Moser advocates legalization



S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, MagillaGorilla
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> in message <[email protected]>, MagillaGorilla
>> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>
>>>RonSonic wrote:
>>>
>>>>It's one race every four years. How big an involvement is that for a
>>>>real professional sport with seasons and series on each continent.
>>>
>>>Jesus Christ I have to explain everything. The UCI, USAC and national
>>>federations consider the Olympics 50x bigger than any other race
>>>because
>>> of the television exposure and grant/sponsorship money they get from
>>>their respective governments/sponsors.

>>
>> I hate to tell you this, but pro cycling gets less grant/sponsorship
>> money from the Olympics than from three days of the Tour de France.
>> And there's eighty days of the Tour de France for every Olympics. The
>> Olympics could roll over and die and pro cycling's accountants
>> wouldn't even blink.
>>
>> The Olympics is, in cycling terms, a minor side-show. The Dauphine
>> Libere is more important.

>
> So then why did the UCI subject itself to WADA oversight? According to
> you, it's for no reason whatsoever.


Because the UCI wants to get doping under control.

> The fact is you are wrong and your financials are severely
> underestimated.


Produce your evidence, then.

> Once again, now pay attention. National federations get millions from
> the Olympics. The UCI depedns on this money indirectly.


Neither ASO who run the Tour, nor the teams who ride it, get a penny from
the Olympics - and /they/ are the ones who largely pay for the UCI. Put
it this way: tell the UCI that they can keep amateur cycling (and US
cycling, which is pretty much the same thing) and the Olympics but dump
the ProTour, or they can dump the Olympics and keep the ProTour, and see
which way they jump!

I don't believe it will happen, because I believe that the people at the
top of pro cycling want to get the sport cleaned up. But if you did
force the UCI to choose, it would be bye bye Olympics.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and I found when I looked that we had run out
of copper roove nails.
 
D

Donald Munro

Guest
mtb Dad wrote:
> Make that Western Euro cycling myopics; the rest of Europe outside
> cycling fully backs doping control.


You have the results of surveys confirming this ? Benjo had some that
confirmed the opposite.
 
M

mtb Dad

Guest
Donald Munro wrote:
> mtb Dad wrote:
> > Make that Western Euro cycling myopics; the rest of Europe outside
> > cycling fully backs doping control.

>
> You have the results of surveys confirming this ? Benjo had some that
> confirmed the opposite.


This survey says "over 70% of the persons approached expressed their
concern
over the problem of doping."
http://www.eyes-2004.info/fileadmin...rometer_ENG.pdf#search="survey doping europe"

This survey says "The results of the survey show that a great majority
(79 percent) of the general public associated doping with the sport of
cycling."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/oct05/oct06news
 
Simon Brooke wrote:

> Neither ASO who run the Tour, nor the teams who ride it, get a penny from
> the Olympics - and /they/ are the ones who largely pay for the UCI. Put
> it this way: tell the UCI that they can keep amateur cycling (and US
> cycling, which is pretty much the same thing) and the Olympics but dump
> the ProTour, or they can dump the Olympics and keep the ProTour, and see
> which way they jump!
>
> I don't believe it will happen, because I believe that the people at the
> top of pro cycling want to get the sport cleaned up. But if you did
> force the UCI to choose, it would be bye bye Olympics.


dumbass,

pro cycling or the Protour is an oddity in the sense it's a
professional sport that had agreed to fully comply with WADA. FIFA only
came aboard this year just before the world cup, the NBA only has to
comply when their players play in international tournaments.

It's not that the UCI/NGBs don't need the Olympics, they do, but pro
cycling doesn't need the UCI or the Olympics. But having already
complied with WADA, relaxing the code will be a difficult PR move.

It may be that the honchos of pro cycling want to clean it up, but they
don't want to damage the sport in the process, which has already
happened.
 
B

benjo maso

Guest
"mtb Dad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1157225122.74300[email protected]
>
> Donald Munro wrote:
>> mtb Dad wrote:
>> > Make that Western Euro cycling myopics; the rest of Europe outside
>> > cycling fully backs doping control.

>>
>> You have the results of surveys confirming this ? Benjo had some that
>> confirmed the opposite.

>
> This survey says "over 70% of the persons approached expressed their
> concern
> over the problem of doping."
> http://www.eyes-2004.info/fileadmin...rometer_ENG.pdf#search="survey doping europe"
>
> This survey says "The results of the survey show that a great majority
> (79 percent) of the general public associated doping with the sport of
> cycling."
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/oct05/oct06news



What I wrote was that when Nestlé in 2001 was launching Aquarel, a new brand
of mineral water, it considered a contract with the Tour organization. It
was only worried about the image of cyling - the Festina affair was only
three years old - because they presented Aquarel as something as pure as
could be. To learn to what extent the many stories about the use of doping
had damaged the image of cycle sport, the company sponsored surveys in the
countries it planned to market its new product (France, Belgium, Luxembourg,
Spain, Portugal, and Germany).From these it emerged that the effect of all
the recent revelations was virtually zero, so that the company directors
could confidently pay two million euros for their contract. The general
reaction was: « Ne nous emmerdez pas avec le dopage. Ok, ils se dopent, mais
c'est tellement dur... » ("Stop bugging us with doping. OK, they're doping
themselves, but it's so hard ..."). That might be quite different from the
results of the surveys yoy're referring to, but it is not. The results of
such surveys are all depending of the way how the questions are phrased. For
instance, **** Pound would certainly affirm that he is concerned over the
problem of doping. So would dr. Fuentes, and yet they probably are seeing
the problem it a slightly different way. And of course, if people are
associating doping with cycling, it doesn't mean they do really mind.
Of course, in the USA the results of the Nestlé survey would probably be
quite different. There is no doubt that Americans are seeing the doping
problem generally quite differently as Europeans. As Daniel Coyle wrote in
Lance Armstrongs War:
"For Americans, doping is entwined with questions of character, with
goodness and evil. For Europeans, doping is simply something cyclists are
known to do. C=est le métier, the French say: It=s the job.

It=s the classic prelapsarian divide; the same divergence that occurs when a
politican is caught out with a mistress: Americans get outragedCHow could
he? while Europeans shrugCBut of course".



Benjo
 
M

MagillaGorilla

Guest
benjo maso wrote:

> "mtb Dad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>>Donald Munro wrote:
>>
>>>mtb Dad wrote:
>>>
>>>>Make that Western Euro cycling myopics; the rest of Europe outside
>>>>cycling fully backs doping control.
>>>
>>>You have the results of surveys confirming this ? Benjo had some that
>>>confirmed the opposite.

>>
>>This survey says "over 70% of the persons approached expressed their
>>concern
>>over the problem of doping."
>>http://www.eyes-2004.info/fileadmin...rometer_ENG.pdf#search="survey doping europe"
>>
>>This survey says "The results of the survey show that a great majority
>>(79 percent) of the general public associated doping with the sport of
>>cycling."
>>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/oct05/oct06news

>
>
>
> What I wrote was that when Nestlé in 2001 was launching Aquarel, a new brand
> of mineral water, it considered a contract with the Tour organization. It
> was only worried about the image of cyling - the Festina affair was only
> three years old - because they presented Aquarel as something as pure as
> could be. To learn to what extent the many stories about the use of doping
> had damaged the image of cycle sport, the company sponsored surveys in the
> countries it planned to market its new product (France, Belgium, Luxembourg,
> Spain, Portugal, and Germany).From these it emerged that the effect of all
> the recent revelations was virtually zero, so that the company directors
> could confidently pay two million euros for their contract. The general
> reaction was: « Ne nous emmerdez pas avec le dopage. Ok, ils se dopent, mais
> c'est tellement dur... » ("Stop bugging us with doping. OK, they're doping
> themselves, but it's so hard ..."). That might be quite different from the
> results of the surveys yoy're referring to, but it is not. The results of
> such surveys are all depending of the way how the questions are phrased. For
> instance, **** Pound would certainly affirm that he is concerned over the
> problem of doping. So would dr. Fuentes, and yet they probably are seeing
> the problem it a slightly different way. And of course, if people are
> associating doping with cycling, it doesn't mean they do really mind.
> Of course, in the USA the results of the Nestlé survey would probably be
> quite different. There is no doubt that Americans are seeing the doping
> problem generally quite differently as Europeans. As Daniel Coyle wrote in
> Lance Armstrongs War:
> "For Americans, doping is entwined with questions of character, with
> goodness and evil. For Europeans, doping is simply something cyclists are
> known to do. C=est le métier, the French say: It=s the job.
>
> It=s the classic prelapsarian divide; the same divergence that occurs when a
> politican is caught out with a mistress: Americans get outragedCHow could
> he? while Europeans shrugCBut of course".
>
>
>
> Benjo
>


I'm not sure about these surveys. If Americans thought so poorly of
dopers, then the NFL, baseball, and wrestling wouldn't be so popular
here. All those boys are juiced and everyone knows it.

The American public - much like the European public - is superficial and
stupid. The solution is to go back to the old system of looking the
other way. What the public doesn't know for sure doesn't hurt them.

Landis had a nice Cinderella story going - as did Tylenol - until they
got busted.

All these guys are getting busted because the national federations and
UCI were greedy for that Olympic money and control. They can't tap into
that Olympic money without subjecting the sport to WADA oversight.


Mago'
 
C

Carl Sundquist

Guest
"MagillaGorilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> I'm not sure about these surveys. If Americans thought so poorly of
> dopers, then the NFL, baseball, and wrestling wouldn't be so popular here.
> All those boys are juiced and everyone knows it.
>


You're looking it it the wrong way. For Americans, the traditional Olympic
sports present the image of purity and 'the best of the best'. The athletes
are assumed to be clean and wholesome. Even in the crass commercialism and
opening of the olys to professional athletes, those images persist (no doubt
helped by a seemingly 2:1 ratio of up close and personal stories to actual
event coverage). Whereas cycling in America could reasonably be viewed as a
rich white man's sport, Europe sees it similarly to an inner city kid's
dreams of leaving a ghetto to earn his fame and glory in football or
basketball. Do we get all bent out of shape because some kid clawed and
fought his way and did what he had to do to get on an NFL or NBA team? Not
really. Same thing for NASCAR, as well.


> The American public - much like the European public - is superficial and
> stupid. The solution is to go back to the old system of looking the other
> way. What the public doesn't know for sure doesn't hurt them.


>
> Landis had a nice Cinderella story going - as did Tylenol - until they got
> busted.
>
> All these guys are getting busted because the national federations and UCI
> were greedy for that Olympic money and control. They can't tap into that
> Olympic money without subjecting the sport to WADA oversight.
>


Something tells me that outside of the USOC (and the Chinese OC, I suppose),
there aren't these massive money gathering national olympic organizations.
 
J

JessicaG

Guest
> There's something wrong with the labs when the labs feel it's in their
> best interest to leak stories to l'equippe. There's something wrong with
> the labs when they have failed their own test of ethics. There's something
> wrong with the system when it acts as if none of that is a big deal,
> because, after all, we're on a CRUSADE here. We're going to rid the world
> of doping, and it doesn't matter what the consequences are, the end
> justifies the means. There's something wrong with the WADA folk (and ****
> Pound in general) when he doesn't even consider that some things might
> have gone too far, that there may be a point to dialog, not just
> dictatorial sweeping statements about the mission of the WADA and how
> everyone who questions him is a supporter of doping.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


You make a very good argument using sound judgement and logic. You've
totally convinced me and I agree... oh wait, Floyd tested positive,
nevermind.
 
M

MagillaGorilla

Guest
Carl Sundquist wrote:

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


<SELF SNIP>

>>
>>All these guys are getting busted because the national federations and UCI
>>were greedy for that Olympic money and control. They can't tap into that
>>Olympic money without subjecting the sport to WADA oversight.
>>

>
>
> Something tells me that outside of the USOC (and the Chinese OC, I suppose),
> there aren't these massive money gathering national olympic organizations.



I dunno...the Aussies get pretty gay about the Olympics, especially
their track team. Every Olympics, seems like Australia has like 9
lawsuits in the que filed by riders who think they should be on the
Olympic team, but weren't chosen. The Aussie national team program
seems to put a lot of stock in the Olympics.

I would put Canada in there too, as well as Germany, New Zealand,
Switzerland, and any host country of a given Games.

There is no other reason why cycling would subject itself to WADA
oversight if not for the Olympics. So the Olympic influence worldwide
has to be huge influence, whether its financial, mere perception, or
otherwise...

And the entire women's end of road, MTB, and track cycling is all about
the big "O."

I would also say that any male road cyclist would rather win the gold
medal in the Olympics road race than any other race with the exception
of the Tour or Giro (or maybe Paris Roubaix).

'Grilla
 
J

JessicaG

Guest
> Don't get me wrong, I'd want to see strong doping control in a world
> without WADA and the IOC, but I'd want to see a system where the riders
> have a halfway fair shot at making a defense. Right now, as the system
> stands, a rider basically has no right to seriously challenge evidence.


Seriously challenge evidence? You make it sound like a circumstantial
evidence investigation, which it definately is not. The rider pees in a cup,
it's tested for banned substances, end of story.
 
E

Ewoud Dronkert

Guest
benjo maso schreef:
> prelapsarian


Congrats on first use in rbr.

--
E. Dronkert
 
E

Ewoud Dronkert

Guest
MagillaGorilla schreef:
> I would also say that any male road cyclist would rather win the gold
> medal in the Olympics road race than any other race with the exception
> of the Tour or Giro (or maybe Paris Roubaix).


I don't think that is the case. On the other hand, Paolo Bettini making
a big deal of winning the gold certainly helped its cause. You are right
to name at least those exceptions but I think Worlds, RVV, Vuelta and
Yer Local Monument go there too.

--
E. Dronkert
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, MagillaGorilla
('[email protected]') wrote:

> I dunno...the Aussies get pretty gay about the Olympics, especially
> their track team.  Every Olympics, seems like Australia has like 9
> lawsuits in the que filed by riders who think they should be on the
> Olympic team, but weren't chosen.  The Aussie national team program
> seems to put a lot of stock in the Olympics.


British Cycling (the organisation, not the sport) also seems very
focussed on the Olympics, which is why we pour so much money into
velodrome events. But the contries where cycling flourishes as a pro
sport - France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands - basically
couldn't give a stuff about the Olympics. It's peripheral.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Just as defying the law of gravity through building aircraft requires
careful design and a lot of effort, so too does defying laws of
economics. It seems to be a deeply ingrained aspect of humanity to
forever strive to improve things, so unquestioning acceptance of a
free market system seems to me to be unnatural. ;; Charles Bryant
 
D

Dan Gregory

Guest
Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, MagillaGorilla
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> I dunno...the Aussies get pretty gay about the Olympics, especially
>> their track team. Every Olympics, seems like Australia has like 9
>> lawsuits in the que filed by riders who think they should be on the
>> Olympic team, but weren't chosen. The Aussie national team program
>> seems to put a lot of stock in the Olympics.

>
> British Cycling (the organisation, not the sport) also seems very
> focussed on the Olympics, which is why we pour so much money into
> velodrome events.


And seem to manage to make a complete mess of publicising & running
major road races. Viz getting lost in the neutralised zone!
:-((
 
B

benjo maso

Guest
"Ewoud Dronkert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> benjo maso schreef:
>> prelapsarian

>
> Congrats on first use in rbr.
>



Is it really the first time? Probably because the current state of cycling
is so typically postlapsarian,,,

Benjo
 
M

mtb Dad

Guest
benjo maso wrote:
> "mtb Dad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >
> > Donald Munro wrote:
> >> mtb Dad wrote:
> >> > Make that Western Euro cycling myopics; the rest of Europe outside
> >> > cycling fully backs doping control.
> >>
> >> You have the results of surveys confirming this ? Benjo had some that
> >> confirmed the opposite.

> >
> > This survey says "over 70% of the persons approached expressed their
> > concern
> > over the problem of doping."
> > http://www.eyes-2004.info/fileadmin...rometer_ENG.pdf#search="survey doping europe"
> >
> > This survey says "The results of the survey show that a great majority
> > (79 percent) of the general public associated doping with the sport of
> > cycling."
> > http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/oct05/oct06news

>
>
> What I wrote was that when Nestlé in 2001 was launching Aquarel, a new brand
> of mineral water, it considered a contract with the Tour organization. It
> was only worried about the image of cyling - the Festina affair was only
> three years old - because they presented Aquarel as something as pure as
> could be. To learn to what extent the many stories about the use of doping
> had damaged the image of cycle sport, the company sponsored surveys in the
> countries it planned to market its new product (France, Belgium, Luxembourg,
> Spain, Portugal, and Germany).From these it emerged that the effect of all
> the recent revelations was virtually zero, so that the company directors
> could confidently pay two million euros for their contract. The general
> reaction was: « Ne nous emmerdez pas avec le dopage. Ok, ils se dopent,mais
> c'est tellement dur... » ("Stop bugging us with doping. OK, they're doping
> themselves, but it's so hard ..."). That might be quite different from the
> results of the surveys yoy're referring to, but it is not. The results of
> such surveys are all depending of the way how the questions are phrased. For
> instance, **** Pound would certainly affirm that he is concerned over the
> problem of doping. So would dr. Fuentes, and yet they probably are seeing
> the problem it a slightly different way. And of course, if people are
> associating doping with cycling, it doesn't mean they do really mind.
> Of course, in the USA the results of the Nestlé survey would probably be
> quite different. There is no doubt that Americans are seeing the doping
> problem generally quite differently as Europeans. As Daniel Coyle wrote in
> Lance Armstrongs War:
> "For Americans, doping is entwined with questions of character, with
> goodness and evil. For Europeans, doping is simply something cyclists are
> known to do. C=est le métier, the French say: It=s the job.
>
> It=s the classic prelapsarian divide; the same divergence that occurs when a
> politican is caught out with a mistress: Americans get outragedCHow could
> he? while Europeans shrugCBut of course".
>
>
>
> Benjo


Do you have a link to the Nestle survey? I suspect it was more about
the question, "Will our sponsorship of the sport hurt us, or help us?"
That could easily be answered no it will not hurt, because people still
buy products based on awareness and perceived value, and no so much on
ethical associations (Festina watches, SUVs, tobacco, petrochemical
products are examples). But while the same people might buy the Festina
watch, they could also answer that they think doping should be
eradicated because they know the effect on fair play and young people.
 
H

Howard Kveck

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Ewoud Dronkert <[email protected]> wrote:

> MagillaGorilla schreef:
> > I would also say that any male road cyclist would rather win the gold
> > medal in the Olympics road race than any other race with the exception
> > of the Tour or Giro (or maybe Paris Roubaix).

>
> I don't think that is the case. On the other hand, Paolo Bettini making
> a big deal of winning the gold certainly helped its cause. You are right
> to name at least those exceptions but I think Worlds, RVV, Vuelta and
> Yer Local Monument go there too.


Pascal Richard made a big deal of winning the gold but within a few weeks, most
people were ignoring him. Bettini has been much more successful in letting that drag
on but that's because he's Bettini.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
B

benjo maso

Guest
"mtb Dad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

benjo maso wrote:
> "mtb Dad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >
> > Donald Munro wrote:
> >> mtb Dad wrote:
> >> > Make that Western Euro cycling myopics; the rest of Europe outside
> >> > cycling fully backs doping control.
> >>
> >> You have the results of surveys confirming this ? Benjo had some that
> >> confirmed the opposite.

> >
> > This survey says "over 70% of the persons approached expressed their
> > concern
> > over the problem of doping."
> > http://www.eyes-2004.info/fileadmin...rometer_ENG.pdf#search="survey doping europe"
> >
> > This survey says "The results of the survey show that a great majority
> > (79 percent) of the general public associated doping with the sport of
> > cycling."
> > http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/oct05/oct06news

>
>
> What I wrote was that when Nestlé in 2001 was launching Aquarel, a new
> brand
> of mineral water, it considered a contract with the Tour organization. It
> was only worried about the image of cyling - the Festina affair was only
> three years old - because they presented Aquarel as something as pure as
> could be. To learn to what extent the many stories about the use of doping
> had damaged the image of cycle sport, the company sponsored surveys in the
> countries it planned to market its new product (France, Belgium,
> Luxembourg,
> Spain, Portugal, and Germany).From these it emerged that the effect of all
> the recent revelations was virtually zero, so that the company directors
> could confidently pay two million euros for their contract. The general
> reaction was: « Ne nous emmerdez pas avec le dopage. Ok, ils se dopent,
> mais
> c'est tellement dur... » ("Stop bugging us with doping. OK, they're doping
> themselves, but it's so hard ..."). That might be quite different from the
> results of the surveys yoy're referring to, but it is not. The results of
> such surveys are all depending of the way how the questions are phrased.
> For
> instance, **** Pound would certainly affirm that he is concerned over the
> problem of doping. So would dr. Fuentes, and yet they probably are seeing
> the problem it a slightly different way. And of course, if people are
> associating doping with cycling, it doesn't mean they do really mind.
> Of course, in the USA the results of the Nestlé survey would probably
> be
> quite different. There is no doubt that Americans are seeing the doping
> problem generally quite differently as Europeans. As Daniel Coyle wrote
> in
> Lance Armstrongs War:
> "For Americans, doping is entwined with questions of character, with
> goodness and evil. For Europeans, doping is simply something cyclists are
> known to do. C=est le métier, the French say: It=s the job.
>
> It=s the classic prelapsarian divide; the same divergence that occurs when
> a
> politican is caught out with a mistress: Americans get outragedCHow could
> he? while Europeans shrugCBut of course".
>
>
>
> Benjo


>Do you have a link to the Nestle survey?


The best I could find is
http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/tdf02_mag_sponsor_itw.html

>I suspect it was more about the question, "Will our sponsorship of the
>sport hurt us, or help us?"


That's what Nestlé wanted to know, but of course the questions were quite
different.

>That could easily be answered no it will not hurt, because people still
>buy products based on awareness and perceived value, and no so much on
>ethical associations (Festina watches, SUVs, tobacco, petrochemical
>products are examples). But while the same people might buy the Festina
>watch, they could also answer that they think doping should be
>eradicated because they know the effect on fair play and young people.


No, I'm afraid you're wrong. In the traditional European cycling countries
most people don't give a damn of the effect doping is supposed to have on
"fair play and young people". Two or three days after the news that Landis
had tested positive, there was a similar survey in Holland with more or less
the same results as the Nestlé survey.

Benjo
 
C

Carl Sundquist

Guest
"MagillaGorilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Carl Sundquist wrote:
>
>> "MagillaGorilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]

>
> <SELF SNIP>
>
>>>
>>>All these guys are getting busted because the national federations and
>>>UCI were greedy for that Olympic money and control. They can't tap into
>>>that Olympic money without subjecting the sport to WADA oversight.
>>>

>>
>>
>> Something tells me that outside of the USOC (and the Chinese OC, I
>> suppose), there aren't these massive money gathering national olympic
>> organizations.

>
>
> I dunno...the Aussies get pretty gay about the Olympics, especially their
> track team. Every Olympics, seems like Australia has like 9 lawsuits in
> the que filed by riders who think they should be on the Olympic team, but
> weren't chosen. The Aussie national team program seems to put a lot of
> stock in the Olympics.
>
> I would put Canada in there too, as well as Germany, New Zealand,
> Switzerland, and any host country of a given Games.
>
> There is no other reason why cycling would subject itself to WADA
> oversight if not for the Olympics. So the Olympic influence worldwide has
> to be huge influence, whether its financial, mere perception, or
> otherwise...
>
> And the entire women's end of road, MTB, and track cycling is all about
> the big "O."
>
> I would also say that any male road cyclist would rather win the gold
> medal in the Olympics road race than any other race with the exception of
> the Tour or Giro (or maybe Paris Roubaix).
>
> 'Grilla