Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Seagull Hunting the Hard Way

I'm off for a couple of days of bidness travel, so the next post won't be until next week; sorry for the limited postings of late.

I see where some French newspaper thinks they've definitively proved Lance Armstrong was using EPO in 1999. I'd like to see a controlled experiment where they take a group of guys and train them in the exact same way for maybe three years, let them race the season to see where they comparatively rank, and then in the last season let half of them use EPO and see how different the results are. The experiment would get at how much EPO adds to comparative performance. My guess is that it adds enough so that it is possible to conclude the following - either most contendors in the Tour are doing it, or none are. So it is possible that it isn't a difference maker, although clearly maybe those who have never used it never became contendors for that reason. I like to think that that is the reason I am not a world class cyclist.

On a somewhat related note, I am fast enough on my Bianci roadbike to have recently killed a seagull en route to work. I was coming around a turn at Haine's Point, at the tip of the island, when from behind a trashcan a startled seagull tried to flee toward the Potomac and flew right in front of my front wheel. Fortunately, it was in front and not heading into the spokes. I had no time to react and ran right over its neck. Now, as a general rule I hate seagulls, as any person who has significant Jersey beach time would. But that doesn't exactly mean that I want to be killing them. The only upside is that I gain street cred with my hunting in-laws; I've never hunted in my life, nor have I ever shot a gun, two facts no doubt that hunters would hold me quietly in contempt for. But the way I see it, anyone can kill an animal with a rifle or a shotgun; it's quite another thing to stalk and kill 'em on your bike. And I did it without EPO!

7 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

There was an interesting fact in the USA Today Online article about the Armstrong scandal. Evendently, the lab takes two samples from the Tour Riders. Sample A was used back in 1999. Back in 1999, they didn't test for EPO.

The lab only recently decided to test sample B for EPO and claims the test came back positive. According to cycling rules, both samples must test positive before any action can be taken against a cyclist.

The lab (I assume at the request of the Tour Officials) conducted the EPO test on a retired athlete. The Officials knew full well that they could take no action against Armstrong no matter what the result. It is obvious that for whatever reason, the Officals chose to take a parting cheap shot against Armstrong for dominating the biggest sporting event in France for the past seven years.

I believe that more must be done to combat drug use in sport. I also believe that the privacy rights of the athletes must be protected. If the Tour Officials had enough to hold a hearing to sanction Armstrong, fine. Here, by the bylaws governing the sport, it is impossible to snaction Armstrong in any way. The Officals clearly just released the findings to hurt Armstrong's reputation. That is just plain bull#$%t.

11:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There was an interesting fact in the USA Today Online article about the Armstrong scandal. Evendently, the lab takes two samples from the Tour Riders. Sample A was used back in 1999. Back in 1999, they didn't test for EPO.

The lab only recently decided to test sample B for EPO and claims the test came back positive. According to cycling rules, both samples must test positive before any action can be taken against a cyclist.

The lab (I assume at the request of the Tour Officials) conducted the EPO test on a retired athlete. The Officials knew full well that they could take no action against Armstrong no matter what the result. It is obvious that for whatever reason, the Officals chose to take a parting cheap shot against Armstrong for dominating the biggest sporting event in France for the past seven years.

I believe that more must be done to combat drug use in sport. I also believe that the privacy rights of the athletes must be protected. If the Tour Officials had enough to hold a hearing to sanction Armstrong, fine. Here, by the bylaws governing the sport, it is impossible to snaction Armstrong in any way. The Officals clearly just released the findings to hurt Armstrong's reputation. That is just plain bull#$%t.

11:23 AM  
Blogger pbryon said...

After all these years, you've finally got something in common with Dave Winfield.

11:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SEAGULL KILLER!!!!

I am so getting PeTA after your ass. Prepare to feel the burning sear of shame and bitterness as PeTA protests you with a "Slanderous Mambo" a la Tito Puente from the SImpsons episode when Mr. Burns got shot.

Physical pain is temporary, but your psyche will be tortured forever in song.

11:29 AM  
Blogger Clupbert said...

That guy even quoted you. He is the most sophisticated spammer I have seen yet. Lance is the man and I don't believe the allegations at all, France be damned!

9:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sudoku Craze Shows Offline Memes Still Alive and Well
Recently I discovered Sudoku - a numerical puzzle that's now a genuine worldwide craze .
Interested in improving your ROI? Search Engine Position can help you with your SEO and PPC Search Engine Marketing to increase the quality and quantity of your traffic. business home internet marketing opportunity

Learn more about our programs and find out how we can improve your return on investment and increase your revenue.

Master and control business home internet marketing opportunity keywords.

10:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

HEY JERKOFF SPAMMERS - - GO HOME! TIME TO TURN OFF CARTOON NETWORK NETWORK KIDDIES!

Don't you know you're wasting my valuable net-surfing time at work?!

12:24 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Sign up for my Notify List and get email when I update!

email:
powered by
NotifyList.com