Re: Why do my hard earned tax dollars support a bike team?



R

Richard Adams

Guest
Mike <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
[gnip]
>
> Also, I think the USPS is privatized and therefore not supported by the
> US government. Complain instead about how the US government does support
> the US automakers, US highways, and the US petrolium industry. Talk about
> a boondoggle. Since when is it the responsibility of any government
> to 'bail out' a corporation (Chrysler) or a city (New York)?
>
> Mike


They showed their mettle to the struggling airlines, however, after
the 9/11 attacks. Thanks to that I think we'll have more foreign
ownership of air carriers.

I tell ya, though, if you don't live in a frozen wasteland, those
hybrid cars are the thing. My sister's Prius would work wonderfully
for me where I live. Lots of big 4x4's for sale out here (huge
surprise.)
 
T

Tim McNamara

Guest
Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> writes:

> On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 12:46:05 -0400, David Kerber
> <[email protected]_ids.net> wrote:
>
>>I don't even know if there are any French in the race; the top
>>competition is Spanish, Italian, German and American, with a few
>>Aussies, Dutch, and Russians thrown into the mix.

>
> There are lots. Today's Maillot Jaune is the French National
> Champion.
>
> The French are in an awful Tour de France slump, though.


Although they've had a winner of the polka-dot jersey several times in
the last decade, thanks to Virenque and Jalabert. And this year
there's already a French stage winner and Maillot Jaune. So the slump
is not as bad as it could be, although the French have seemed
seriously outgunned since instituting the most stringent anti-doping
policies in the sport. Could be a coincidence, might not be.

Of course, for the entire field to have to compete against Miguel
Indurain and then Lance Armstrong is also an issue, these guys have
been unusually dominant. I think in part that's due to having been
very specialized to compete in the Tour primarily, as the Tour
continues to outweigh the entire rest of the racing calendar in
importance. From 1986 to 2003, there were, what, 13 Tours won by
three racers (Lemond, Indurain, Armstrong) and a scattering of tours
won by Roche, Delgado, Pantani, Ullrich, Riis. If we start from
1990, there's been only 5 winners of the Tour.
 
L

Luigi de Guzman

Guest
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 17:07:45 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> The French are in an awful Tour de France slump, though.

>
>Although they've had a winner of the polka-dot jersey several times in
>the last decade, thanks to Virenque and Jalabert.


It'll be stiff competition for the polka-dot jersey this year. I
wonder if Mayo is starting to think that maybe he should gun for
polka-dots this year, instead of Yellow, considering his position in
the GC...

>And this year
>there's already a French stage winner and Maillot Jaune. So the slump
>is not as bad as it could be, although the French have seemed
>seriously outgunned since instituting the most stringent anti-doping
>policies in the sport. Could be a coincidence, might not be.


Hadn't thought of it like that....

>Of course, for the entire field to have to compete against Miguel
>Indurain and then Lance Armstrong is also an issue, these guys have
>been unusually dominant. I think in part that's due to having been
>very specialized to compete in the Tour primarily, as the Tour
>continues to outweigh the entire rest of the racing calendar in
>importance. From 1986 to 2003, there were, what, 13 Tours won by
>three racers (Lemond, Indurain, Armstrong) and a scattering of tours
>won by Roche, Delgado, Pantani, Ullrich, Riis. If we start from
>1990, there's been only 5 winners of the Tour.


True...but didn't Lemond used to race more of the classics back in the
day than Armstrong does now?

Ah, Lemond! I was just talking to a friend of mine. We were both
little kids when Lemond was winning those Tours de France--he was like
"wow. I remember when Lemond won against that dude with the ponytail!
[Fignon]" He's not a cycling fan, usually, but it was a neat thing to
have remembered.

-Luigi
 
S

Sam

Guest
Chrysler received a guarantee on the loan, not direct money. Also, Chrysler
was building tank parts at the time. That said, I think it was not a good
idea and neither was bailing out the airlines following 9/11 or paying death
benefits to people killed in those attacks. Of course, I find about 3/4 of
federal spending to be wrong.


"Appkiller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> ( :< )
>
> > Talk about
> > a boondoggle. Since when is it the responsibility of any government
> > to 'bail out' a corporation (Chrysler) or a city (New York)?
> >
> > Mike

>
> ( :< )
>
> Consider this Mike:
>
> What would happen if the NYC gov't or Chrysler collapsed? Certainly
> more economically painful (short term)than propping them up. Whether
> or not we are interfering with governmental and corporate "natural
> selection", that is another discussion. Look at the short-term
> political consequences for those who chose to let the natural course
> of things occur. In the case of NYC, you are talking the shutdown of
> the world's largest financial center. Not good at all for anyone
> making THAT decision, in addition to a global shift in economic power.
> In the case of Chrysler, tens, if not hundreds of thousands of
> workers suddenly and painfully glutting the job market. They will
> drive down wages, eat up resources (unemployment insurance payments)
> without contributing and the cost of re-education/re-training that
> many workers? Yikes!
>
> Not necessarily advocating corporate and municipal welfare, but if
> changes can be enforced as a condition of assistance, is that not
> better than the alternative?
>
> App, who believes in the social benefit of paying his property taxes
> that fund schools despite his lack of children.
 
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 12:50:54 -0500, "Biff Stephens"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The USPS is run as a private company. I am sure they get help from the
>government and many many tax breaks but it is (by the most part) a private
>org.
>
>Biff
>


Dear Biff,

The U.S. Post Office may be run as a private company in some
ways, but it enjoys the advantage of a government-granted
monopoly on the mailboxes at homes and businesses.

FedEx and UPS and other delivery companies would love to be
able to use those metal boxes that private citizens put up,
but which only the U.S. Post Office may legally use.

They'd also like to be able to erect rent-free collection
boxes with convenient parking wherever they pleased.

Another difference that in true private companies like UPS
and FedEx, the people making deliveries hurry from their
trucks to the door and back.

It's also rumoured that employees are sometimes fired from
true private companies like UPS and FedEx.

If the U.S. Post Office actually employed Lance, his team,
and his support crew, no one would believe that anything
except death or retirement would get rid of them.

That said, the fellows who deliver my junk mail are a
reliable, cheerful lot.

Carl Fogel
 
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 12:50:54 -0500, "Biff Stephens"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The USPS is run as a private company. I am sure they get help from the
>government and many many tax breaks but it is (by the most part) a private
>org.
>
>Biff
>


Dear Biff,

The U.S. Post Office may be run as a private company in some
ways, but it enjoys the advantage of a government-granted
monopoly on the mailboxes at homes and businesses.

FedEx and UPS and other delivery companies would love to be
able to use those metal boxes that private citizens put up,
but which only the U.S. Post Office may legally use.

They'd also like to be able to erect rent-free collection
boxes with convenient parking wherever they pleased.

Another difference that in true private companies like UPS
and FedEx, the people making deliveries hurry from their
trucks to the door and back.

It's also rumoured that employees are sometimes fired from
true private companies like UPS and FedEx.

If the U.S. Post Office actually employed Lance, his team,
and his support crew, no one would believe that anything
except death or retirement would get rid of them.

That said, the fellows who deliver my junk mail are a
reliable, cheerful lot.

Carl Fogel
 
D

DRS

Guest
"garmonboezia" <[email protected]'lyeh.arg> wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s53
> "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> How could anyone be impressed by beating a bunch of cheese-eating
>> surrender monkeys? :)

>
> http://www.exile.ru/175/175052003.html


The author of that page is very nearly as ignorant as those he pillories,
but that's an argument I'm not going to get into in this forum. In any
case, my comment was not about the French, it was about certain "less
intellectual Americans".

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
T

Tom Paterson

Guest
>From: [email protected]

>That said, the fellows who deliver my junk mail are a
>reliable, cheerful lot.


As opposed to fearful, nervous, sweating, running? And perhaps seriously
underpaid?

>If the U.S. Post Office actually employed Lance, his team,
>and his support crew, no one would believe that anything
>except death or retirement would get rid >of them.


Not for some time has life been like that for USPS employees. Talk to one of
your carriers to find the truth. Mine from a former neighborhood, nearing
retirement, and with a problem getting up and down stairs, was intentionally
changed from a flat residential delivery area to downtown office buildings, to
force him to go up and down stairs as much as possible in the obvious hope of
forcing him out early to reduce his "benefits take".

This is SOP in the "real world", GE corp. did the same kind of thing to my
father, and many others. Take their job away, give them a new, unfamiliar one,
and then pow!!! Two bad performance reviews and out of there with *nothing* for
37 years (in his case) of keeping his nose to the grindstone. He got out with
about half of his due, with the GE pension fund overfull by billions and
billions of dollars. To put it in plain words, they could have pensioned every
single guy they wanted to get rid of at "face value" and had lots left over.
Speaks to morality issues, doesn't it?

I don't like seeing the UPS guys running, I know what that means in reference
to "corporate culture". --TP
 
D

DRS

Guest
"David Kerber" <[email protected]_ids.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

[...]

> I don't even know if there are any French in the race; the top
> competition is Spanish, Italian, German and American, with a few
> Aussies, Dutch, and Russians thrown into the mix.


Today's tour leader: Thomas Voeckler (Fra).

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
D

David Kerber

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> "David Kerber" <[email protected]_ids.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
> [...]
>
> > I don't even know if there are any French in the race; the top
> > competition is Spanish, Italian, German and American, with a few
> > Aussies, Dutch, and Russians thrown into the mix.

>
> Today's tour leader: Thomas Voeckler (Fra).


Yeah, I discovered that soon after I posted the above message. I was
hoping nobody would notice that I'm an idiot, but my hopes were quickly
dashed <GRIN>.


--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).
 
T

Tim McNamara

Guest
Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> writes:

> On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 17:07:45 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Of course, for the entire field to have to compete against Miguel
>>Indurain and then Lance Armstrong is also an issue, these guys have
>>been unusually dominant. I think in part that's due to having been
>>very specialized to compete in the Tour primarily, as the Tour
>>continues to outweigh the entire rest of the racing calendar in
>>importance. From 1986 to 2003, there were, what, 13 Tours won by
>>three racers (Lemond, Indurain, Armstrong) and a scattering of tours
>>won by Roche, Delgado, Pantani, Ullrich, Riis. If we start from
>>1990, there's been only 5 winners of the Tour.

>
> True...but didn't Lemond used to race more of the classics back in
> the day than Armstrong does now?


He did up until the gun shot wound and then after that had to narrow
his focus. He also did more races than Armstrong does; Armstrong
tends to do highly focused training rides rather than races, and
pretty much stops racing after the Tour. Lemond raced both the Spring
and Fall Classics campaigns, even when he wasn't in shape to be
competitive.

From the beginning of his career, though, Lemond excelled in stage
races- 3rd overall in the Tour de Tarn and 4th overall in the
Dauphine-Libere as a neo-pro in 1981, for example. He won the Tour de
l'Avenir in 1982 with 3 stage wins, 2nd overall in the Tour de
Mediteraneen, 3rd overall in Tirreno-Adriatico. 1983 was his
breakthrough year with the World Road Championship, overall in the
Dauphine-Libere, 4th overall in Tour de Suisse, 2nd in Grand Prix des
Nations, 4th in Blois-Chauville (Paris-Tours in reverse, IIRC) and 2nd
inthe Tour of Lombardy. At that point it looked like he could be at
the top in just about any type of race.

After he was shot on April 20th, 1987, Lemond's career changed. He
was out almost all of 1987 and much of 1988. 1989 was a good year-
winning the Tour de France and 3 stages, the World Road Champs- but
there is a drop-off in the quality of his other placings in major
races. He did manage a couple of top-10 placings in Paris-Roubaix (I
think taking 4th the first year that Duclos-LaSalle won), but in
general he was not at the top except in the Tour in 1990 and the
World's that year (4th). This trend continued, with his last victory
being in 1992 at the Tour DuPont. He retired in 1994 after spending
much of the year as a back marker when he did race. ISTR that he
dropped out of the Tour and did not in fact race again after that.

Armstrong, of course, was seen as a Classics rider in his early career
pre-cancer. He won several one-day races, the Worlds in 1993, Flech
Wallone in 1996 (?) and a couple of TdF stages- one dramatic one in
the wake of the death of Fabio Casartelli in 1995 (IIRC). Lance was a
hothead and a very emotional rider, but inconsistent. Armstrong's
body was too massive from his years of swimming and triathlon to be
competitive in the high mountains, though. He lost much of that mass
(something like 10 kg) during his episode with metastatic cancer, and
on his return to racing seemed to have lost something of his sprint
but gained in climbing, time trialling and perhaps most importantly in
emotional control and maturity.

Personally, I think Armstrong is a little too calculating. His
single-minded focus on the Tour de France is detrimental to the sport,
in my opinion, and he is not alone in that focus. The importance of
the Tour is highly over-rated (also IMHO) and this too is detrimental
to the sport as a whole. It creates two classes of riders, the Tour
contenders and everyone else. But perhaps the days of a Merckx, a
Hinault- riders able to win any race anywhere- are gone for reasons
beyond simply the racers. (Of course, this is all written as an
American; in the mainstream media, there is no coverage of
professional bicycle racing other than the Tour de France. And
without Lance Armstrong or some other charismatic American, there
wouldn't even be that).
 
K

K. J. Papai

Guest
(Bottom Posted)

Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]cal>...
> Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 17:07:45 -0500, Tim McNamara
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>Of course, for the entire field to have to compete against Miguel
> >>Indurain and then Lance Armstrong is also an issue, these guys have
> >>been unusually dominant. I think in part that's due to having been
> >>very specialized to compete in the Tour primarily, as the Tour
> >>continues to outweigh the entire rest of the racing calendar in
> >>importance. From 1986 to 2003, there were, what, 13 Tours won by
> >>three racers (Lemond, Indurain, Armstrong) and a scattering of tours
> >>won by Roche, Delgado, Pantani, Ullrich, Riis. If we start from
> >>1990, there's been only 5 winners of the Tour.

> >
> > True...but didn't Lemond used to race more of the classics back in
> > the day than Armstrong does now?

>
> He did up until the gun shot wound and then after that had to narrow
> his focus. He also did more races than Armstrong does; Armstrong
> tends to do highly focused training rides rather than races, and
> pretty much stops racing after the Tour. Lemond raced both the Spring
> and Fall Classics campaigns, even when he wasn't in shape to be
> competitive.
>
> From the beginning of his career, though, Lemond excelled in stage
> races- 3rd overall in the Tour de Tarn and 4th overall in the
> Dauphine-Libere as a neo-pro in 1981, for example. He won the Tour de
> l'Avenir in 1982 with 3 stage wins, 2nd overall in the Tour de
> Mediteraneen, 3rd overall in Tirreno-Adriatico. 1983 was his
> breakthrough year with the World Road Championship, overall in the
> Dauphine-Libere, 4th overall in Tour de Suisse, 2nd in Grand Prix des
> Nations, 4th in Blois-Chauville (Paris-Tours in reverse, IIRC) and 2nd
> inthe Tour of Lombardy. At that point it looked like he could be at
> the top in just about any type of race.
>
> After he was shot on April 20th, 1987, Lemond's career changed. He
> was out almost all of 1987 and much of 1988. 1989 was a good year-
> winning the Tour de France and 3 stages, the World Road Champs- but
> there is a drop-off in the quality of his other placings in major
> races. He did manage a couple of top-10 placings in Paris-Roubaix (I
> think taking 4th the first year that Duclos-LaSalle won), but in
> general he was not at the top except in the Tour in 1990 and the
> World's that year (4th). This trend continued, with his last victory
> being in 1992 at the Tour DuPont. He retired in 1994 after spending
> much of the year as a back marker when he did race. ISTR that he
> dropped out of the Tour and did not in fact race again after that.
>
> Armstrong, of course, was seen as a Classics rider in his early career
> pre-cancer. He won several one-day races, the Worlds in 1993, Flech
> Wallone in 1996 (?) and a couple of TdF stages- one dramatic one in
> the wake of the death of Fabio Casartelli in 1995 (IIRC). Lance was a
> hothead and a very emotional rider, but inconsistent. Armstrong's
> body was too massive from his years of swimming and triathlon to be
> competitive in the high mountains, though. He lost much of that mass
> (something like 10 kg) during his episode with metastatic cancer, and
> on his return to racing seemed to have lost something of his sprint
> but gained in climbing, time trialling and perhaps most importantly in
> emotional control and maturity.
>
> Personally, I think Armstrong is a little too calculating. His
> single-minded focus on the Tour de France is detrimental to the sport,
> in my opinion, and he is not alone in that focus. The importance of
> the Tour is highly over-rated (also IMHO) and this too is detrimental
> to the sport as a whole. It creates two classes of riders, the Tour
> contenders and everyone else. But perhaps the days of a Merckx, a
> Hinault- riders able to win any race anywhere- are gone for reasons
> beyond simply the racers. (Of course, this is all written as an
> American; in the mainstream media, there is no coverage of
> professional bicycle racing other than the Tour de France. And
> without Lance Armstrong or some other charismatic American, there
> wouldn't even be that).


Well written Tim but I have to add my own cheap two cents.

Pro Racing in 2004 is not Pro Racing in 1994 or 1984.

Money influences so many decisions. Not Lance as you say.
Money sways top talent and GOOD for them who get it.
Sponsors want certain results and find the guys who can
deliver them.

2004 is more competitive thann 1994 and WAY MORE than 1984.

There are more Classics Specialists than there are Tour Specialists
these days.

The top 300 Pro Racers in the world is a Deep Pool of talent,
far deeper than the top 300 of ten or twenty years ago.

Of course my racing opinions are usually ****!
But I do believe them.

-Ken
 
Z

Zippy the Pinhead

Guest
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 17:07:45 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>there's already a French stage winner and Maillot Jaune.


I loved the expression on the interviewer's face when someone
pronounced that "Mellow Johnny".

Almost as funny as Bob Roll's "Two-er DAY Fraaaaance".
 
T

Tim McNamara

Guest
[email protected] (K. J. Papai) writes:

<snip>

> Well written Tim but I have to add my own cheap two cents.
>
> Pro Racing in 2004 is not Pro Racing in 1994 or 1984.


Yes, that's true and is true from several perspectives.

> Money influences so many decisions. Not Lance as you say. Money
> sways top talent and GOOD for them who get it. Sponsors want
> certain results and find the guys who can deliver them.


And- again this follows in the wake of Lemond- racers are paid almost
competitively with many other sports. Perhaps not the ridiculous
buckets of cash and fabulous prizes showered on NBA, MLB and NFL
players, but those sports are out of control. With that increase in
money comes an increase in pressure for results.

I think this has led to a significant increase in the sophistication
of doping. Doping used to be the purview of the soigneurs and is now
supervised by licensed physicians. The tools are more effective (as
Verbruggen stated almost 10 years ago, EPO was the first doping tool
that really worked reliably) and more dangerous.

> 2004 is more competitive than 1994 and WAY MORE than 1984.


Yes, for several reasons. The points system makes the individual
results of every rider important- in the days of Merckx, et al, the
gregarios didn't have to worry about where they finished in the race.
They buried themselves, limped home or even just dropped out of the
race. But now, every UCI point gained by every rider on the team is
important.

Second, the stratification of the teams is not as rigid as it was, and
teams tend to have multiple leaders. The Zulle-Jalabert combination
at ONCE was really quite something to watch in action. By comparison,
look at how Rik II did everything he could to squelch Merckx in the
latter's first couple of years as a pro. In the old days there was
one leader and one leader only. At the start of any given race, there
were maybe five contenders unless something weird happened. But the
social structure of Europe has loosened immensely and with it the
rigid structure of teams is not as pronounced as it was. Successful
directeurs sportifs have learned how to work with this to best
advantage: Saiz, Riis, etc.

Oddly enough, I don't think Bruyneel is in that mix; he is rather old
school and the team exists to serve the needs of one man in one race.
The result is a team that dminates one race and is merely somewhat
competitive in most others.

> There are more Classics Specialists than there are Tour Specialists
> these days.


Makes sense, doesn't it? There are few riders with the combination of
skills to win the Tour de France: Armstrong, Ullrich, maybe Hamilton.
Mayo doesn't yet but he is not yet mature. Julich did have the talent
but didn't have the head for it. Pantani's victory was a one-off.
The genetic sweepstakes are pretty selective for Tour winners. There
are many more riders with the abilities to win the Classics and the
smaller stage races. Luck is a greater factor in one-day races, too.

> The top 300 Pro Racers in the world is a Deep Pool of talent, far
> deeper than the top 300 of ten or twenty years ago.


I agree.
 
T

Tom Sherman

Guest
g.daniels wrote:

> search: auto union
> 1936-38?


The new US Postal Roster?

Ulli Bigalke
Ernst von Delius
Luigi Fagioli
Rudolph Hasse
Christian Kautz
Prince zu Leiningen
Schorsch Meier
August Momberger
Hermann Paul (H. P.) Muller
Tazio Nuvolari
Paul Pietsch
Bernd Rosemeyer
Hans Stuck
Achille Varzi

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area
 
S

Stefan Pavlik

Guest
My god - what rock have you been hiding under for the last 7 years? The
USPS has an advertising budget and with that it can pick and choose how and
where it will be spent. It chose to sponsor a cycling team to get some
global recognition. IT turned out to be the biggest and best return on
investment the USPS ever made. Who'd ever thought Lance would win 1,3 5 or
even 6 tours. If memory serves me correctly he wasn't even on the
'original' USPS team. Now if the USPS takes it's $25 million dollar ad
budget and spends it on TV commercials, it gets a few ads produced and some
air time, then its run its course. With the same amount of money spent,
it's logo is on every sports magazine cover prior to the tour, on the news
everyday in July and endless photos throughout the year. In doing so, the
USPS can and has kept stamp prices reasonably low and also has been able to
compete head-to-head with UPS (even having cheaper prices on many of its
parcel services)! In December, the USPS will end its sponsorship term with
the procycling team. Personally, I think it has done great job and while
it hasn't used your tax dollars, it appreciates you buying stamps and using
its services daily.
"Churchill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Marty Wallace" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >
> > "Sam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> > >
> > > "Alex Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]
> > > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > > [email protected] says...
> > > > >Hey,
> > > > > Why does the US federal Government support a bike team in France?

I
> > > > >work hard for my money, and think the taxes I pay could be better
> > > > >used. What a Boondoggle!
> > > >
> > > > Like any other company, you have to advertise to get more business.

> > USPS
> > > > wanted to get more customers in Europe to use their service, so they
> > > sponser
> > > > a bicycle racing team. For the money they spend, they get an

> excellent
> > > > return on investment. So they continued to do so until ignorant

folks
> > > > started to complain.
> > > > -------------
> > > > Alex
> > > >
> > >
> > > I would like to see some proof that they are getting bang for their

buck
> > in
> > > terms of promotion and advertising. I doubt they are.
> > >
> > >

> >
> > My God you're an idiot.
> > The fastest rider and the fastest team in the biggest race in the world!
> > And you want proof?
> > If you don't think thats good promotion and advertising then you tell us
> > what is.
> >
> > Marty

>
> Speaking as a non-American I would never have heard of the "USPS" if it
> wasn't for the Tour, so their marketing worked in my case :)
>
> USPS is smart to do this, they are getting all of Europe focused on their
> name, cycling 'I sense' is much more popular in Europe than North America

:)
>
>
 
P

Phil Brown

Guest
>Ulli Bigalke
>Ernst von Delius
>Luigi Fagioli
>Rudolph Hasse
>Christian Kautz
>Prince zu Leiningen
>Schorsch Meier
>August Momberger
>Hermann Paul (H. P.) Muller
>Tazio Nuvolari
>Paul Pietsch
>Bernd Rosemeyer
>Hans Stuck
>Achille Varzi
>
>Well, Rosemeyer came from the motorcycle side-NSU- so at least there was a

single track vehicle involved. But Varzi was a morphine addict so he wouldn't
pass the dope tests.
Phil Brown
 
B

Bonehenge

Guest
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 03:00:51 GMT, "Stefan Pavlik" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> It chose to sponsor a cycling team to get some
>global recognition. IT turned out to be the biggest and best return on
>investment the USPS ever made.


I've read that the sponsorship was NOT aimed at the US, but Europe.

The USPS was trying to increase it's share of the lucrative and
profitable global express market, also served by UPS, FedEx, DHL,
etc... In other words, they are trying to convince Euros to use the
USPS to ship stuff to and from the USA. Here in the US, the USPS is
losing package business to the same companies. Going after their
profitable global business, attempting to expand the business into new
markets, can be seen as a smart move.

If this is true, and it actually makes sense, sponsoring the bike team
would be no different from FedEx and UPS sponsorship of auto racing
here in the USA. Think about it, the target of the advertising is
Europe, pro cycling is as big there as NASCAR is in the USA.

I'll bet the bike team is cheaper than sponsoring a decent F1 team.
<G>

Barry
 

Similar threads