SB Nation User Blog: Punctured

Bicycles for $400, please Alex.

Punctured — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:28:20 -0000

Cycling made a stride forward yesterday in pop culture. There was a Jeopardy category on bicycles. I waited patiently as the three contestants chose every other clue on the board until they were finally forced to get down to a subject I knew something about. As the clues were revealed, it became apparent that there was some “promotional consideration” involved. Trek must have given Alex a Trek Madone as Trek employees read most of the clues and Trek bikes were prominently displayed.

They got the $200 question correct. Who is Lance Armstrong? You knew that was going to be one of the answers. They missed the questions about bikes made from carbon, frame rigidity and the track being called a velodrome. There was controversy. They showed a picture of a Trek fixed gear bike and wanted to know what type of bike it was. The first contestant said fixed drive. Alex said that was incorrect. The next contestant said fixed gear and was awarded the points. Upon further review, they accepted fixed drive and the first contestant was given an updated score.

This is the closest I have ever come to the dream of scratching and clawing my way through Jeopardy! while smarty pants next to me answers all the opera and Shakespeare questions correctly. When we get to final Jeopardy and Alex reveals the category “Tour of Flanders History.” As the brainiacs next to me stare blankly at the question, I grin and write, “Who is Edwig Van Hooydonck?”

Doping at the Olympics - Non-cycling Division

Punctured — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:15:45 -0000

It's a doping story that I actually found amusing.

Four horses in the Olympic equestrian team jumping competition, including one from Norway's bronze-medal team, have been provisionally suspended after testing positive for a banned pain reliever.

Did the horses go to their local drugstore with dark glasses and buy the stuff? Were the horses' names in Dr Fuentes files? Has L'Equipe linked them to Lance Armstrong yet? They had better call Howard Jacobs.

History Channel: Selective Enforcement at Paris-Roubaix

Punctured — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:55:44 -0000

[editor's note, by chris] I wasn't going to promote this at first, but then it reminded me how fun it is to look back at old races in general, not just this one. So use this as the history thread.

If I were one of the riders who was disqualified in 2006 for going around the gates at the railroad crossing, I would be beside myself. The gates are clearly still down when Boonen and company cross. I guess it's OK if you're Boonen.

frame-fitting link HERE

How do you identify the dopers?

Punctured — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:21:05 -0000

The post race commentary on Fabian Cancellara was fascinating.

Every outstanding performance leads to the inevitable speculation about doped or not doped.

I was interested to find out how people determine whom they think dopes or doesn't dope.

There is the "superior performance = doped" logic. A rider blasts apart the field on a Tour mountain stage or takes 2 minutes out of everyone in the time trial so therefore the rider must have doped. The problem is that athletes do have superior performances without the benefit of dope. Wayne Gretzky scored 92 goals in a season when the benchmark had been 76 goals. No one could argue that Gretzky was doped, could they?

There is the "guilt by association" logic. A rider rode for Manolo Saiz and therefore must have doped. This is especially true if the rider rode for Saiz during the OP days. The problem here is that if doping was a widespread as is feared then anyone who rode before 2005 has to be included.

There is the "good day/bad day" logic. This involves two groups - the rider who never has a bad day in a major tour must have doped and the rider who has a great day followed by a terrible day (or vice versa) must have doped. The problem is both those things happen with and without doping.

There is the "degree of denial" logic. If a rider is an outspoken critic of doping then they must not be doping. Rafael Palmeiro stated before Congress "Let me start by telling you this: I have never used steroids, period. I don't know how to say it anymore clearly than that. Never." We know how that ended up.

There is the "I like the rider so he doesn't dope" logic. The problem is rooting interests will cloud your judgment.

The sponsor name logic. Astana is out because Vino et al doped but Rabobank is in even though the "Chicken" doped.

So how do you determine if someone dopes? This would be a great question for Christian Prudhomme.

Pound nominated to head CAS

Punctured — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 14:50:14 -0000

I can't think of a worse choice.

There would appear to be conflict of interest issues if he were to get the position.

It's his completely unprofessional behavior as head of WADA that I am most concerned about.

CN link