Christine Thorburn to retire?

Two fourth-place finishes in the last two Olympics are enough.
Thorburn, a physician at Stanford, is done with big-time bike racing.
We talked to her this week in San Francisco...the story is up on
CycleTo.

Here's a direct link:

http://cycleto.com/index.php?option=...article&id=509

On Sep 5, 12:15*pm, caffetrieste wrote:
Two fourth-place finishes in the last two Olympics are enough.
Thorburn, a physician at Stanford, is done with big-time bike racing.
We talked to her this week in San Francisco...the story is up on
CycleTo.

Here's a direct link:

http://cycleto.com/index.php?option=...article&id=509

You keep insisting on these incorrect facts. To make it worse, you're
ignoring one of the great achievements of the best women's bike racer
of all time.

-ilan

On Sep 5, 12:33*pm, wrote:
On Sep 5, 12:15*pm, caffetrieste wrote:

Two fourth-place finishes in the last two Olympics are enough.
Thorburn, a physician at Stanford, is done with big-time bike racing.
We talked to her this week in San Francisco...the story is up on
CycleTo.

Here's a direct link:

http://cycleto.com/index.php?option=...article&id=509

You keep insisting on these incorrect facts. To make it worse, you're
ignoring one of the great achievements of the best women's bike racer
of all time.

-ilan

Typo...my bad...4th in '04, 5th in '08.

Mi scusi.

wrote in message
...
On Sep 5, 12:15 pm, caffetrieste wrote:
Two fourth-place finishes in the last two Olympics are enough.
Thorburn, a physician at Stanford, is done with big-time bike racing.
We talked to her this week in San Francisco...the story is up on
CycleTo.

Here's a direct link:

http://cycleto.com/index.php?option=...article&id=509

You keep insisting on these incorrect facts. To make it worse, you're
ignoring one of the great achievements of the best women's bike racer
of all time.

-ilan

She certainly was a good TT rider, one of the best, but she missed being
World and Olympic champion, perhaps by working full time. I don't buy that
someone can be all they can be in a sport, by working a fulltime job, and
training in their spare time because I did it for years, and it sucks. You
are often beat after work, and you training suffers, and then in turn, you
are beat at work, you work suffers because you spend hours training after
work. If Christine was training full time and really focused on winning the
games like Armstrong and Cooke were, perhaps it would of been Gold and
Silver for the Americans. However, on the flip side, that was superb effort
she gave in the Olympic RR this year. She did a great job pulling at the
front for such a long time, and she got the Lions share of the coverage as
well.

Black Bart

On Sep 5, 8:06*pm, "Black Bart Roberts" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Sep 5, 12:15 pm, caffetrieste wrote:

Two fourth-place finishes in the last two Olympics are enough.
Thorburn, a physician at Stanford, is done with big-time bike racing.
We talked to her this week in San Francisco...the story is up on
CycleTo.

Here's a direct link:

http://cycleto.com/index.php?option=...article&id=509

You keep insisting on these incorrect facts. To make it worse, you're
ignoring one of the great achievements of the best women's bike racer
of all time.

-ilan

She certainly was a good TT rider, one of the best, but she missed being
World and Olympic champion, perhaps by working full time. I don't buy that
someone can be all they can be in a sport, by working a fulltime job, and
training in their spare time because I did it for years, and it sucks. You
are often beat after work, and you training suffers, and then in turn, you
are beat at work, you work suffers because you spend hours training after
work. If Christine was training full time and really focused on winning the
games like Armstrong and Cooke were, perhaps it would of been Gold and
Silver for the Americans. However, on the flip side, that was superb effort
she gave in the Olympic RR this year. She did a great job pulling at the
front for such a long time, and she got the Lions share of the coverage as
well.

Black Bart

I know her from being at Stanford and she is one of a fairly
significant number of top riders who ended up doing a Ph.D. in
medicine or biology (I know at least 4). I personally think that their
scientific career is a waste of time compared to their cycling. In
particular, in areas like medicine or biology, a Ph.D. is more often
than not just a drone who carries out an experiment thought out by the
adviser and the results have little or no impact on anything. The
limited discussions I had with stanford graduate students convinced me
that their research was useless but not in the noble sense. They then
end up doing a career than thousands of other people do equally well
or better when instead they have the opportunity of being the best in
the world at something, namely cycling. In a lot of cases, the
problem is that their cultural background was such that their life
would not be fulfilled unless they got a Ph.D I respect more the
riders who just decided to be professional cyclists after getting a
bachelors degree and went far beyond expectations, e.g., Nicole
Freedman.

-ilan

wrote in message
...
On Sep 5, 8:06 pm, "Black Bart Roberts" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Sep 5, 12:15 pm, caffetrieste wrote:

Two fourth-place finishes in the last two Olympics are enough.
Thorburn, a physician at Stanford, is done with big-time bike racing.
We talked to her this week in San Francisco...the story is up on
CycleTo.

Here's a direct link:

http://cycleto.com/index.php?option=...article&id=509

You keep insisting on these incorrect facts. To make it worse, you're
ignoring one of the great achievements of the best women's bike racer
of all time.

-ilan

She certainly was a good TT rider, one of the best, but she missed being
World and Olympic champion, perhaps by working full time. I don't buy that
someone can be all they can be in a sport, by working a fulltime job, and
training in their spare time because I did it for years, and it sucks. You
are often beat after work, and you training suffers, and then in turn, you
are beat at work, you work suffers because you spend hours training after
work. If Christine was training full time and really focused on winning
the
games like Armstrong and Cooke were, perhaps it would of been Gold and
Silver for the Americans. However, on the flip side, that was superb
effort
she gave in the Olympic RR this year. She did a great job pulling at the
front for such a long time, and she got the Lions share of the coverage as
well.

Black Bart

I know her from being at Stanford and she is one of a fairly
significant number of top riders who ended up doing a Ph.D. in
medicine or biology (I know at least 4). I personally think that their
scientific career is a waste of time compared to their cycling. In
particular, in areas like medicine or biology, a Ph.D. is more often
than not just a drone who carries out an experiment thought out by the
adviser and the results have little or no impact on anything. The
limited discussions I had with stanford graduate students convinced me
that their research was useless but not in the noble sense. They then
end up doing a career than thousands of other people do equally well
or better when instead they have the opportunity of being the best in
the world at something, namely cycling. In a lot of cases, the
problem is that their cultural background was such that their life
would not be fulfilled unless they got a Ph.D I respect more the
riders who just decided to be professional cyclists after getting a
bachelors degree and went far beyond expectations, e.g., Nicole
Freedman.

-ilan

I believe I read either in print or on a video that she said her career was
more important then cycling, so there you have it, and that's core and
central to part of the problem of women's cycling in America, unlike Europe
where women on UCI teams train and race full time. Over the last few years,
I was thinking if she would only race and train full time, she could of had
the Worlds or the Olympic gold by now! You are right about the career and
opportunities, as that would only enhance any career opportunities that
might come her way after retirement. As a fan, I felt robbed at times, in
fact by a lot of women who could be really good if they trained and raced
full time.



Nicole Freedman I believed developed her own sponsors for racing, Ford Basis
for one, so she kind of supported herself in cycling, and raced while living
out of a van at times to race, something I admire a lot, because she really
wanted to race and see what she could achieve. I'm not saying Thorburn
didn't, but it seems obvious, that her career is more important then
cycling. Of course, she will earn millions in her career, and very little
from cycling, so its no surprise, but the Olympics is the one rare
opportunity where Gold brings both prestige and opens doors in the real
world.



Here's the deal, even though guys like Engleman, who I used to watch race at
Nevada City, are helping women at USWCDP, its not enough I don't think. Part
of the problem is the way top women are portrayed in the press and on team
websites. Recently I saw Brooke Miller speak about tending tea parties in
the past, which is what I also used to see at Nevada City sometimes. Women
coming together to race, but as more of a social gathering instead of a
serious race where hearts, lungs and legs are singing. Rather instead, a lot
of chit-chat at the front of the peloton instead of intense racing.



In the press and on team sites, they tend to highlight women careers first,
and cycling seems to be more or less their recreational hobby. You always
hear about their careers and what degrees and universities they attend and
what their career goals are, but you almost never hear about women cyclists
who have decided to fully dedicate themselves to pro cycling for a few years
to see what they can achieve. Its usually what they can achieve on the side
in cycling, as cycling plays second fiddle. That's why we don't have more
serious contenders in Europe like Neben and Armstrong who have pretty much
fully dedicated themselves to cycling. What we have today in America at our
races, are often weekend warriors, who race on the side from their full or
part time career jobs.



Another problem is teams can't always afford to foot the bill to allow women
to race and train full time, but I'm not sure how big a problem that would
be, if more women were fully dedicated to do it. It seems they would find
the extra money, even though times are tight, and sometimes women have to
dig into their own pockets to race. Some teams clearly have a pretty decent
budget. But it seems often what you see in the media or on team sites is
they try to put the best face on women's cycling by praising their
university degrees and careers. Its as if we should honor the career aspects
of cyclists more then what they are actually doing on the bike. It seems
like a flawed concept, because clearly fans want to see fully dedicated
professionals race, and that would be much more exciting. When the USA
National B team came back from Europe, I was reading how strong and hard
they raced against our women back home now, and that's the big difference
between racing full time in Europe and being just a weekend warrior here at
home and attending the so called tea parties.



On a positive note, at least races today are more serious here then in the
past, and the tea parties or social gathering are becoming a thing of the
past, as the sport grows, and riders and teams have improved here in
America. At least I think they have improved from a couple of years ago. The
women at Aarons and Tibco, Colavita are looking better, stronger and more
professional then back then. I have noticed the difference at races,
although many still work regular jobs. If I understood Carroll correctly in
an interview a while back, there are some very serious women riders coming
up now from the juniors who will be very dedicated. I understand that some
of them are going to be totally awesome, meaning top replacements for Neben
and Armstrong when they retire, but it would be nice to hear about more
women like that from the USA competing in Europe. However, it was an
American who got the gold at the Olympics, so not so bad! Hats off to
Kristin Armstrong, got the gold, something Lance never did!



Black Bart

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 10:02:12 -0700, "Black Bart Roberts"
wrote:

In the press and on team sites, they tend to highlight women careers first,
and cycling seems to be more or less their recreational hobby. You always
hear about their careers and what degrees and universities they attend and
what their career goals are, but you almost never hear about women cyclists
who have decided to fully dedicate themselves to pro cycling for a few years
to see what they can achieve. Its usually what they can achieve on the side
in cycling, as cycling plays second fiddle.

In my city in the last 15 years I can think of four riders who went
full-time with 100% focus on cycling, but a big problem was affording
it. One had the genetics and skill and also some luck with money and
made a long pro career, including fifth at worlds. Another not so
good sold everything (she'd made some money as a younger person) and
was able to make it to the Olympics. Two others tried it for two
years but financial pressure and recognition that they couldn't make
it to the top resulted in them ending the quest early. And there's a
fifth woman, super-talented, who didn't even try to go full-time,
perhaps for reasons you mention.

Black Bart Roberts wrote:
I believe I read either in print or on a video that she said her career
was more important then cycling, so there you have it, and that's core and
central to part of the problem of women's cycling in America, unlike
Europe where women on UCI teams train and race full time...
snip

I think that you'd find that the number of full-time women bike racers in
the US is not proportionally different than it is for the men. By
proportionally, I mean relative to the total population of women racers.
Where I live, the ratio of men-to-women licensed racers is nearly 8-to-1,
and I'd assume it is at least that unbalanced nationally.

snip
Another problem is teams can't always afford to foot the bill to allow
women to race and train full time, but I'm not sure how big a problem that
would be, if more women were fully dedicated to do it. It seems they
would find the extra money, even though times are tight, and sometimes
women have to dig into their own pockets to race. Some teams clearly have
a pretty decent budget.
snip

Again, I think you have to consider it relative to the total number of women
racers. As you know, there were some competitive and well-funded teams in
the US this year. Women's racing was hot in the US.

Unfortunately, things are looking bleak on both the mens and womens side for
next year. Lots of teams folding. Not sure if it's the bad economy, or maybe
just a cyclic thing in US racing, but it will mean fewer full-time domestic
racers in 2009.

wrote in message
...
The limited discussions I had with stanford graduate students convinced me
that their research was useless but not in the noble sense. They then
end up doing a career than thousands of other people do equally well
or better when instead they have the opportunity of being the best in
the world at something, namely cycling.

You need to be a little careful there Ilan. I was advised not to bother with
getting a degree by several professors at Cal Berkeley since I was already
designing electronics and at that time there were quite a few top level
designers without a degree of any sort.

But the fact is that being without a degree really handicapped me my whole
life. Even though I could design with the best of them, I always had to do
twice as much to prove that I was capable.

So I ALWAYS tell people to get a degree regardless of what anyone else says
if they intend to work for someone else.

In article ,
"Black Bart Roberts" wrote:

I was thinking if she would only race and train full time, she could of had

Hi there, Bruce.

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?