Bush trains more seriously than I realized



A couple of days ago, when DC was briefly thought to be under attack by
a small Cessna, Bush was found to be bicycling in a park near Ft Meade,
Md. This provides evidence that Bush indeed does find ways to get in
some serious cycling outside of his trips to Crawford, and makes time
for it during his busy schedule, taking time in the middle of the day
in the middle of the workweek to train. The Capitol was evacuated,
Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan were sent underground to the White House
bunker, and **** Cheney was taken to an undisclosed location. The
Cessna itself came within seconds of being shot down by F-16s scrambled
against it when it failed to respond to radio warnings. At the last
second the Cessna's pilot noticed the flares being fired by the
fighters and followed them to a landing where the pilot and his student
were arrested. Bush, serious cyclist that he is, was not informed that
there were major evacuations under way, or that his wife might have
been in danger, or that a plane was about to be blown out of the sky
over our nation's capital, until after he finished his ride.

I would like to congratulate President Bush on his determination and
concentration on his training; I assume he must have left orders that
he would not be disturbed on his ride because it is, of course,
unimagineable that his staff would have either neglected or avoided
telling him that the threat condition at the White House had been
raised all the way to "Red"- the top of the threat scale. I would also
like to apologize to everyone on this newsgroup for doubting the
President's ability as a mountain biker. It is obvious to me now that
he takes our sport very seriously and places a very high priority on
his training.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> A couple of days ago, when DC was briefly thought to be under attack

by
> a small Cessna, Bush was found to be bicycling in a park near Ft

Meade,
> Md. This provides evidence that Bush indeed does find ways to get in
> some serious cycling outside of his trips to Crawford,


OK, how far did he ride and for how long and at what speed? And how
often does he do it? How do you know where he started from? Details,
please... let's have more susbstance and less speculation this time
around.

dkl
 
K

Ken

Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> A couple of days ago, when DC was briefly thought to be under attack by
> a small Cessna, Bush was found to be bicycling in a park near Ft Meade,
> Md. This provides evidence that Bush indeed does find ways to get in
> some serious cycling outside of his trips to Crawford, and makes time
> for it during his busy schedule, taking time in the middle of the day
> in the middle of the workweek to train. The Capitol was evacuated,
> Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan were sent underground to the White House
> bunker, and **** Cheney was taken to an undisclosed location. The
> Cessna itself came within seconds of being shot down by F-16s scrambled
> against it when it failed to respond to radio warnings. At the last
> second the Cessna's pilot noticed the flares being fired by the
> fighters and followed them to a landing where the pilot and his student
> were arrested. Bush, serious cyclist that he is, was not informed that
> there were major evacuations under way, or that his wife might have
> been in danger, or that a plane was about to be blown out of the sky
> over our nation's capital, until after he finished his ride.
>
> I would like to congratulate President Bush on his determination and
> concentration on his training; I assume he must have left orders that
> he would not be disturbed on his ride because it is, of course,
> unimagineable that his staff would have either neglected or avoided
> telling him that the threat condition at the White House had been
> raised all the way to "Red"- the top of the threat scale. I would also
> like to apologize to everyone on this newsgroup for doubting the
> President's ability as a mountain biker. It is obvious to me now that
> he takes our sport very seriously and places a very high priority on
> his training.
>

Up until that day I had no idea Bush was a cyclist. I know that he is a
runner, and regularly runs more than 5 miles, I read that he runs daily.

Ken
 
N

Neil Brooks

Guest
[email protected] wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> A couple of days ago, when DC was briefly thought to be under attack

>by
>> a small Cessna, Bush was found to be bicycling in a park near Ft

>Meade,
>> Md. This provides evidence that Bush indeed does find ways to get in
>> some serious cycling outside of his trips to Crawford,

>
>OK, how far did he ride and for how long and at what speed? And how
>often does he do it? How do you know where he started from? Details,
>please... let's have more susbstance and less speculation this time
>around.


Reread the OP. You might find just a *hint* of sarcasm in there.

Maybe. Can't be sure, but maybe.... ;-)
 
M

Mark Hickey

Guest
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> I assume

>
>'Nuff said.
>
>(Nice rantlet, tho' :) )


If I'm not mistaken, he actually got a couple of the couple dozen or
so details almost right. Moving the right direction, fer shure.

OTOH, I'm 99.9% certain it didn't much matter WHAT Bush did, Mr. SSTW
would have taken the opportunity to attempt a bash. As it was, a
non-event that was over before it started that wasn't communicated to
Bush somehow becomes a shortcoming on his part?

I rest my case, yer' worship. I leave this thread in the capable
hands of those gullible or bored enough to get wrapped up in it.

Mark "beyond this, of course..." Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
S

Sheldon Brown

Guest
An anonymous poster wrote:

> A couple of days ago,...Bush was found to be bicycling in a park near Ft Meade,
> Md. This provides evidence that Bush indeed does find ways to get in
> some serious cycling outside of his trips to Crawford...


No, this is not "serious" cycling, this is recreational cycling.
Serious cycling is cycling for a serious purpose, such as going to and
from work.

> I would like to congratulate President Bush on his determination and
> concentration on his training; ...It is obvious to me now that
> he takes our sport very seriously and places a very high priority on
> his training.


I understand where the shy poster is coming from, and probably share his
or her political outlook, but I've snipped that off-topic part in order
to deal with the too pervasive issue of "training."

Racing cyclists "train" so that they can place higher in their races.

Those of us who are not into the racing scene don't "train", we "ride."

While I'm at it, for non-racers cycling isn't a "sport."

It may be a recreation, may be a way to exercise, may be a mode of
transportation, or may be some combination of those, but it isn't a
sport if it isn't done for competitive reasons.

Sheldon "Rides, Doesn't Need To Train For Anything" Brown
+-----------------------------------------+
| Man invented language to satisfy his |
| deep need to complain. -- Lily Tomlin |
+-----------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com
 
Sheldon Brown wrote:
> Racing cyclists "train" so that they can place higher in their races.
>
> Those of us who are not into the racing scene don't "train", we

"ride."

Training is the practice of an athletic pursuit for the purpose of
improving performance. Just as a violinist need not be in a symphony
orchestra to "practice", a cyclist need not be a racer to "train". A
person who trains challenges themselves to improve. And, in my past I
have both raced and commuted on a bicycle; now I "train" for my health,
and I consider that to be by far the most "serious" cycling that I have
ever done.

I would agree that people who ride a bicycle without trying to improve
their performance on it do just "ride".
 
A

Andy Morris

Guest
Sheldon Brown wrote:
>
> It may be a recreation, may be a way to exercise, may be a mode of
> transportation, or may be some combination of those, but it isn't a
> sport if it isn't done for competitive reasons.
>


So sport has to be competitive?

Does competition against your previous efforts count?

Do the measurements have to be numerical or objective?

Can the effort to be to complete an arduous task, or to perform it with
style and grace?

You've blown out a lot of cycling, running, horse riding and sailing.


--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
 
A

Alfred Ryder

Guest
Sheldon Brown replied to the OP as follows:
>
> > This provides evidence that Bush indeed does find ways to get in
> > some serious cycling outside of his trips to Crawford...

>
> No, this is not "serious" cycling, this is recreational cycling.
> Serious cycling is cycling for a serious purpose, such as going to and
> from work.


The general ussage around here is that a "serious" biker is someone who
takes riding seriously and does a lot of it. No one would think of calling
the day laborers who ride to work "serious" cyclists.

> > I would like to congratulate President Bush on his determination and
> > concentration on his training; ...It is obvious to me now that
> > he takes our sport very seriously and places a very high priority on
> > his training.

>
> I understand where the shy poster is coming from, and probably share his
> or her political outlook, but I've snipped that off-topic part in order
> to deal with the too pervasive issue of "training."
>
> Racing cyclists "train" so that they can place higher in their races.
>
> Those of us who are not into the racing scene don't "train", we "ride."


I tend to disagree. Those who take riding seriously are often "training" as
much as those who formally race. They are training their cardiovascular
system, muscles, endurance, etc. They are doing exactly the same thing with
the same objective as "racers". The fact that they do not compete in formal
races does not change what they do on a "training" ride. According to
Sheldon's definitions, "serious" riders do not "train".

> While I'm at it, for non-racers cycling isn't a "sport."
>
> It may be a recreation, may be a way to exercise, may be a mode of
> transportation, or may be some combination of those, but it isn't a
> sport if it isn't done for competitive reasons.


Is golf a sport? Or is it a sport only if there is a leader board. Seems a
little contrived. Is bicycling a sport during a club ride only if the
riders try to see who finishes first.

Imho, word meaning is determined by general usage rather than by what is
logical or what we would wish.
 
J

Jim Smith

Guest
"Alfred Ryder" <[email protected]> writes:

> Sheldon Brown replied to the OP as follows:
>>
>> > This provides evidence that Bush indeed does find ways to get in
>> > some serious cycling outside of his trips to Crawford...

>>
>> No, this is not "serious" cycling, this is recreational cycling.
>> Serious cycling is cycling for a serious purpose, such as going to and
>> from work.

>
> The general ussage around here is that a "serious" biker is someone who
> takes riding seriously and does a lot of it. No one would think of calling
> the day laborers who ride to work "serious" cyclists.


Correct. Same goes for all those people in China. They are just
fooling around.

--
"Brides gotta run, planes gotta stray, cable news networks got bills to
pay pay pay"
 
N

Neil Brooks

Guest
Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> wrote:

>I understand where the shy poster is coming from, and probably share his
>or her political outlook, but I've snipped that off-topic part in order
>to deal with the too pervasive issue of "training."
>
>Racing cyclists "train" so that they can place higher in their races.
>
>Those of us who are not into the racing scene don't "train", we "ride."


Sheldon? Does that mean I have to take off my training wheels??

Sigh....
 
A

Andrew Lee

Guest
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Training is the practice of an athletic pursuit for the purpose of
> improving performance. Just as a violinist need not be in a symphony
> orchestra to "practice", a cyclist need not be a racer to "train". A
> person who trains challenges themselves to improve. And, in my past I
> have both raced and commuted on a bicycle; now I "train" for my health,
> and I consider that to be by far the most "serious" cycling that I have
> ever done.


I think "exercise" is a better word for what you are describing. You
"exercise" for your health. I bike, run, cross country ski. When I'm go
through periods when I'm not training to compete in those sports, I don't
like to call it training, even though I'm outside exercising two hours a day
(pretty much my average since childhood). If someone asks me about my
"training" during those times when I'm exercising but not training, I always
deny that I'm training and say, "I'm just riding (or running or skiing) for
fun." On the other hand, if I'm talking to someone about their training, I
always like to ask what they are training for. And they are always training
for something: a marathon, or do well in a particular ski race, to race well
in the local mountain bike series, etc.
 
Andrew Lee wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Training is the practice of an athletic pursuit for the purpose of
> > improving performance. Just as a violinist need not be in a

symphony
> > orchestra to "practice", a cyclist need not be a racer to "train".

A
> > person who trains challenges themselves to improve. And, in my past

I
> > have both raced and commuted on a bicycle; now I "train" for my

health,
> > and I consider that to be by far the most "serious" cycling that I

have
> > ever done.

>
> I think "exercise" is a better word for what you are describing.


Nope. "Exercise" doesn't have the connotation of improving performance.
My secondary comment about my reason for training addressed the issue
of whether my riding, training or exercising on a bicycle is "serious".
 
E

Eric

Guest
>It's the level of challenge that makes the difference, I think. If a
gut check
>is required it's sport.


Been to your local bowling alley lateley? There's a sport with some big
guts! (HA)

Eric
 
Q

Qui si parla Campagnolo

Guest
Ken wrote:

> >

> Up until that day I had no idea Bush was a cyclist. I know that he is

a
> runner, and regularly runs more than 5 miles, I read that he runs

daily.
>
> Ken


Well, I'll say he runs and rides a bicycle but I wouldn't call him a
'runner' or a 'cyclist'...nor many other things.....

Not surprized they didn't tell him. The whole thing reminded me of the
time when Haig, as SecState announced, 'I am in charge'...same stuff
applies to Cheney and Rummy.....sarcasm intended.
 
M

Michael Warner

Guest
On Fri, 13 May 2005 18:42:24 -0400, Sheldon Brown wrote:

> Racing cyclists "train" so that they can place higher in their races.
>
> Those of us who are not into the racing scene don't "train", we "ride."


Not true. Training is any activity intended to improve skill or
performance, in this case the body's performance under the stress
of cycling.

The reason for which the improved performance is desired, whether it's
to win races, ride a certain hill or loop more quickly or stay with a
certain bunch on a regular ride, is a separate matter.

> While I'm at it, for non-racers cycling isn't a "sport."


Nonsense. A sport is anything that individuals or teams agree to compete
at. For example, timed hill climbs.

--
bpo gallery at http://www4.tpgi.com.au/users/mvw1/bpo
 
R

RonSonic

Guest
On 14 May 2005 06:03:22 -0700, "Eric" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>It's the level of challenge that makes the difference, I think. If a

>gut check
>>is required it's sport.

>
>Been to your local bowling alley lateley? There's a sport with some big
>guts! (HA)
>
>Eric


There's proof that sport is not defined by competition.

Ron