risk taking?

[[email protected]]

does a narrow world view plus risk taking (downhill at 11/10ths) minus
education plus lettuce = ?

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article om>,
wrote:

> does a narrow world view plus risk taking (downhill at 11/10ths) minus
> education plus lettuce = ?

An interesting question. The answer is that precious few races are won
by downhill specialists (the same three examples always come up, and
they're neat, but they're unusual, like the races won by riders because
they had a change of clothes waiting at the top of the mountain).
Getting up the mountain is almost always the harder, more selective act.

Another answer is that downhill skill is inherent to the challenges of
the sport. Getting your hct right shouldn't be.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[[email protected]]

:

> > does a narrow world view plus risk taking (downhill at 11/10ths) minus
> > education plus lettuce = ?

my opinion is the greater majority of tour riders are
downhill at 11/10ths rsik takers as downhill at 11/10ths is but a
defining term not a specific category

question was - is that an accurate formula? an accurate description of
the tour rider?

that is to search for one factor - are the riders still touring smarter
as a group than those left behind with their addresses on epo/blood
packs in a spanish freezer? or more extreme - are the one's left out
stupid and the ones left in smart?

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> :
>
> > > does a narrow world view plus risk taking (downhill at 11/10ths) minus
> > > education plus lettuce = ?
>
> my opinion is the greater majority of tour riders are
> downhill at 11/10ths rsik takers as downhill at 11/10ths is but a
> defining term not a specific category
>
> question was - is that an accurate formula? an accurate description of
> the tour rider?

I think the psychological make-up of a competitive cyclist, at least the
really successful ones, is fundamentally built around a will to win
which doesn't make much sense to most civilians. Sure, it's their job,
but they have to sacrifice pretty much their entire lives to becoming
great at a _sport_ (sports being basically games with an element of
physical exertion). The phrase "it's just a game" doesn't work with
these guys.

> that is to search for one factor - are the riders still touring smarter
> as a group than those left behind with their addresses on epo/blood
> packs in a spanish freezer? or more extreme - are the one's left out
> stupid and the ones left in smart?

The ones left in come in two classes: the clean and the lucky. I don't
know how large each group is.

Though given how tough the Tour is, maybe the ones left out are the
lucky ones.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[[email protected]]

it is interesting and entertaining wondering why basso and ulrich did
not believe in themselves minus the epo - rumour?
from the cia of course! a rendition rendition