a good pair of shoes. It's just a tool.

But nobody wins with a Schwinn. The winners ride costly, high-tech marvel machines.

So, obviously, to the extent that the bikes differ, the quality of the bike itself is at least part of the equation. Which does, to some extent, detract from the claim that "it's all the rider - the bike is only a tool."

(Now is where I usually find out something like, everybody rides the exact same bike, blowing my point to shreds. If this is the case, let me down nicely.)

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by evenodds
Response to your edit:

Seriously?

I never said running was easy or that cycling was harder. I said they are both endurance sports. I don't think cycling, running, or ld swimming are easy. In fact, I think running is harder than you seem to think it is.

My objection is to your characterization of cycling as something other than an endurance sport.

See my retraction above. And I have an entry-level tri bike that I love (no races yet). It's a great sport, and it's probably better for your body than running. Neither is better than the other. Cycling is surely a difficult endurance sport and the Tour is probably the most difficult test. Although some triathletes and ultra-runners would disagree (I don't).

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by dtb
No "free pass" on being a dick just 'cause you're the best at something.

Shoot. Yet another rule put out there by The Man* to keep us down.

Speaking of the TdF, I have read in a couple of places that OLN ratings for race coverage have increased mucho over last year. And it seems to have had a lot of coverage on ESPN and in the local paper, too.

All of which reinforces my long standing belief that the FB is kind of a leading indicator for what America as a whole will do or watch or drink or eat. Thongs, brazilians, mojitos, pisco sours, the White Stripes, reality TV, TdF, etc.

Faith Popcorn probably makes a gazillion dollars by telling advertisers what she reads about here.

*By "The Man" I don't mean dtb individually, who is not a man, but by the whole Establishment, or ruling class, or whatever we are calling them these days.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
But nobody wins with a Schwinn. The winners ride costly, high-tech marvel machines.

Runners wear costly, high-tech running shoes (although cheaper than bikes). Swimmers wear costly, high-tech swim-garb.

What sport hasn't incorporated significant technological improvements in recent years that has improved performance for everyone participating relative to those of past years.

[ThrashersFan]

Originally posted by purse junkie
The Tour is by far the most difficult sporting event on earth and the most demanding in terms of pure athleticism, stamina and strength. I cannot think of any other sport than remotely comes close.

The Iditarod? And not just on the dogs. From what I have learned these guys spend a lot of time not on the sled -- making trails, climbing, testing ice strngth, etc. And it is totally fucking cold (beyond cold to the temperatures that hurt and kill people) and you are alone (but with your dogs) and there is all sorts of wilderness shit that could happen to you. I have seen a few movies and Discover channel shows on the Iditarod and I would have to call it the most demanding sport in my book. That being said, I think those fuckers are crazy and I feel sorry for the dogs -- even though most people say that the dogs love it I just think they would prefer to be in front of a nice fire sniffing some whore-dog's brown-eye.

This is not to imply that I don't think Lance and all the others are great athletes.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Runners wear costly, high-tech running shoes (although cheaper than bikes). Swimmers wear costly, high-tech swim-garb.

Think "continuum" of tools. (No, I don't mean the roster here.) On one end, there is the "costly, high-tech swim-garb". (?!? - I'm trying to imagine this, and failing.) On the other end, the different cars used in the Indy 500. Yeah, all just "tools", but to equate the impact of all on the outcome of the respective sports is simplistic. The bike in the TdF falls much closer to the Indy car (in terms of that impact) than does the slippery thong.