Performance enhancing ... women's underwear

[Mark J.]

It's the latest thing!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/sports/skiing/underwear-used-by-world-cup-skiers-is-focus-of-debate.html

Since this is RBR, there's gotta be pictures:
http://www.skionline.ch/images/content/frauen_int/frauen_int_portraits/maze/maze_12/maze_BH_2012.jpg

Though probably this is more appropriate here:
http://static1.kleinezeitung.at/system/galleries_520x335/upload/0/3/6/2923038/maze_kk.jpg

Mark J.

[Steve Freides[_2_]]

Mark J. wrote:
> It's the latest thing!
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/sports/skiing/underwear-used-by-world-cup-skiers-is-focus-of-debate.html
>
> Since this is RBR, there's gotta be pictures:
> http://www.skionline.ch/images/content/frauen_int/frauen_int_portraits/maze/maze_12/maze_BH_2012.jpg
>
> Though probably this is more appropriate here:
> http://static1.kleinezeitung.at/system/galleries_520x335/upload/0/3/6/2923038/maze_kk.jpg
>
> Mark J.

Oy, not this again. If they're going to outlaw dangerous things in
professional sports, let them start by outlawing driving
bumper-to-bumper at 200 mph.

=S=

[Fredmaster of Brainerd]

On Jan 19, 4:22*pm, "Steve Freides" > wrote:
> Mark J. wrote:
> > It's the latest thing!
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/sports/skiing/underwear-used-by-wor...
>
> > Since this is RBR, there's gotta be pictures:
> >http://www.skionline.ch/images/content/frauen_int/frauen_int_portrait...
>
> > Though probably this is more appropriate here:
> >http://static1.kleinezeitung.at/system/galleries_520x335/upload/0/3/6...
>
> > Mark J.
>
> Oy, not this again. *If they're going to outlaw dangerous things in
> professional sports, let them start by outlawing driving
> bumper-to-bumper at 200 mph.
>
> =S=

Who's "they"?

I think there are two things going on here
1. FIS is a bunch of stick in the muds (they also are
imposing new retrogressive rules on ski shapes that all
the racers hate)
2. The actual intent of these clumsily stated rules is to eliminate
clothing/cladding material that gives an aerodynamic
advantage or is stiff enough to serve as a fairing
in some way.

Ben

[DirtRoadie]

On Jan 19, 5:36*pm, Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
> On Jan 19, 4:22*pm, "Steve Freides" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > Mark J. wrote:
> > > It's the latest thing!
>
> > >http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/sports/skiing/underwear-used-by-wor....
>
> > > Since this is RBR, there's gotta be pictures:
> > >http://www.skionline.ch/images/content/frauen_int/frauen_int_portrait....
>
> > > Though probably this is more appropriate here:
> > >http://static1.kleinezeitung.at/system/galleries_520x335/upload/0/3/6....
>
> > > Mark J.
>
> > Oy, not this again. *If they're going to outlaw dangerous things in
> > professional sports, let them start by outlawing driving
> > bumper-to-bumper at 200 mph.
>
> > =S=
>
> Who's "they"?
>
> I think there are two things going on here
> 1. FIS is a bunch of stick in the muds (they also are
> * *imposing new retrogressive rules on ski shapes that all
> * *the racers hate)

And rightly so. That ski regulation is the rough equivalent of the UCI
requiring that all bikes used in competition have downtube shifters,
toe clips and weigh at least 22 lbs
Which is, of course, much like the UCI retro-imposition of 1970's
standards on hour-record bikes.

> 2. The actual intent of these clumsily stated rules is to eliminate
> * *clothing/cladding material that gives an aerodynamic
> * *advantage or is stiff enough to serve as a fairing
> * *in some way.

Some of the basis for ski shape regulations is alleged to be safety.
Operative word "alleged."

But lest cyclists feel left out, here's an example that could
conceivably find its way into cycling.

http://www.skynews.com.au/offbeat/article.aspx?id=709292&vId=

Perhaps the UCI could focus on developing a clavicle specific
version.

Personally, I'm looking forward a bit farther to the lighter techno
version based upon force fields - a rider would never even hit the
ground. But then we will be dealing with the Gruber-like cheating
scandals based upon illicit re-programming of the system to provide a
boost on the climbs.

DR

[Steve Freides[_2_]]

Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> On Jan 19, 4:22 pm, "Steve Freides" > wrote:
>> Mark J. wrote:
>>> It's the latest thing!
>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/sports/skiing/underwear-used-by-wor...
>>
>>> Since this is RBR, there's gotta be pictures:
>>> http://www.skionline.ch/images/content/frauen_int/frauen_int_portrait...
>>
>>> Though probably this is more appropriate here:
>>> http://static1.kleinezeitung.at/system/galleries_520x335/upload/0/3/6...
>>
>>> Mark J.
>>
>> Oy, not this again. If they're going to outlaw dangerous things in
>> professional sports, let them start by outlawing driving
>> bumper-to-bumper at 200 mph.
>>
>> =S=
>
> Who's "they"?

You know who 'they' are - the various governing bodies of professional
sports.

> I think there are two things going on here
> 1. FIS is a bunch of stick in the muds (they also are
> imposing new retrogressive rules on ski shapes that all
> the racers hate)

Yes.

> 2. The actual intent of these clumsily stated rules is to eliminate
> clothing/cladding material that gives an aerodynamic
> advantage or is stiff enough to serve as a fairing
> in some way.

Yes, but it's rather like eliminating liquid waste into an oncoming
breeze.

IMHO.

-S-


> Ben

[Fredmaster of Brainerd]

On Jan 20, 11:41*am, "Steve Freides" > wrote:
> Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> > On Jan 19, 4:22 pm, "Steve Freides" > wrote:
> >> Mark J. wrote:
> >>> It's the latest thing!
>
> >>>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/sports/skiing/underwear-used-by-wor....
>
> >>> Since this is RBR, there's gotta be pictures:
> >>>http://www.skionline.ch/images/content/frauen_int/frauen_int_portrait....
>
> >>> Though probably this is more appropriate here:
> >>>http://static1.kleinezeitung.at/system/galleries_520x335/upload/0/3/6....
>
> >>> Mark J.
>
> >> Oy, not this again. If they're going to outlaw dangerous things in
> >> professional sports, let them start by outlawing driving
> >> bumper-to-bumper at 200 mph.
>
> >> =S=
>
> > Who's "they"?
>
> You know who 'they' are - the various governing bodies of professional
> sports.

Yeah but there's no relation. Saying that FIS is doing
something stupid when NASCAR should be the one taking
action is meaningless, because there is no overlap
between FIS and NASCAR. They don't even have any
overlap in the fan base. It would be slightly less irrelevant
to compare two Olympic sports.

I think it would be more pertinent to say that FIS should stop
worrying about breathable underwear and spend more time
assuring courses are not super icy/crashy and don't have
deadly obstacles. (Like the luge track in Whistler that killed
someone, although that's the luge fed not FIS, but at least
luge and FIS are closer than NASCAR and FIS.)

> > I think there are two things going on here
> > 1. FIS is a bunch of stick in the muds (they also are
> > * *imposing new retrogressive rules on ski shapes that all
> > * *the racers hate)
>
> Yes.
>
> > 2. The actual intent of these clumsily stated rules is to eliminate
> > * *clothing/cladding material that gives an aerodynamic
> > * *advantage or is stiff enough to serve as a fairing
> > * *in some way.
>
> Yes, but it's rather like eliminating liquid waste into an oncoming
> breeze.
>
> IMHO.

We agree that the FIS is doing something in the least obvious
way and most guaranteed to make them look silly.
On the other hand, maybe they have promised the Underwear
Inspector jobs to IOC committee members to curry favor
and can't back down now.

Fredmaster Ben

[Steve Freides[_2_]]

Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>>> Who's "they"?
>>
>> You know who 'they' are - the various governing bodies of
>> professional sports.
>
> Yeah but there's no relation. Saying that FIS is doing
> something stupid when NASCAR should be the one taking
> action is meaningless, because there is no overlap
> between FIS and NASCAR. They don't even have any
> overlap in the fan base. It would be slightly less irrelevant
> to compare two Olympic sports.

Since when is relevance a requirement here?

> I think it would be more pertinent to say that FIS should stop
> worrying about breathable underwear and spend more time
> assuring courses are not super icy/crashy and don't have
> deadly obstacles. (Like the luge track in Whistler that killed
> someone, although that's the luge fed not FIS, but at least
> luge and FIS are closer than NASCAR and FIS.)

Or pertience?

> We agree that the FIS is doing something in the least obvious
> way and most guaranteed to make them look silly.
> On the other hand, maybe they have promised the Underwear
> Inspector jobs to IOC committee members to curry favor
> and can't back down now.

Underwear Inspector? That could be like, you know, the best job in the
world or the grossest, depending ...

-S-

[Frederick the Great]

In article
>,
Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:

> On Jan 19, 4:22Â*pm, "Steve Freides" > wrote:
> > Mark J. wrote:
> > > It's the latest thing!
> >
> > >http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/sports/skiing/underwear-used-by-wor...
> >
> > > Since this is RBR, there's gotta be pictures:
> > >http://www.skionline.ch/images/content/frauen_int/frauen_int_portrait...
> >
> > > Though probably this is more appropriate here:
> > >http://static1.kleinezeitung.at/system/galleries_520x335/upload/0/3/6...
> >
> > > Mark J.
> >
> > Oy, not this again. Â*If they're going to outlaw dangerous things in
> > professional sports, let them start by outlawing driving
> > bumper-to-bumper at 200 mph.
> >
> > =S=
>
> Who's "they"?
>
> I think there are two things going on here
> 1. FIS is a bunch of stick in the muds (they also are
> imposing new retrogressive rules on ski shapes that all
> the racers hate)
> 2. The actual intent of these clumsily stated rules is to eliminate
> clothing/cladding material that gives an aerodynamic
> advantage or is stiff enough to serve as a fairing
> in some way.

I know little enough about it. It could be
that the intent is to slow down the skiers
because the current trend is to speeds that
cause more injuries than the FIS wants to
be responsible for. When active ground
effect devices were outlawed in F1 motor
racing it was because the drivers could
not sustain the g forces and remain conscious.

--
Old Fritz

[Simply Fred]

Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> On the other hand, maybe they have promised the Underwear
> Inspector jobs to IOC committee members to curry favor
> and can't back down now.

Now you've made me nostalgic for my old rbr job as WADA podium girl
breast implant checker.

[Feld[_2_]]

On Jan 22, 1:50*am, Simply Fred > wrote:
> Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> > On the other hand, maybe they have promised the Underwear
> > Inspector jobs to IOC committee members to curry favor
> > and can't back down now.
>
> Now you've made me nostalgic for my old rbr job as *WADA podium girl
> breast implant checker.

These women's underwear would would enhance my performance:
http://all.blogs.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/07/03/sloggi_thongs_underwear_bikes_billb.jpg

So would hers:
http://pics.hollywoodrag.com/gallery3/images/INFphoto_1118661.jpg

[Anton Berlin]

> Though probably this is more appropriate here:http://static1.kleinezeitung.at/system/galleries_520x335/upload/0/3/6...

That last girl is giving out wood