Who won if Indurain didn't?

BikingBernie

ermintrude wrote:

Biking Bernie this is a serious question, do you have Aspergers ?

'Outstanding'.

frenchfighter

BikingBernie wrote:

BigMat wrote:

So is it natural talent, or hard work that wins you a grand tour? I'm confused - which is Wiggins anyway?

I think that this is what the real 'issue' is on here with some posters.

History shows that almost all Tour winners showed great natural talent right from the start.

Javier Fernández, who signed the teenage Contador up for the neighborhood team of Embajadores, said the following to El Pais about the young rider, "He was about 15 the first time I saw him, with that iron bike, which was completely outdated. He had a natural talent and strength, and broke away from the pack in a race that included Madrid's best young cyclists. It was obvious he had no technique, but also that he wanted to be a cyclist. Alberto had nothing. His parents couldn't even go with him to the races because they had to stay with his younger brother Raúl, who has suffered from brain damage since he was a child. Raul was always in his wheelchair."

When he was aged just 26 he had won 3 grand tours in succession, including two TdF. He's also one of only 5 riders in history to have won the Triple Crown of cycling (all 3 Grand Tours). In contrast, Lance Armstrong at age 26 (1997) did not have a single grand tour overall victory in his belt, instead he had two stage wins in two different Tours and was UCI world champion in 1993. Armstrong was in his 30's when he matched the number of grand tour wins Alberto had at 26. Armstrong has not won the Giro d'Italia nor the Vuelta a Espana.

andyp

That's a very objective opinion.

Back on (kind of) topic - @Dave_1, I tend to agree on Boardman but very few neo-pros are ever entered into the Tour, never mind finish it, in their debut season. Boardman was, lest we forget, a neo-pro in 1994. I doubt, even if he'd finished the Tour, that it would have been of any benefit as he was on his knees after ten stages.

No_Ta_Doctor

BikingBernie wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Moderators are allowed opinions on the forum.

Don't confuse me disagreeing with you to me moderating you.

It's different.

Oh, I do understand, although I did have this quaint idea that good moderators always strive to be neutral. As long as your power as a 'moderator' is not used to help you censure those you disagree with.

Bernie, as an ex ADMIN on a completely different but fairly high traffic forum (500-1000 posts per day), can I just tell you that snide digs at Rick for having an opinion, playing the "big brother" card, and general complaints when you are moderated or replied to by a moderator, are just pain the arse bullshit.

The mods do a job, it's not an easy one. Have enough respect for the forum to let them do it, and let them post as everyone else, without whingeing, moaning or trying to make out you're being victimised when you aren't.

It's all good fun to abuse the ref, but if it gets too much then you've got no ref and no football game.

Pack it in.

BikingBernie

No tA Doctor wrote:

The mods do a job, it's not an easy one.

In that case they shouldn't make things harder for themselves by taking snide digs at other posters, such as Rick's 'Outstanding', and generally refrain from joining in with the abuse of forum users, rather than making a constructive comment in reply to the points I make. Such behaviour is hardly likely to encourage respect for them or their position.

BikingBernie

P.s. I understand that there are a set of guidelines for moderators. Does anyone know where these can be found, or are they only circulated amongst the moderators so posters can't pick them up when they fail to adhere to them?

inkyfingers

BikingBernie wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

The mods do a job, it's not an easy one.

In that case they shouldn't make things harder for themselves by taking snide digs at other posters, such as Rick's 'Outstanding', and generally refrain from joining in with the abuse of forum users, rather than making a constructive comment in reply to the points I make. Such behaviour is hardly likely to encourage respect for them or their position.

P.s. I understand that there are a set of guidelines for moderators. Does anyone know where these can be found, or are they only circulated amongst the moderators so posters can't pick them up when they fail to adhere to them?

Yes Bernie, it's all some some evil cycling forum moderator conspiracy, no doubt Lance Armstrong is involved in it somewhere.

No_Ta_Doctor

BikingBernie wrote:

P.s. I understand that there are a set of guidelines for moderators. Does anyone know where these can be found, or are they only circulated amongst the moderators so posters can't pick them up when they fail to adhere to them?

You really don't get it, do you?

BikingBernie

No tA Doctor wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

P.s. I understand that there are a set of guidelines for moderators. Does anyone know where these can be found, or are they only circulated amongst the moderators so posters can't pick them up when they fail to adhere to them?

You really don't get it, do you?

Get what?

A few simple questions. Where are the moderators guidelines to be found? If they are only available to the moderators, why is this the case? What recourse do posters have if moderators abuse their position, or join in the abuse of posters? I did look for an answer over in the office, but only found some posts criticising Rick C's 'inconsistent' moderation.

No tA Doctor wrote:

It's all good fun to abuse the ref, but if it gets too much then you've got no ref and no football game.

Correct me if I am wrong, but for a long time didn't this particular section of the forum get along well enough without even having a moderator?

No_Ta_Doctor

Case proven.

frenchfighter

No tA Doctor wrote:

Case proven.

Contador is the best. I knew it all along.

rick_chasey

BikingBernie wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

The mods do a job, it's not an easy one.

In that case they shouldn't make things harder for themselves by taking snide digs at other posters, such as Rick's 'Outstanding', and generally refrain from joining in with the abuse of forum users, rather than making a constructive comment in reply to the points I make. Such behaviour is hardly likely to encourage respect for them or their position.

It's only a little fun .

Chillax, it's the internet.


We need some racing since all this Tour tension is clearly messing with our heads.

dougzz

In shock news today, Rick Chasey is to be referred to the World Forum Moderator Authority. It's become apparent that he's tried to have an opinion, clearly a serious conflict of interest. It's understood he's made arrangements to live in exile in North Korea, in the event anyone on the forum should lose a sense of proportion.
(Whilst I detest overuse of smilies it helps sometimes)

Rundfahrt

inkyfingers wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

The mods do a job, it's not an easy one.

In that case they shouldn't make things harder for themselves by taking snide digs at other posters, such as Rick's 'Outstanding', and generally refrain from joining in with the abuse of forum users, rather than making a constructive comment in reply to the points I make. Such behaviour is hardly likely to encourage respect for them or their position.

P.s. I understand that there are a set of guidelines for moderators. Does anyone know where these can be found, or are they only circulated amongst the moderators so posters can't pick them up when they fail to adhere to them?

Yes Bernie, it's all some some evil cycling forum moderator conspiracy, no doubt Lance Armstrong is involved in it somewhere.

While I think bernie is being a bit foolish, I will say that one of the reasons I joined here was due to the moderation at two other forums. One of which I received a two day ban for having an opinion about something a mod did (racing with a badly injured elbow...for absolutely nothing), apparently it was "none of your business" because I had the gall to question racing with the injury while others were slobbering all over him. The second is a forum that has a section to discuss doping and where the people who dislike Armstrong are allowed to say anything they want, while those who do not condemn Armstrong 100% of the time get banned, deleted and edited constantly. That style of moderation completely turned me off from joining. In other words I do think on some sites there is a bit of a moderator "conspiracy" whether it is about taking a certain side of a topic or protecting other mods at any cost.

BikingBernie

Dave_1 wrote:

Wiggins put in the hard work of transforming his body from pursuiter to stage racer..pre TDF 2009 he persevered and finished I think 3 or 4 grand tours with the performance boost it gives.. unlike Chris...someone who DNFd 2 TDFs willfully in a row when they were the development he needed...

BikingBernie wrote:

You talk about the 'performance boost' that riding the Tour gives. Are there any studies showing that this actually occurs. What special effect does riding a big Tour have that no other form of preparation can give? Don't such events, if ridden to the limit, simply leave riders exhausted?

Racing at pro level is toxic, it doesn't build you up. On the contrary it hurts and you rarely get time to recover properly before you are sent to do it again. Things like a different bed every night don't help, cheap hotel food when the organiser has allowed a five Euros per person budget is generally crap, travelling to and from events is tiring and even though it may look exciting and glamorous sitting on a shiny team bus in reality it's not that great when you're trying to recuperate from being dragged round the typical race route. Added to the physical beating there's the mental aspect of racing to deal with, the fighting for position, dodging street furniture, crashes and general expectation that you'll turn yourself inside out even for the smallest event chips away at the rider.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/robert-millar/the-new-way-why-team-sky-changed-their-game-plan

Than again, what does Robert Millar know about pro cycling. Eh?

Of course, this in itself doesn't explain why Wiggins has become a contender, given that targeting and 'training to race' have become standard practice in recent years. Whatever, it looks like Boardman's approach made sense after all!

rick_chasey

Rundfahrt wrote:

While I think bernie is being a bit foolish, I will say that one of the reasons I joined here was due to the moderation at two other forums. One of which I received a two day ban for having an opinion about something a mod did (racing with a badly injured elbow...for absolutely nothing), apparently it was "none of your business" because I had the gall to question racing with the injury while others were slobbering all over him. The second is a forum that has a section to discuss doping and where the people who dislike Armstrong are allowed to say anything they want, while those who do not condemn Armstrong 100% of the time get banned, deleted and edited constantly. That style of moderation completely turned me off from joining. In other words I do think on some sites there is a bit of a moderator "conspiracy" whether it is about taking a certain side of a topic or protecting other mods at any cost.

Do you think that is the case here?

BikingBernie

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

While I think bernie is being a bit foolish, I will say that one of the reasons I joined here was due to the moderation at two other forums. One of which I received a two day ban for having an opinion about something a mod did (racing with a badly injured elbow...for absolutely nothing), apparently it was "none of your business" because I had the gall to question racing with the injury while others were slobbering all over him. The second is a forum that has a section to discuss doping and where the people who dislike Armstrong are allowed to say anything they want, while those who do not condemn Armstrong 100% of the time get banned, deleted and edited constantly. That style of moderation completely turned me off from joining. In other words I do think on some sites there is a bit of a moderator "conspiracy" whether it is about taking a certain side of a topic or protecting other mods at any cost.

Do you think that is the case here?

Rick, I thought it was your policy to lock threads that go consistently 'off topic'? If you are concerned about what people's perceptions of you are, as a moderator, why not use PM's?

mididoctors

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

While I think bernie is being a bit foolish, I will say that one of the reasons I joined here was due to the moderation at two other forums. One of which I received a two day ban for having an opinion about something a mod did (racing with a badly injured elbow...for absolutely nothing), apparently it was "none of your business" because I had the gall to question racing with the injury while others were slobbering all over him. The second is a forum that has a section to discuss doping and where the people who dislike Armstrong are allowed to say anything they want, while those who do not condemn Armstrong 100% of the time get banned, deleted and edited constantly. That style of moderation completely turned me off from joining. In other words I do think on some sites there is a bit of a moderator "conspiracy" whether it is about taking a certain side of a topic or protecting other mods at any cost.

Do you think that is the case here?

no

Yellow Peril

dougzz wrote:

In shock news today, Rick Chasey is to be referred to the World Forum Moderator Authority. It's become apparent that he's tried to have an opinion, clearly a serious conflict of interest. It's understood he's made arrangements to live in exile in North Korea, in the event anyone on the forum should lose a sense of proportion.
(Whilst I detest overuse of smilies it helps sometimes)

Chasey is a serial forum doper. His claim "never to have posted positive in over 15,000 replies" is a sham. Who can forget the time he "wrote down" Biking Bernie on a Pro Race thread when he looked certain to win the discussion and forced him to return to the Cake Stop or he would lock the thread? His emoticon of the "zipped pen" back at the Forumeton said it all.

If any of his trusted Lieutenants on the BR Postal team (such as FF, LL, or Iain) crack then we can see the Feds have a field day with this once giant of the Forum. Thousands of people who have gained inspiration from his "miraculous recovery" from writer's block will have their hopes shattered and be burning their "Typestrong" rubber band thingies.

BikingBernie

Yellow Peril wrote:

Chasey is a serial forum doper. His claim "never to have posted positive in over 15,000 replies" is a sham.

He certainly has 'previous form'.

viewtopic.php?f=40033&t=12859150

viewtopic.php?f=40033&t=12846532

TheBigBean

BikingBernie - is this your new project?

Which came first, the troll or the moderator?

BikingBernie

TheBigBean wrote:

BikingBernie - is this your new project?

Which came first, the troll or the moderator?

'It's only a little fun .

Chillax, it's the internet.'