Cycling TV, annoying

[[email protected]]

In the coverage of the Tour de Suisse, the commentator made some
incredibly annoying passive aggressive statements regarding Zabel. In
particular, he said that he wouldn't talk about Zabel, and for the
rest of the race, he would not mention him. Naturally, this got a
reaction on their discussion group, with people mentioning the UCI
statute of limitations, and he then said that it was irrelevant
because "it hadn't been declared yet." I'm not sure what he meant by
this, though I am sure that the UCI had already stated that the
statute of limitations applied in Zabel's case. His lack of
understanding of the statute of limitations was made clear when he
repeatedly compared Zabel's case to David Millar's situation. He also
stated that after declarations like Zabel's, one should lay low for a
while, but instead, Zabel went out and won two races. The nerve!

-ilan

 

[Tuschinski]

On Jun 18, 2:19 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> He also
> stated that after declarations like Zabel's, one should lay low for a
> while, but instead, Zabel went out and won two races. The nerve!

Riis loses his TdF title, is under attack to be DS. Ulrich is persona
non gratta, two doctors are non -actived.

Zabel cried a few tears and walked. The commentator obviously took
offense... now I don't agree (not completely) with his scorn, but his
attitude can be rationalized quite well.


I

 

[[email protected]]

On Jun 18, 5:19 am, [email protected] wrote:
> In the coverage of the Tour de Suisse, the commentator made some
> incredibly annoying passive aggressive statements regarding Zabel. In
> particular, he said that he wouldn't talk about Zabel, and for the
> rest of the race, he would not mention him. Naturally, this got a
> reaction on their discussion group, with people mentioning the UCI
> statute of limitations, and he then said that it was irrelevant
> because "it hadn't been declared yet." I'm not sure what he meant by
> this, though I am sure that the UCI had already stated that the
> statute of limitations applied in Zabel's case. His lack of
> understanding of the statute of limitations was made clear when he
> repeatedly compared Zabel's case to David Millar's situation. He also
> stated that after declarations like Zabel's, one should lay low for a
> while, but instead, Zabel went out and won two races. The nerve!

What quite upsets me is that these fools are acting as if these few
were the only one's doping.

What I've said over and over (of course to be maligned by the likes of
the fools here quite often) is that while a large percentage of the
peloton was probably doping, you don't know who was and who wasn't and
so had to treat everyone innocent until proven guilty. I know that
really goes against the grain of the RBR experts but that is a good
rule to follow in any case, not the least that criminal law in the USA
has used it successfully for a couple of hundred years.

But if Zabel, one of the hardest working riders in the peloton, felt
he had to use drugs to remain competitive, it could only mean that he
knew who he was racing against.

So now these jackasses cry about Erik instead of realizing that anyone
else that won might have been more guilty?

 

[[email protected]]

On Jun 18, 2:54 pm, Tuschinski <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2:19 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > He also
> > stated that after declarations like Zabel's, one should lay low for a
> > while, but instead, Zabel went out and won two races. The nerve!
>
> Riis loses his TdF title, is under attack to be DS. Ulrich is persona
> non gratta, two doctors are non -actived.
>
> Zabel cried a few tears and walked. The commentator obviously took
> offense... now I don't agree (not completely) with his scorn, but his
> attitude can be rationalized quite well.
>
> I

Well, he is commentating, so that is not the appropriate venue for
expressing his personal bias,
especially when it is based on numerous factual errors.

-ilan

 

[Kyle Legate]

[email protected] wrote:
> He also
> stated that after declarations like Zabel's, one should lay low for a
> while, but instead, Zabel went out and won two races. The nerve!
>
Zabel knows he might be looking for a new contract for next year and has
to prove that, as an old man, he still has a pair of winning legs.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:19:08 -0000, [email protected] wrote:

>In the coverage of the Tour de Suisse, the commentator made some
>incredibly annoying passive aggressive statements regarding Zabel. In
>particular, he said that he wouldn't talk about Zabel, and for the
>rest of the race, he would not mention him. Naturally, this got a
>reaction on their discussion group, with people mentioning the UCI
>statute of limitations, and he then said that it was irrelevant
>because "it hadn't been declared yet." I'm not sure what he meant by
>this, though I am sure that the UCI had already stated that the
>statute of limitations applied in Zabel's case. His lack of
>understanding of the statute of limitations was made clear when he
>repeatedly compared Zabel's case to David Millar's situation. He also
>stated that after declarations like Zabel's, one should lay low for a
>while, but instead, Zabel went out and won two races. The nerve!

Was Zabel in this race? If so, that's idiotic. The commentator is
supposed to talk about the sport. If anything, he could use this as an
opportunity' to talk about Zabel's doping.

What would happen if Zabel had won the stage, or crashed and been
seriously injured. Would that not be news? Would he ignore the key
events happening on the screen?

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[[email protected]]

On Jun 19, 1:00 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:19:08 -0000, [email protected] wrote:
> >In the coverage of the Tour de Suisse, the commentator made some
> >incredibly annoying passive aggressive statements regarding Zabel. In
> >particular, he said that he wouldn't talk about Zabel, and for the
> >rest of the race, he would not mention him. Naturally, this got a
> >reaction on their discussion group, with people mentioning the UCI
> >statute of limitations, and he then said that it was irrelevant
> >because "it hadn't been declared yet." I'm not sure what he meant by
> >this, though I am sure that the UCI had already stated that the
> >statute of limitations applied in Zabel's case. His lack of
> >understanding of the statute of limitations was made clear when he
> >repeatedly compared Zabel's case to David Millar's situation. He also
> >stated that after declarations like Zabel's, one should lay low for a
> >while, but instead, Zabel went out and won two races. The nerve!
>
> Was Zabel in this race? If so, that's idiotic. The commentator is
> supposed to talk about the sport. If anything, he could use this as an
> opportunity' to talk about Zabel's doping.
>
> What would happen if Zabel had won the stage, or crashed and been
> seriously injured. Would that not be news? Would he ignore the key
> events happening on the screen?
>
> --
> JT
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************

Zabel did win the next stage and the announcer didn't make any special
comment except that
he thought htat "Zabel should be keeping his head down", though he
kept insisting for a while
that Benatti had beaten him in the sprint, even after the photo
finish.

-ilan

 

[[email protected]]

On Jun 18, 7:43 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jun 19, 1:00 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Was Zabel in this race? If so, that's idiotic. The commentator is
> > supposed to talk about the sport. If anything, he could use this as an
> > opportunity' to talk about Zabel's doping.
>
> > What would happen if Zabel had won the stage, or crashed and been
> > seriously injured. Would that not be news? Would he ignore the key
> > events happening on the screen?

Well, if Zabel had crashed, the announcer could have said,
"Children, let this be a lesson - crime does not pay."

> Zabel did win the next stage and the announcer didn't make any special
> comment except that
> he thought htat "Zabel should be keeping his head down", though he
> kept insisting for a while
> that Benatti had beaten him in the sprint, even after the photo
> finish.

Clearly a reference to the time Zabel lost 2004
Milan-San Remo to Freire by celebrating too early.
Keep your head down until you cross the line.

Premature celebration, like crossing the finish line
aggressively, is a clear mark of the doper, of course.

Ben

p.s. Does anyone find it odd that directly after finally
confessing that he was a dirty dog doper, Zabel snapped
off three wins? No more Eternal Second Nice Guy!

 

[Bret]

On Jun 18, 6:19 am, [email protected] wrote:
> In the coverage of the Tour de Suisse, the commentator made some
> incredibly annoying passive aggressive statements regarding Zabel. In
> particular, he said that he wouldn't talk about Zabel, and for the
> rest of the race, he would not mention him. Naturally, this got a
> reaction on their discussion group, with people mentioning the UCI
> statute of limitations, and he then said that it was irrelevant
> because "it hadn't been declared yet." I'm not sure what he meant by
> this, though I am sure that the UCI had already stated that the
> statute of limitations applied in Zabel's case. His lack of
> understanding of the statute of limitations was made clear when he
> repeatedly compared Zabel's case to David Millar's situation. He also
> stated that after declarations like Zabel's, one should lay low for a
> while, but instead, Zabel went out and won two races. The nerve!
>
> -ilan


I didn't hear the Swiss coverage you're talking about and it does
sound a bit off. But I do like Brian's work in general. I've found him
entertaining and insightful in the past. He's also someone who says
what's on his mind. During the Dauphine coverage, he was actually
criticizing the cycling.tv web portal. After suffering through the
Adrian Karstens of this world, I really do like this guy.

Bret

 

[William Asher]

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

<snip>
> p.s. Does anyone find it odd that directly after finally
> confessing that he was a dirty dog doper, Zabel snapped
> off three wins? No more Eternal Second Nice Guy!

No. That's just a manifestation of the Millar line. Nobody wants to
beat a known doper because if they do, everyone will think they are a
doper. It's why Armstrong won seven in a row.

--
Bill Asher

 

[[email protected]]

On Jun 19, 7:42 am, Bret <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 6:19 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > In the coverage of the Tour de Suisse, the commentator made some
> > incredibly annoying passive aggressive statements regarding Zabel. In
> > particular, he said that he wouldn't talk about Zabel, and for the
> > rest of the race, he would not mention him. Naturally, this got a
> > reaction on their discussion group, with people mentioning the UCI
> > statute of limitations, and he then said that it was irrelevant
> > because "it hadn't been declared yet." I'm not sure what he meant by
> > this, though I am sure that the UCI had already stated that the
> > statute of limitations applied in Zabel's case. His lack of
> > understanding of the statute of limitations was made clear when he
> > repeatedly compared Zabel's case to David Millar's situation. He also
> > stated that after declarations like Zabel's, one should lay low for a
> > while, but instead, Zabel went out and won two races. The nerve!
>
> > -ilan
>
> I didn't hear the Swiss coverage you're talking about and it does
> sound a bit off. But I do like Brian's work in general. I've found him
> entertaining and insightful in the past. He's also someone who says
> what's on his mind. During the Dauphine coverage, he was actually
> criticizing the cycling.tv web portal. After suffering through the
> Adrian Karstens of this world, I really do like this guy.
>
> Bret

He wasn't there when the original comments were made by Anthony
McCrossen (sp?),
and those were toned down on the second day when he was there.

-ilan

 

[Bret]

On Jun 19, 2:03 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jun 19, 7:42 am, Bret <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 18, 6:19 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > In the coverage of the Tour de Suisse, the commentator made some
> > > incredibly annoying passive aggressive statements regarding Zabel. In
> > > particular, he said that he wouldn't talk about Zabel, and for the
> > > rest of the race, he would not mention him. Naturally, this got a
> > > reaction on their discussion group, with people mentioning the UCI
> > > statute of limitations, and he then said that it was irrelevant
> > > because "it hadn't been declared yet." I'm not sure what he meant by
> > > this, though I am sure that the UCI had already stated that the
> > > statute of limitations applied in Zabel's case. His lack of
> > > understanding of the statute of limitations was made clear when he
> > > repeatedly compared Zabel's case to David Millar's situation. He also
> > > stated that after declarations like Zabel's, one should lay low for a
> > > while, but instead, Zabel went out and won two races. The nerve!
>
> > > -ilan
>
> > I didn't hear the Swiss coverage you're talking about and it does
> > sound a bit off. But I do like Brian's work in general. I've found him
> > entertaining and insightful in the past. He's also someone who says
> > what's on his mind. During the Dauphine coverage, he was actually
> > criticizing the cycling.tv web portal. After suffering through the
> > Adrian Karstens of this world, I really do like this guy.
>
> > Bret
>
> He wasn't there when the original comments were made by Anthony
> McCrossen (sp?),
> and those were toned down on the second day when he was there.
>
> -ilan

That was a bad assumption on my part. I assumed you were talking about
Brian. I wouldn't have expected Anthony to say anything controversial,
but I guess that's what happens when Brian's not there to slap him
down.

Bret