Did the UCI mandate requiring helmet use improve the safety and welfare of the riders more than the regulations they have imposed around doping. Or is it just as bogus as the "drug" rules. After all they claim their number one concern is rider safety and now mandate helmet usage during races, but not when the riders are off training or riding to a race (just look at the photos). Why not mandate that the racer must wear their helmets when training and let the riders dope, or give the riders a choice. You safety factor is x, so you can dope or race without a helmet, but not both.
Did the UCI mandate requiring helmet use improve the safety and
welfare
Quoted message said:
of the riders more than the regulations they have imposed around doping. Or is it just as bogus as the "drug" rules.
<snip>
Dumbass -
It's been clear for a long time now. Those who don't wear helmets are the most likely to be dopers. Not only is it correlative, the two may be mutually causal, a symbiotic relationship.
R. Chung proved the relationship in one of his analyses, building on the more superficial analyses of D. Connelly. Hopefully, Mr. Chung will post the results here again.
Did the UCI mandate requiring helmet use improve the safety and welfare of the riders more than the regulations they have imposed around doping. Or is it just as bogus as the "drug" rules. After all they claim their number one concern is rider safety and now mandate helmet usage during races, but not when the riders are off training or riding to a race (just look at the photos). Why not mandate that the racer must wear their helmets when training and let the riders dope, or give the riders a choice. You safety factor is x, so you can dope or race without a helmet, but not both.
If a guy dies during a bike race it's worse for the sport-more bad publicity. Drug rules aren't about safety. The team doctors are supposed to take care of the safe use of drugs and orange juice and British breakfast foods and dangerous stuff like that. Drug rules are about cheating and what is fair. Like not being allowed to use a bike that's too light because it's not fair to the teams that don't have the money for luxury items like $3000 wheelsets. At least the UCI hasn't gone crazy and eliminated these things from masters racing.
Did the UCI mandate requiring helmet use improve the safety and welfare of the riders more than the regulations they have imposed around doping. Or is it just as bogus as the "drug" rules. After all they claim their number one concern is rider safety and now mandate helmet usage during races, but not when the riders are off training or riding to a race (just look at the photos). Why not mandate that the racer must wear their helmets when training and let the riders dope, or give the riders a choice. You safety factor is x, so you can dope or race without a helmet, but not both.
If a guy dies during a bike race it's worse for the sport-more bad publicity. Drug rules aren't about safety. The team doctors are supposed to take care of the safe use of drugs and orange juice and British breakfast foods and dangerous stuff like that. Drug rules are about cheating and what is fair. Like not being allowed to use a bike that's too light because it's not fair to the teams that don't have the money for luxury items like $3000 wheelsets. At least the UCI hasn't gone crazy and eliminated these things from masters racing.
-WG
It's good to know that the UCI has some perspective in these kinds of issues. They know that banning masters from having $3000 wheelsets and like items would do major damage to the worldwide economy.
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Rik Van Diesel said:
Did the UCI mandate requiring helmet use improve the safety and
welfare
Quoted message said:
of the riders more than the regulations they have imposed around doping. Or is it just as bogus as the "drug" rules.
<snip>
Dumbass -
It's been clear for a long time now. Those who don't wear helmets are the most likely to be dopers. Not only is it correlative, the two may be mutually causal, a symbiotic relationship.
R. Chung proved the relationship in one of his analyses, building on the more superficial analyses of D. Connelly. Hopefully, Mr. Chung will post the results here again.
"Rik Van Diesel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Did the UCI mandate requiring helmet use improve the safety and welfare of the riders more than the regulations they have imposed around doping. Or is it just as bogus as the "drug" rules. After all they claim their number one concern is rider safety and now mandate helmet usage during races, but not when the riders are off training or riding to a race (just look at the photos). Why not mandate that the racer must wear their helmets when training and let the riders dope, or give the riders a choice. You safety factor is x, so you can dope or race without a helmet, but not both.
RVD
I believe that the helmet rule, like most things, is purely about money and doesn't have much to do with rider safety. No sponsor wanted to have pictures, or videos, of a rider dead from a head injury in their team kit without a helmet. Remember Kivilev? In the publics mind if the rider dies wearing a helmet it goes down as a tragic, but unavoidable accident. If he dies without a helmet it become reckless. I know that when I was involved in sponsorship decisions one of the decision points was thinking about what was the worst thing that could happen and how our brand would be affected.
If a guy dies during a bike race it's worse for the sport-more bad publicity. Drug rules aren't about safety. The team doctors are supposed to take care of the safe use of drugs and orange juice and British breakfast foods and dangerous stuff like that.
According to what I read on rbr its New Zealand breakfast foods that require mandatory UN sanctions.
It's been clear for a long time now. Those who don't wear helmets are the most likely to be dopers. Not only is it correlative, the two may be mutually causal, a symbiotic relationship.
R. Chung proved the relationship in one of his analyses, building on the more superficial analyses of D. Connelly. Hopefully, Mr. Chung will post the results here again.
"Donald Munro" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
warren said:
If a guy dies during a bike race it's worse for the sport-more bad publicity. Drug rules aren't about safety. The team doctors are supposed to take care of the safe use of drugs and orange juice and British breakfast foods and dangerous stuff like that.
According to what I read on rbr its New Zealand breakfast foods that require mandatory UN sanctions.
No doubt I'll be called un-Australian by our PM for this, but Vegemite is actually an Australian "food product", notwithstanding the fact that it's owned by Kraft. I never liked it. I'll probably be prevented from re-entering the country now.
Boring fact: After 16 years of being called Vegemite, the company changed its name to Parwill in 1928 in an attempt to boost sales. It was being marketed as a rival to the equally horrible British product Marmite. There was an ad slogan that went "If Marmite...then Parwill". It was changed back to Vegemite in 1935.
1. During race, racer tend to ride in big field at full speed while taking chance one normally would not take on training. 2. During race, organizer is responsible for rule and safety, on training, you are, is call personal freedom.
As a example of argument, F1 racer all wear full fireproof suit, helmet and 5pt harness during race, bring back your argument, shouldn't everyone/racer wear/use the same racing outfield when driving their Audi for a milk run?
"Rik Van Diesel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Did the UCI mandate requiring helmet use improve the safety and welfare of the riders more than the regulations they have imposed around doping. Or is it just as bogus as the "drug" rules. After all they claim their number one concern is rider safety and now mandate helmet usage during races, but not when the riders are off training or riding to a race (just look at the photos). Why not mandate that the racer must wear their helmets when training and let the riders dope, or give the riders a choice. You safety factor is x, so you can dope or race without a helmet, but not both.
It's been clear for a long time now. Those who don't wear helmets are the most likely to be dopers. Not only is it correlative, the two may be mutually causal, a symbiotic relationship.
R. Chung proved the relationship in one of his analyses, building on the more superficial analyses of D. Connelly. Hopefully, Mr. Chung will post the results here again.
"Donald Munro" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
warren said:
If a guy dies during a bike race it's worse for the sport-more bad publicity. Drug rules aren't about safety. The team doctors are supposed to take care of the safe use of drugs and orange juice and British breakfast foods and dangerous stuff like that.
According to what I read on rbr its New Zealand breakfast foods that require mandatory UN sanctions.
No doubt I'll be called un-Australian by our PM for this, but Vegemite is actually an Australian "food product", notwithstanding the fact that it's owned by Kraft. I never liked it. I'll probably be prevented from re-entering the country now.
Boring fact: After 16 years of being called Vegemite, the company changed its name to Parwill in 1928 in an attempt to boost sales. It was being marketed as a rival to the equally horrible British product Marmite. There was an ad slogan that went "If Marmite...then Parwill". It was changed back to Vegemite in 1935.
Jeff
I bet I could win a contest to make something that looks and smells more like vomit than vomit itself. A few tablespoonfuls of Vegemite and a cup of orange juice in the blender. Try that for a post-ride recovery drink.
Boring fact: After 16 years of being called Vegemite, the company changed its name to Parwill in 1928 in an attempt to boost sales. It was being marketed as a rival to the equally horrible British product Marmite. There was an ad slogan that went "If Marmite...then Parwill". It was changed back to Vegemite in 1935.
gym gravity said:
I bet I could win a contest to make something that looks and smells more like vomit than vomit itself. A few tablespoonfuls of Vegemite and a cup of orange juice in the blender. Try that for a post-ride recovery drink.
Sounds like an ideal appetite suppressing diet shake for fat masters.
It's been clear for a long time now. Those who don't wear helmets are the most likely to be dopers. Not only is it correlative, the two may be mutually causal, a symbiotic relationship.
R. Chung proved the relationship in one of his analyses, building on the more superficial analyses of D. Connelly. Hopefully, Mr. Chung will post the results here again.
"gym gravity" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
I bet I could win a contest to make something that looks and smells more like vomit than vomit itself. A few tablespoonfuls of Vegemite and a cup of orange juice in the blender. Try that for a post-ride recovery drink.
