Millar - Interesting Guardian article

Peter Clinch said:

Looks like I stand corrected...

I'd guess that is sit corrected..

...d

David Martin said:

On 28/7/04 1:43 pm, in article [email hidden], "Peter Clinch"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Looks like I stand corrected...

Quoted message said:

I'd guess that is sit corrected..

Now if that was "cycling hard corrected" the reported tubbyness would
resolve itself 😉

Roos

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 10:39:04 +0100, Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Callas said:

Quoted message said:

Just goes to show that you don't need to take drugs to win. They've tried
very hard to prove that Lance Armstrong did, but failed miserably. The will
to win against all adversity beats performance enhancing drugs every time.

Quoted message said:

Nice sentiment, but I don't think it's true.

"every time", no, but sheer bloody determination does count for a lot.
Look at how well the F1 drivers always did in "Superstars". Their sport
/physically/ required them to be able to sit in a chair for two hours
taking high g, hardly the sort of thing that sets you up well on paper
against track athletes for a physical contest.

Because they have incredibly tough physical training regimens. And
still do.

Quoted message said:

yet (IIRC) they always
did consistently well. Keeping on top of things at 180 mph for two
hours /is/ a bit of a mind game, though, especially if you do
consistently better than everyone else at it.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:06:18 +0100, Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Arthur Clune said:

It's because all training is specific. Except for F1 where you have to
do all your physical training outside the car. Hence what you do is
good all-round stuff which sets you up very well for something like
superstars. Cyclists tend to do very badly in superstars for the same
reason.

Accepted, but you simply don't /need/ to be in anything like the same
physical shape as an athlete.

Not true. apart from anything else, in a Formula 1 car, with /very/
high wheel camber, every time you go around a corner you are, in
effect, physically lifting the car by turning the steering wheel.
That's a lot of weight-lifting over the course of 200 miles.

Quoted message said:

So they'll be fit, but not /that/ fit, or
at least so I'd have thought.

And fighting against your own body weight being multiplied up by
g-forces, and then being centrifugally flung away round each corner
also takes a load of effort.

Quoted message said:

I think an ego the size of the Hindenberg
and huge reserves of sheer bloodymindedness will count for a lot.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

BrianW said:

"wheelsgoround" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In part of his interview Miller says "my salary dropped by 300%"

Sums up the guy's intellegence

Ian

Just goes to show that you don't need to take drugs to win. They've tried
very hard to prove that Lance Armstrong did, but failed miserably. The will
to win against all adversity beats performance enhancing drugs every time.

The question I would like to ask Millar is "if you DID take drugs what
steps did you take to avoid being caught?"

In that way they could possibly find out who else isn't as clean as
they're claiming...

G