Davina beyond breaking point

ugo.santalucia

Rolf F wrote:

Who's asking you to support a rotten system? I'm not. I'm not supporting it much myself in this specific case. But we don't live in a perfect world so what do we do? I'm not sure that your stand against the system is actually helping the people who need help more than you would by contributing but maybe you are doing something else constructive.

.

If "people in need" are in serious need, then it's time we give a serious fuxk about them, because this policy of sticking a red nose and throwing some crumbs so they can feast on our leftovers is frankly humiliating for those who need. Nobody should beg, we should know better...

cougie

Grill wrote:

Now what Eddie Izzard did is close to superhuman and I applaud him for it.

As for the charity side, well we all have our own opinions about that.

I met up with Eddie and ran a bit of one of his marathons. An amazing achievement - I really didn't see how he could do them before he set off.

That said - I think Davina had the worse conditions - freezing cold rain and slush and wind - and her stints were longer. Swimming in Windermere is cold enough after the summer has warmed it - but in Winter ? Christ.

If I had to choose - I'd go for the Izzard Marathons as being fractionally easier.

Now did anyone see Alex Jones climb that mahooosive mountain ? ?

ManOfKent

Was I the only one curious that she had "Beyond breaking point" emblazoned on her kit, before the challenge even started?

I doubt I'll ever watch the type of programme she tends to present, but I thought she came across as a normal woman pushed to, and often, past her limits. Even with three months' training and a good level of support, I'm not sure I could have done what she did. Chapeau.

khisanth

Part of me says well done , but the other part of me says its not that impressive when you have a full support team behind you all the way with massages, medical assistance, mechanical assistance, police escort, traffic cleared for you and a person geeing you on all the way.

cougie

khisanth wrote:

Part of me says well done , but the other part of me says its not that impressive when you have a full support team behind you all the way with massages, medical assistance, mechanical assistance, police escort, traffic cleared for you and a person geeing you on all the way.

Pretty much the same as the pros get when they ride the tour then ? Bloody wusses...

She's still got to do the work and endure the temperatures.

I've run London Marathon lots of times - all of the shouting and support in the world doesn't matter when you're legs are wrecked and you can't keep running.

crispybug2

On the posters point, I ran the second London marathon ('82) and from about the eighteenth mile to about the twenty second I hit the wall big style and I ran those four miles just on memory. I was entirely unaware of the crowd and I was just lost in a world of my own.

Jon_1976

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Admirable effort but, of course, very different to what we do. We don't get all the training support and time off. When we do our rides, we don't have support vehicles right behind us and a massuese waiting for us at an expensive hotel at the end of the ride (well I don't!).

But then if the weather is crap, I can just close the curtains and have a lie in if I want to and if I do go out, it is my choice and it is my chosen hobby even if it is a gittish one at times.

So, much respect to Davina - who'd want to trade places for that challenge? But that said, I caught the programme a couple of days ago and started watching it on the Derbyshire ride section and after 5 minutes I turned over - it was just too cringeworthy to watch.

Buckie2k5 wrote:

The same will happen when they show braveheart the night before the independance vote. It will make a lot of voters mind up for them.

Lol - you might have something there. I can see Braveheart being shown on all channels except BBC and that being used by Salmond as an example of why Scotland should be independent

Not sure why someone feel the urge to compare our hobby/passion with Davina's fundrising effort. It seems pretty pointless.
Personally I won't give her a penny, not because she doesn't deserve it, but because these large fundrising events have no reason to exist in my books. If wealth was better distributed instead of sitting in uneven pockets and taxation adequate to the real needs, we wouldn't need all these clowns or gladiators performing for our perverse enjoyment. I won't support a rotten system

Change your password, as I think my dad has hacked your account :P He said pretty much the exact same thing to me whilst the program. Have to agree, even though he is a moaning old sod 8)

I'm probably the same (but more grumpy), I couldn't watch it for more than 15 minutes. The amount of crying was ridiculous.

Grill

cougie wrote:

Grill wrote:

Now what Eddie Izzard did is close to superhuman and I applaud him for it.

As for the charity side, well we all have our own opinions about that.

I met up with Eddie and ran a bit of one of his marathons. An amazing achievement - I really didn't see how he could do them before he set off.

That said - I think Davina had the worse conditions - freezing cold rain and slush and wind - and her stints were longer. Swimming in Windermere is cold enough after the summer has warmed it - but in Winter ? Christ.

If I had to choose - I'd go for the Izzard Marathons as being fractionally easier.

Now did anyone see Alex Jones climb that mahooosive mountain ? ?

Your knees must be in much better condition than mine...

gimpl

ugo.santalucia wrote:

If "people in need" are in serious need, then it's time we give a serious fuxk about them, because this policy of sticking a red nose and throwing some crumbs so they can feast on our leftovers is frankly humiliating for those who need. Nobody should beg, we should know better...

POWER TO THE PEOPLE !

Meanwhile back on planet earth.......

homers_double

This ugo.somethingorother seems a bit of a tool sometimes.

slowbike

Grill wrote:

Context is everything. Let's not forget we're on a cycling forum. All of my comments are to do with the OP's original comment:

sigorman85 wrote:

Them conditions she was riding in looked horrid and to spend 10 hours on the bike I take my hat off to you

Fact is anyone on here could do that ride (this is the cycle bit I'm talking about now) in those conditions. Swimming and running... not so much.

Now what Eddie Izzard did is close to superhuman and I applaud him for it.

As for the charity side, well we all have our own opinions about that.

A bit late to all this because I was off on holiday last week - cycling 200 miles and 12000 feet - nothing for some, but a significant distance and height for my wife who I was riding with.

Fact is anyone on here COULD do that ride - but WOULD anyone do that ride - in those conditions? I know we were knackered after a single cat2 climb - in the sunshine and not much wind - we had no (real) option but to carry on. Of course, our ride was purely for leisure (!) and we weren't raising money for anything/anyone - but just how tempted would we've been to bailout had the opportunity arise?

What EI did was huge - but we can't expect everyone to do the same - or beat it (how?) - not everytime - anyway - is it their perseverance ppl are donating for - or the cause?

Mikey23

@crispybug2... I was there in 82 having been inspired by Beardsley and Sorensen coming in together in 81. Why didn't you say hello?

@ homers double... And a mod so best to agree :-)

homers_double

Nah, I've been on here longer than him so that, in my eyes makes me better.

ugo.santalucia

homers double wrote:

Nah, I've been on here longer than him so that, in my eyes makes me better.

Do you have any particular reason to applaud the uneven distribution of wealth? Are you one of those who take pride in texting the word "5 pounds" from his couch to clear his conscience and see a lot of little faces of African children smiling gratefully at his donation?

I find the all show extremely distasteful, maybe it's off topic, but less silly than comparing Davina's mileage to that of recreational cyclists...

TakeTurns

ugo.santalucia wrote:

homers double wrote:

Nah, I've been on here longer than him so that, in my eyes makes me better.

Do you have any particular reason to applaud the uneven distribution of wealth? Are you one of those who take pride in texting the word "5 pounds" from his couch to clear his conscience and see a lot of little faces of African children smiling gratefully at his donation?

I find the all show extremely distasteful, maybe it's off topic, but less silly than comparing Davina's mileage to that of recreational cyclists...

Right ugo...and you must be devoting your entire life to helping these unfortunate children, since you seem to be talking from such a tall throne of "authority".

If you really cared about the children, you wouldn't care if he txted £5 from his sofa just to clear his conscience or not. Because at the end of the day, all those £5's will result in millions which will actually help kids. Unlike you having a dig at someone.

slowbike

ugo.santalucia wrote:

homers double wrote:

Nah, I've been on here longer than him so that, in my eyes makes me better.

Do you have any particular reason to applaud the uneven distribution of wealth? Are you one of those who take pride in texting the word "5 pounds" from his couch to clear his conscience and see a lot of little faces of African children smiling gratefully at his donation?

I find the all show extremely distasteful, maybe it's off topic, but less silly than comparing Davina's mileage to that of recreational cyclists...

Who is rich? Who is poor? How do you define that? Is it all about how much money you have? Or the wealth of experiences and opportunities you may get?
Should we all be forced to be equal? If so - what incentive to better yourself?

So what do you propose to do about it? Or are you already doing something about redistributing the wealth?

Grill

Slowbike wrote:

Grill wrote:

Context is everything. Let's not forget we're on a cycling forum. All of my comments are to do with the OP's original comment:

sigorman85 wrote:

Them conditions she was riding in looked horrid and to spend 10 hours on the bike I take my hat off to you

Fact is anyone on here could do that ride (this is the cycle bit I'm talking about now) in those conditions. Swimming and running... not so much.

Now what Eddie Izzard did is close to superhuman and I applaud him for it.

As for the charity side, well we all have our own opinions about that.

A bit late to all this because I was off on holiday last week - cycling 200 miles and 12000 feet - nothing for some, but a significant distance and height for my wife who I was riding with.

Fact is anyone on here COULD do that ride - but WOULD anyone do that ride - in those conditions? I know we were knackered after a single cat2 climb - in the sunshine and not much wind - we had no (real) option but to carry on. Of course, our ride was purely for leisure (!) and we weren't raising money for anything/anyone - but just how tempted would we've been to bailout had the opportunity arise?

What EI did was huge - but we can't expect everyone to do the same - or beat it (how?) - not everytime - anyway - is it their perseverance ppl are donating for - or the cause?

I think most people donate out of guilt and then the eventual payoff of feeling like a good person. I've always said that charity is a selfish endeavour as people tend to do it for the above reasons. When I do charitable things, whether they be actions or donations, no one finds out about them because I don't tell anyone.

There's a joke we tell in the Alps. How do you know if someone's a ski instructor? They'll tell you. Seems to also hold true for people who do these sort of charity events.

Davina had a a full crew with her and was also raising her public profile (which is certainly a boon for her career-wise). If only we were as lucky...

homers_double

ugo.santalucia wrote:

homers double wrote:

Nah, I've been on here longer than him so that, in my eyes makes me better.

Do you have any particular reason to applaud the uneven distribution of wealth? Are you one of those who take pride in texting the word "5 pounds" from his couch to clear his conscience and see a lot of little faces of African children smiling gratefully at his donation?

You really are a narrow minded individual aren't you? and what are you on about with uneven distribution of wealth???

Yes I donated and no I didn't do it to make myself feel better. I can't afford a huge amount but when you listen and realise that a small child (of which I have one myself as well as a 10 week old grandchild) can and regularly does die of malaria which is fairly easy to prevent with a £5 net then I thought "bugger the 3rd bottle of wine I'll send in £20 instead".

Yes some of that is swallowed up by Davina's trainer and some of it in administration but given the fact that I'm sat HERE and don't have the ability to go and help out on the ground then my £20 will no doubt be appreciated.

And so what if it gets some couch potato to give (the relative cost of) a malaria net instead of having a kebab, at least we've helped two sets on people in one go.
I find the all show extremely distasteful, maybe it's off topic, but less silly than comparing Davina's mileage to that of recreational cyclists...

I'm sure you do find it distastfull and you've made that quite clear and I'm quite sure that the hard working charities who, despite the miles of red tape they have to get through and the fact that half the aid given probably goes into the pockets of some gun toting idiot wouldn't have it any other way.

homers_double

Grill wrote:

There's a joke we tell in the Alps. How do you know if someone's a ski instructor? They'll tell you. Seems to also hold true for people who do these sort of charity events.

Bugger...

ugo.santalucia

Slowbike wrote:

So what do you propose to do about it? Or are you already doing something about redistributing the wealth?

I propose to invert the current trend, which is more and more wealth in the end of fewer and fewer people. Historically it's not the first time that it happens... the French Revolution is just a textbook example of what hapens when the process gets to the extreme...

But more to the point:
Joe Smith has served in Iraq, where he lost a limb to protect the interest of us taxpayers... should we throw him some spare change in charity so he can get a prostetic leg or should we have structure in place paid from our own salaries to take care of the less fortunate? If his job in Iraq was so important, how come we don't give a sxxt about him as a nation of taxpayers?

homers_double

The point of charities is that sometime what you are asking for just doesn't exist.

ugo.santalucia

homers double wrote:

The point of charities is that sometime what you are asking for just doesn't exist.

It does in other countries... problem with the US and to a lesser extent the UK is that they provide fewer and fewer services, relying on generosity for the rest.

You know the London air ambulance is a charity? Shouldn't it be essential in a city of 10 million?

slowbike

Grill wrote:

I think most people donate out of guilt and then the eventual payoff of feeling like a good person. I've always said that charity is a selfish endeavour as people tend to do it for the above reasons. When I do charitable things, whether they be actions or donations, no one finds out about them because I don't tell anyone.

There's a joke we tell in the Alps. How do you know if someone's a ski instructor? They'll tell you. Seems to also hold true for people who do these sort of charity events.

Davina had a a full crew with her and was also raising her public profile (which is certainly a boon for her career-wise). If only we were as lucky...

Think or know? May be some or even many do. Some like to shout about it, others just keep quiet - we're all different.
Why have I supported a charity event with my time & money - because I get a lot out of it - possibly more than those it helps - does that mean I shouldn't do it? Would it be better if I didn't like doing it? (it's not a fund raising event - it's a direct support event).
I also support another charity financially - it's not a lot to me or to them and it doesn't make me "feel good", but I do feel it needs supporting so I do - I don't shout about it though ...

If I were a "celebrity" would I be happy to use my status to raise money for a good cause - I would like to think so, yes - although it would need to be a meaningful activity and not like the "IACGMOOH" jungle fiasco ...
Would I worry that in raising money for a charity I'd also be raising my own profile? No - because if ppl are willing to give to a cause because of my actions then that's a good thing and outweighs the "downside" of free publicity.
I would hope that the only thing I wouldn't do is financially benefit directly from the fundraising activity - ie not be paid or similar for doing so.
Some "challenges" seem more like a flippin holiday than a challenge ... I don't think Davina's one does though ... unless your idea of a good time is riding into sleet/snow and then swimming in a freezing lake!

junglist_matty

aaa

junglist_matty

MOD EDIT Cut the Bad language out

slowbike

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

So what do you propose to do about it? Or are you already doing something about redistributing the wealth?

I propose to invert the current trend, which is more and more wealth in the end of fewer and fewer people. Historically it's not the first time that it happens... the French Revolution is just a textbook example of what hapens when the process gets to the extreme...

Rich get rich, poor get poorer - except that's not always the case. I don't disagree that we could do with a more even distribution of health and education benefits, but proposing to invert the trend doesn't help those who need help right now.

ugo.santalucia wrote:

But more to the point:
Joe Smith has served in Iraq, where he lost a limb to protect the interest of us taxpayers... should we throw him some spare change in charity so he can get a prostetic leg or should we have structure in place paid from our own salaries to take care of the less fortunate? If his job in Iraq was so important, how come we don't give a sxxt about him as a nation of taxpayers?

It's a different point - no more or less. Personally I'd prefer not to have the conflict to start with - but equally, those who join the armed forces do so of their own will - if you join a fighting force then there is a chance you'll have to fight and a chance you'll be injured - it's a risk you have to decide is worth taking.
What happens after you're injured - should our servicemen be given the best there is available, or something adequate to enable them to live their lives?
If you look at the individual cases you'd want each and every one to receive the best possible care, treatment and services, including support for family. Then you look at the picture as a whole and realise the huge cost that has to be funded from somewhere - so perhaps if we cut back a little here and there then we can afford to give more to many rather than most to some.
I do think that perhaps our country relies a little too heavily on charity where it should be centrally funded, but sometimes a charity organisation is the best way to achieve the goal.

Grill

Slowbike wrote:

Grill wrote:

I think most people donate out of guilt and then the eventual payoff of feeling like a good person. I've always said that charity is a selfish endeavour as people tend to do it for the above reasons. When I do charitable things, whether they be actions or donations, no one finds out about them because I don't tell anyone.

There's a joke we tell in the Alps. How do you know if someone's a ski instructor? They'll tell you. Seems to also hold true for people who do these sort of charity events.

Davina had a a full crew with her and was also raising her public profile (which is certainly a boon for her career-wise). If only we were as lucky...

Think or know? May be some or even many do. Some like to shout about it, others just keep quiet - we're all different.
Why have I supported a charity event with my time & money - because I get a lot out of it - possibly more than those it helps - does that mean I shouldn't do it? Would it be better if I didn't like doing it? (it's not a fund raising event - it's a direct support event).
I also support another charity financially - it's not a lot to me or to them and it doesn't make me "feel good", but I do feel it needs supporting so I do - I don't shout about it though ...

If I were a "celebrity" would I be happy to use my status to raise money for a good cause - I would like to think so, yes - although it would need to be a meaningful activity and not like the "IACGMOOH" jungle fiasco ...
Would I worry that in raising money for a charity I'd also be raising my own profile? No - because if ppl are willing to give to a cause because of my actions then that's a good thing and outweighs the "downside" of free publicity.
I would hope that the only thing I wouldn't do is financially benefit directly from the fundraising activity - ie not be paid or similar for doing so.
Some "challenges" seem more like a flippin holiday than a challenge ... I don't think Davina's one does though ... unless your idea of a good time is riding into sleet/snow and then swimming in a freezing lake!

Let me just put it this way- if donating to charity made you feel like crap would you do it? Most people wouldn't. There's nothing wrong with doing it because it gives you that joy-joy feeling in the pit of your stomach, but that also makes it an inherently selfish action because of said payoff (again nothing wrong with that, just saying it how it is).

I think it's a good thing that there are high-profile individuals that feel the need to give back, some just do it better than others (Bill Gates and Warren Buffett come to mind).

homers_double

ugo.santalucia wrote:

homers double wrote:

The point of charities is that sometime what you are asking for just doesn't exist.

It does in other countries... problem with the US and to a lesser extent the UK is that they provide fewer and fewer services, relying on generosity for the rest.

You know the London air ambulance is a charity? Shouldn't it be essential in a city of 10 million?

Hence the "sometimes".

Yes I agree it should be an essential service, just stick it onto the NHS and it's funding will just come from the same huge pit.

What we're discussing here is the fact that in Africa there isn't the infrastructure for them to provide basic services as they live in poverty, never mind a bloody helicopter!

I'm all for the "give a man a pound and he can feed his family for a day - give him a shovel and he can grow his own food" theory, not faceless giving which is why more and more people are building wells and helping remote villages with purification.

ugo.santalucia

Slowbike wrote:

I do think that perhaps our country relies a little too heavily on charity where it should be centrally funded, but sometimes a charity organisation is the best way to achieve the goal.

What? By spending up to 90% of the revenue in fund rising and self promotion?

Grill

junglist_matty wrote:

Grill wrote:

There's a joke we tell in the Alps. How do you know if someone's a ski instructor? They'll tell you. Seems to also hold true for people who do these sort of charity events.

I thought it went more along the lines of

How do you know if Grill's a C.U.N.T.? .....Just wait for him to open his mouth (or rather bash some keys)!

I explain and defend my contentions and don't insult others for having a different view. If you find this offensive then I can only offer you my deepest sympathies.