TRUE or FALSE

MagillaGorilla wrote:

Goddamn,

This is the most retarded line of argument I've seen on rbr.

fairness = sticking to a pre-determined set of rules.

period.

Howard Kveck said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

MagillaGorilla said:

And yes, the cars are suppose to be equal - at least in terms of engine
output.

No. There are no rules in NASCAR that say that engines may only create "x"
horsepower. There are rules about engine components, capacity and many other things,
but nothing at all about engine output. Perhaps you're thinking of IROC, where the
cars are (allegedly) equal.

I got 2 words for you: RESTRICTOR PLATE

Thanks,

Magilla

Quoted message said:

MagillaGorilla wrote:

Goddamn,

This is the most retarded line of argument I've seen on rbr.

fairness = sticking to a pre-determined set of rules.

period.

Rules do not necessarily equate to fairness. For example, the rules in
cycling allow for altitude tents but not EPO. Explain why one is legal
and one isn't? Many cyclists cannot afford an altitude tent.

The rules use to allow for blood doping, now they don't. The rules
permit cyclists to live at altitude, which is why many pros choose to
move to Colorado (to artificially increase their hematocrit).

Whoever told you rules = fairness is an idiot.

Magilla

In article <[email hidden]>,

MagillaGorilla said:

Howard Kveck said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

MagillaGorilla said:

And yes, the cars are suppose to be equal - at least in terms of engine
output.

No. There are no rules in NASCAR that say that engines may only create
"x" horsepower. There are rules about engine components, capacity and many
other things, but nothing at all about engine output. Perhaps you're thinking
of IROC, where the cars are (allegedly) equal.

I got 2 words for you: RESTRICTOR PLATE

Nope. That was intended to slow *all* the cars down at certain speedways, such as
Daytona and Talledega, where they were thought to be going too fast. Everyone got
the same size plate. Some teams spent more time on their dynamometers playing with
plated engines and they got more power.

Here's the simple way to prove it: NASCAR does not dyno any of the cars. Ever.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

MagillaGorilla said:

Quoted message said:

Agreed on doping...and they'll never eliminate it, so I say just
sanction it and have a doctor administer the "medicine" in a safe
manner. This is probably not a new argument in this group.

As far as NASCAR goes...what Howard said...you're probably thinking
IROC.

The UCI has no regulatory control over what doctors can and cannot do as
they are not licensed throught he UCI in any way.

As for NASCAR, ever hear of something called a restrictor plate?

Dumbass -

I agree with your general premise regarding doping, but the restrictor
plate argument doesn't support it.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Howard Kveck said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

MagillaGorilla said:

Howard Kveck said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]> wrote:

>And yes, the cars are suppose to be equal - at least in terms of engine
>output.

No. There are no rules in NASCAR that say that engines may only create
"x" horsepower. There are rules about engine components, capacity and many
other things, but nothing at all about engine output. Perhaps you're thinking
of IROC, where the cars are (allegedly) equal.

I got 2 words for you: RESTRICTOR PLATE

Nope. That was intended to slow *all* the cars down at certain speedways, such as
Daytona and Talledega, where they were thought to be going too fast. Everyone got
the same size plate. Some teams spent more time on their dynamometers playing with
plated engines and they got more power.

Here's the simple way to prove it: NASCAR does not dyno any of the cars. Ever.

NASCAR doesn't need to dyne the cars because the RESTRICTOR PLATE limits
the top speed of all NASCARS on all tracks. Horsepower is for the most
part irrelevant given the restrictor plate's function.

Magilla

Quoted message said:

As for NASCAR, ever hear of something called a restrictor plate?

Magilla

Yup...they're only used at Daytona & Tallagdega...and even then only
for safety purposes.

Krusty said:

Quoted message said:

As for NASCAR, ever hear of something called a restrictor plate?

Magilla

Yup...they're only used at Daytona & Tallagdega...and even then only
for safety purposes.

Okay, Ricky Bobby.

Magilla

In article <[email hidden]>,

MagillaGorilla said:

NASCAR doesn't need to dyne the cars because the RESTRICTOR PLATE limits
the top speed of all NASCARS on all tracks.

Sorry, Grilla, they still only use plates at Daytona and Talledega.

Quoted message said:

Horsepower is for the most
part irrelevant given the restrictor plate's function.

The plate's function is to restrict airflow into the engine, thereby restricting
horsepower.

And this line of argument is sidestepping the issue you were stating earlier:
NASCAR engines are all equal. They aren't.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

MagillaGorilla said:

Rules do not necessarily equate to fairness. For example, the rules in
cycling allow for altitude tents but not EPO. Explain why one is legal
and one isn't? Many cyclists cannot afford an altitude tent.

The rules use to allow for blood doping, now they don't. The rules
permit cyclists to live at altitude, which is why many pros choose to
move to Colorado (to artificially increase their hematocrit).

dumbass,

these are all excellent points. in fact i think all the points you've
raised in this thread automatically qualify you for the nobel prize of
sports.

you are right, the tour de france should be a three week cancer ride
after which they decide the yellow jersey by a raffle.

that way everyone is sure to have an equal chance of winning.

Quoted message said:

MagillaGorilla said:

Rules do not necessarily equate to fairness. For example, the rules in
cycling allow for altitude tents but not EPO. Explain why one is legal
and one isn't? Many cyclists cannot afford an altitude tent.

The rules use to allow for blood doping, now they don't. The rules
permit cyclists to live at altitude, which is why many pros choose to
move to Colorado (to artificially increase their hematocrit).

dumbass,

these are all excellent points. in fact i think all the points you've
raised in this thread automatically qualify you for the nobel prize of
sports.

you are right, the tour de france should be a three week cancer ride
after which they decide the yellow jersey by a raffle.

that way everyone is sure to have an equal chance of winning.

I don't want a Nobel Prize. I want a T-shirt that says "Magilla Gorilla
for Sale."

Magilla

Howard Kveck said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

MagillaGorilla said:

NASCAR doesn't need to dyne the cars because the RESTRICTOR PLATE limits
the top speed of all NASCARS on all tracks.

Sorry, Grilla, they still only use plates at Daytona and Talledega.

Quoted message said:

Horsepower is for the most
part irrelevant given the restrictor plate's function.

The plate's function is to restrict airflow into the engine, thereby restricting
horsepower.

And this line of argument is sidestepping the issue you were stating earlier:
NASCAR engines are all equal. They aren't.

Ricky Bobby,

The differences in horsepower between NASCARS is nothing like the
relative differences between cyclists' output (watts/kg). Do the math
(qualifying runs vs. time trials). For the most part, NASCARS are equal
in top end speed for any given track.

Magilla
#44 Chiquita Banana car

In article <[email hidden]>,

MagillaGorilla said:

Howard Kveck wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And this line of argument is sidestepping the issue you were stating
earlier: NASCAR engines are all equal. They aren't.

Ricky Bobby,

The differences in horsepower between NASCARS is nothing like the
relative differences between cyclists' output (watts/kg). Do the math
(qualifying runs vs. time trials). For the most part, NASCARS are equal
in top end speed for any given track.

By which you seem to be saying that any car can win on any race. Sadly, just like
in bike racing, that's not the case. Raw horsepower is only part of the equation in
car racing. Trying to compare it to bike racing is like trying to compare bananas to
apples. Which is why you must have brought it up.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard Kveck said:

Quoted message said:

The differences in horsepower between NASCARS is nothing like the
relative differences between cyclists' output (watts/kg). Do the math
(qualifying runs vs. time trials). For the most part, NASCARS are equal
in top end speed for any given track.

By which you seem to be saying that any car can win on any race. Sadly, just like
in bike racing, that's not the case. Raw horsepower is only part of the equation in
car racing. Trying to compare it to bike racing is like trying to compare bananas to
apples. Which is why you must have brought it up.

Dumbass -

Magilla had a good point about how NASCAR drivers aren't "evil" or
"dirty" when they push the boundaries. They just get penalized when
they get caught, then they're back in business. Which is the smart way
to run a sporting league. The UCI could learn a few things from NASCAR.

But: Magilla has managed to get sidetracked and torpedoed himself.

than ks,

K. Gringioni.

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Howard Kveck said:

Quoted message said:

The differences in horsepower between NASCARS is nothing like the
relative differences between cyclists' output (watts/kg). Do the math
(qualifying runs vs. time trials). For the most part, NASCARS are equal
in top end speed for any given track.

By which you seem to be saying that any car can win on any race. Sadly, just like
in bike racing, that's not the case. Raw horsepower is only part of the equation in
car racing. Trying to compare it to bike racing is like trying to compare bananas to
apples. Which is why you must have brought it up.

Dumbass -

Magilla had a good point about how NASCAR drivers aren't "evil" or
"dirty" when they push the boundaries. They just get penalized when
they get caught, then they're back in business. Which is the smart way
to run a sporting league. The UCI could learn a few things from NASCAR.

dumbass,

unfortunately for pro cycling the UCI is not a pro sports league,
instead it is set up as a pseudo government (which is not the way to
run a business). and i agree, the harsher the punishment, the more
likely the perception is that it is a serious offense.

in pro sports when they are faced with something they feel hurts the
integrity of the sport, and makes it lose value in the eyes of sponsors
(something that has already happened in cycling) they deal with it
quite effectively otherwise the penalty is minor.

when there were reports of pete rose gambling on baseball (this was
basball's equivalent to operation puerto) the commissoner gave him a
lifetime ban. there was a minor outcry, many felt the the treatment was
too harsh.

pete rose became an anti-hero of sorts and MLB looked like the bad
guys, but at least to outsiders it gave the appreance that there is no
longer a gambling problem in baseball. later on though baseball has
gotten into drug scandals, but it's been under a different (and lamer)
commissoner.

there are lots of examples where leagues have taken a unusually tough
stance on issues when it threatens the bottom line (ie. the uniform
rules in NFL).

the cycling bosses were stupid. they obviously knew what kinds of
abuses were happening during the 90s, even rbr reading schmucks knew
about dr. ferrari and mr.60%, but it was laissez-faire. the 50% rule,
that was smart; a pseudo doping test which could only lead to a 2 week
"suspension".

when festina happened (and police got involved) they should've realized
that this could become a PR fiasco. they could've come down extremely
hard on a few sacrifical lambs, like an evil despot ... and maybe that
would've somewhat stemmed the subsequent drug scandals.

fanboys like bill c would've had a meltdown about the injustice of it
all, but it would appease outsiders that the doping problem in cycling
is in control.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Magilla had a good point about how NASCAR drivers aren't "evil" or
"dirty" when they push the boundaries. They just get penalized when
they get caught, then they're back in business. Which is the smart way
to run a sporting league. The UCI could learn a few things from NASCAR.

But: Magilla has managed to get sidetracked and torpedoed himself.

I agree with the point that was being made about the punishment of NASCAR drivers
when they get caught. I think that's a better way to deal with the situation than
the UCI has done, and particularly the way WADA has gone at it. But the idea that
the cars are "equal" is factually mistaken. If it were true, then there would likely
be a different winner at each race. But there are only a few winners in the course
of a season, and some teams win multiple times. All the teams may be working off the
same page, from a mechanical standpoint, but there are differences in skill and any
number of other factors that keep certain teams consistently at the front and some
consistently near the back.

So I definitely agree with your point.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Kurgan Gringioni said:

But: Magilla has managed to get sidetracked and torpedoed himself.

I thought that was DA74 's job, or perhaps its the other way around.