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



A

alex

Guest
"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> [email protected]enpapai.com (K. J. Papai) writes:
>
> 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.


I think that it is only fair to include Beloki into the list of potential
candidates to win the TdF. In 4 participations he has been 2nd once, 3rd
twice and one did not finish. Only Lance and Jan have superior record and
all others including Tyler are well, well behind.
 
D

DRS

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

[...]

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


Heh. The top F1 teams spend around US$300 million per season. Their tyre
budget alone would probably pay for most bike teams.

--

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

Fx199

Guest
>Subject: Re: Why do my hard earned tax dollars support a bike team?
>From: [email protected] (R15757)
>Date: 7/8/2004 4:57 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>David Kerber wrote:
>
><< That was many years after Chrysler had already repaid the entire loan.
>There was no "gift"; all the govt did was to give loan *guarantees*, to
>allow Chrysler to get a reasonable interest rate on the loan they needed
>to remake itself. >>
>
>True, but it's academic now. Any loan guarantee to a
>struggling company could easily become a gift.
>
><< United is a different case: they never tried to remake themselves while
>they had the chance, and deserve to go under. There are plenty of other
>airlines ready to pick up their passenger load, while Chrylser was one
>of only 3 major auto makers based in the US. >>
>
>The point is that consumers obviously didn't need or
>want three US carmakers. Whether they really even
>want two is up for debate. I would say Let the Market Decide, but that is not
>the way it works here in America. Look forward to massive
>loan guarantees for Ford Motor Company, "an
>American institution." "If we don't save Ford, there will
>be only one American automobile company."
>Unthinkable.
>
>When Ford finally goes down, it will be a sign of great
>progress in human society.
>
>United's latest bid for loan guarantees was denied
>because they don't need it, not because the govt. has
>decided to let United die. There is still something like
>10 billion of taxpayer money in the ATSB kitty. The
>money is already gone, whether the airlines use it now
>or later.
>
>Robert


The problem with your logic, is that Japan's Govt supports and subsidizes their
industry, hence no level playing field.
 
H

H. Morgan

Guest
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:47:37 GMT, Bonehenge
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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



I order frequently from the US and dread the final bill from the
courier companies. All the 'brokerage fees', paperwork fees, customs
declaration charges, etc, etc, can sometimes vastly exceed the value
of the goods. It's sickening. Plus, their 2-day, 3-day or whatever
service is for major urban areas only. Add another couple of days for
anywhere else.
I beg any companies to use USPS. It's far cheaper, far faster
and ties in to my country's postal service, so I don't come home to a
note on my door, then have to take a day off work to wait for a
parcel. I hope the USPS slays some of those couriers due to the
increased visibility overseas thanks to Lance et al.
 
D

DRS

Guest
"H. Morgan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

[...]

> I order frequently from the US and dread the final bill from the
> courier companies. All the 'brokerage fees', paperwork fees, customs
> declaration charges, etc, etc, can sometimes vastly exceed the value
> of the goods. It's sickening.


Absolutely right. Courier costs are deal killers when ordering from the US.

[...]

> I beg any companies to use USPS.


The smart ones do. I don't understand why those that refuse to use USPS
even bother with international sales.

> It's far cheaper, far faster
> and ties in to my country's postal service, so I don't come home to a
> note on my door, then have to take a day off work to wait for a
> parcel. I hope the USPS slays some of those couriers due to the
> increased visibility overseas thanks to Lance et al.


It would be nice.

--

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

Tim McNamara

Guest
"alex" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> [email protected] (K. J. Papai) writes:
>>
>> 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.

>
> I think that it is only fair to include Beloki into the list of
> potential candidates to win the TdF. In 4 participations he has been
> 2nd once, 3rd twice and one did not finish. Only Lance and Jan have
> superior record and all others including Tyler are well, well
> behind.


Whether you win a race depends not only on your abilities but on those
of the competition, so with that caveat there are a number of
potential winners. I didn't include Beloki because I wasn't trying to
create an exhaustive list and was only thinking about the current
Tour. If you were to look across the entire peloton and not just the
current Tour, you'd come up with a list of riders that's a bit larger
than the three I named.

I was specifically thinking about Simoni- who's got the abilities to
win the Giro but not the Tour, and Heras who has the abilities to win
the Vuelta but not the Tour (I think Heras is a better candidate for
the Tour than Simoni, in part because the latter beats himself up too
much in the Giro). Both the Vuelta and the Giro tend to favor
climbers over rouleurs in recent years, partly in an attempt to create
a greater spectacle than the Tour (TIOOYK) de France; as a result some
climbers come to the Tour with pretensions to win that are just not
realistic.
 
T

Tim McNamara

Guest
"Stefan Pavlik" <[email protected]> writes:

> In doing so, the USPS can and has kept stamp prices reasonably low


I'm always amazed to send letters to Europeans for under $1 and get
replies which may cost several times as much to send from Europe to
the US. I sent a letter to Ireland a few years ago, cost me US$.40
and the return from Ireland cost nearly US$5.00! Sending that letter
to Ireland now would cost more, but still probably a fraction of what
it would cost someone in Europe to send one to me.
 
M

Mark Hickey

Guest
Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Stefan Pavlik" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> In doing so, the USPS can and has kept stamp prices reasonably low

>
>I'm always amazed to send letters to Europeans for under $1 and get
>replies which may cost several times as much to send from Europe to
>the US. I sent a letter to Ireland a few years ago, cost me US$.40
>and the return from Ireland cost nearly US$5.00! Sending that letter
>to Ireland now would cost more, but still probably a fraction of what
>it would cost someone in Europe to send one to me.


Then again, when I lived in China it cost LESS to send a letter from
Beijing to the US than from the US to the US (around 20 cents vx. 33
cents IIRC). I never figured that one out. I suppose to the US
postal system the mail coming in from China looked like the pre-sorted
kind of "cut-rate commercial" junk mail that costs little to send, too
(only on a much larger scale).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
T

Tim McNamara

Guest
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:

> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Stefan Pavlik" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> In doing so, the USPS can and has kept stamp prices reasonably low

>>
>>I'm always amazed to send letters to Europeans for under $1 and get
>>replies which may cost several times as much to send from Europe to
>>the US. I sent a letter to Ireland a few years ago, cost me US$.40
>>and the return from Ireland cost nearly US$5.00! Sending that
>>letter to Ireland now would cost more, but still probably a fraction
>>of what it would cost someone in Europe to send one to me.

>
> Then again, when I lived in China it cost LESS to send a letter from
> Beijing to the US than from the US to the US (around 20 cents vx. 33
> cents IIRC). I never figured that one out. I suppose to the US
> postal system the mail coming in from China looked like the
> pre-sorted kind of "cut-rate commercial" junk mail that costs little
> to send, too (only on a much larger scale).


That brings up a question I have never thought of. Presumably, I pay
USPS for the stamp and then once it gets to Ireland or France or Italy
or wherever, USPS is paying that country's postal service to actually
deliver the letter. How does that work? And how does it work in
reverse? I'm assuming that Mr. Armstrong and Co. are not out dropping
off letters and parcels on their training rides (contrary to the ads
on TV today).
 
L

Luigi de Guzman

Guest
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 22:49:18 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>That brings up a question I have never thought of. Presumably, I pay
>USPS for the stamp and then once it gets to Ireland or France or Italy
>or wherever, USPS is paying that country's postal service to actually
>deliver the letter. How does that work? And how does it work in
>reverse? I'm assuming that Mr. Armstrong and Co. are not out dropping
>off letters and parcels on their training rides (contrary to the ads
>on TV today).


as I recall, those rates and protocols are negotiated bilaterally
between national postal services directly and multilaterally through
the Universal Postal Union.

-Luigi
 
R

R15757

Guest
Fx199 wrote:

<< The problem with your logic, is that Japan's Govt supports and subsidizes
their
industry, hence no level playing field. >>

That would not explain why Detroit went on building
giant gas-guzzling V8s at a time of tremendous
upheaval in the oil market and increased national
consciousness of air pollution and other environmental
issues. Detroit sealed its own fate. Japanese cars
filled a need that Detroit could not/would not fill. The

need for economical no-nonsense autos had once been
satisfied by American companies; in fact, the
economical auto is a pure American invention. But in
1972, the Volkswagen Beetle surpassed the Model T as
best selling car of all time. By 1980, Toyota was the
world's top auto maker.

It was not a lack of subsidy and support that hurt
American car companies in that critical era. In fact,
IMO it was Detroit's faith that the govt. would
ultimately pave their way and bail them out (in many
ways) that led to the American auto industry's failure
to adapt to a changing market. Why did they expect
this treatment? Why not. The US govt. had already
helped a GM/Firestone/Mack Truck cabal replace
streetcar systems with buses in more than 100
American cities before 1950. The US govt. had already
given Lee Iacocca and his Big Three counterparts a
ten year grace period to meet the Clean Air Act of
1970 (which Lee fought tooth and nail even as the
Japanese and European companies produced engines,
years in advance, that met the new standards). Lee
was right to expect more gifts and support from US
taxpayers, and the gifts were forthcoming. Now there
is no more American Chrysler, but we have things like
huge tax breaks for small business owners who buy
the biggest SUVs. Support like this does not stimulate
innovation, it stifles it. No wonder the Japanese
continue to kick Ford's ass.

Robert
 
K

Kenny

Guest
> > 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.


This is a wrong comparison. There are 10 WC ("classics") races and
only 1 tour each year. If you want to make such a comparison, compare
the two major disciplines in cycling: WC races and Grand Tours. I
think if you try to name the main contenders for those two types of
racing, you won't find more names for classics as for GT's. I agree
if there is a suprising winner it is mostly in classics. But if you
name top favourites, you'll have the same number of riders for each
"discipline". Prove me wrong but to me there aren't more riders with
the ability to win classics than riders with the ability to win a GT.
 
C

Curtis L. Russell

Guest
On 12 Jul 2004 05:43:44 -0700, [email protected] (Kenny) wrote:

>There are 10 WC ("classics") races and
>only 1 tour each year. If you want to make such a comparison, compare
>the two major disciplines in cycling: WC races and Grand Tours. I
>think if you try to name the main contenders for those two types of
>racing, you won't find more names for classics as for GT's.


Depends on what you mean by contenders for racing. If you mean who can
win a stage on a given day on one of the three Tours, as well as
winning overall G.C., yes. If you are including anyone that has a role
in the Tour, then also yes, but that has little to do with the thread
to date.

If you mean that there are as many legitimate contenders for winning
the G.C. of a Tour as there are winning any one of the classics i a
given year, that simply doesn't make sense.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
T

Tim McNamara

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

> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 22:49:18 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>That brings up a question I have never thought of. Presumably, I
>>pay USPS for the stamp and then once it gets to Ireland or France or
>>Italy or wherever, USPS is paying that country's postal service to
>>actually deliver the letter. How does that work? And how does it
>>work in reverse? I'm assuming that Mr. Armstrong and Co. are not
>>out dropping off letters and parcels on their training rides
>>(contrary to the ads on TV today).

>
> as I recall, those rates and protocols are negotiated bilaterally
> between national postal services directly and multilaterally through
> the Universal Postal Union.


Huh. There's a body I've never heard of. Thanks. Even though I mail
things internationally, I'd never thought of this before Mark's post.
 
G

Gawnsoft

Guest
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 13:16:42 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote (more or less):

>"Stefan Pavlik" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> In doing so, the USPS can and has kept stamp prices reasonably low

>
>I'm always amazed to send letters to Europeans for under $1 and get
>replies which may cost several times as much to send from Europe to
>the US. I sent a letter to Ireland a few years ago, cost me US$.40
>and the return from Ireland cost nearly US$5.00! Sending that letter
>to Ireland now would cost more, but still probably a fraction of what
>it would cost someone in Europe to send one to me.


Quite bizarre - I find postage from the US to the UK is much more
expensive than postage from the UK to the US.


--
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
 
M

Mike Kruger

Guest
"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> [email protected] (K. J. Papai) writes:
>
>
> ... 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.
>

Not to nitpick, but Heras did quite well in the Vuelta when he was with U.S.
Postal.
Second in 2002 (barely), first in 2003. That's a bit more than "somewhat
competitive".
 
T

Tim McNamara

Guest
Gawnsoft <[email protected]> writes:

> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 13:16:42 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote (more or less):
>
>>"Stefan Pavlik" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> In doing so, the USPS can and has kept stamp prices reasonably low

>>
>>I'm always amazed to send letters to Europeans for under $1 and get
>>replies which may cost several times as much to send from Europe to
>>the US. I sent a letter to Ireland a few years ago, cost me US$.40
>>and the return from Ireland cost nearly US$5.00! Sending that
>>letter to Ireland now would cost more, but still probably a fraction
>>of what it would cost someone in Europe to send one to me.

>
> Quite bizarre - I find postage from the US to the UK is much more
> expensive than postage from the UK to the US.


Sending from within the US to the UK, or ordering from outside the US
for something to be sent from the US to the UK? Sending a letter or a
package? I've never sent anything but letters across the Pond and
don't know what parcel costs are. I sent postcards from France to the
US but can't remember how much it cost in 2002.

Have postage costs been rationalized with the advent of the Euro and
increased interrelationships between EU member states?
 
K

Kenny

Guest
Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 12 Jul 2004 05:43:44 -0700, [email protected] (Kenny) wrote:
>
> >There are 10 WC ("classics") races and
> >only 1 tour each year. If you want to make such a comparison, compare
> >the two major disciplines in cycling: WC races and Grand Tours. I
> >think if you try to name the main contenders for those two types of
> >racing, you won't find more names for classics as for GT's.

>
> Depends on what you mean by contenders for racing. If you mean who can
> win a stage on a given day on one of the three Tours, as well as
> winning overall G.C., yes. If you are including anyone that has a role
> in the Tour, then also yes, but that has little to do with the thread
> to date.
>
> If you mean that there are as many legitimate contenders for winning
> the G.C. of a Tour as there are winning any one of the classics i a
> given year, that simply doesn't make sense.
>


I mean globally. Name the favourites for the 10 WC races and the
favourites for the three GT's at the start of the season. You'll get
about the same number of names.
 
C

Curtis L. Russell

Guest
On 12 Jul 2004 23:23:27 -0700, [email protected] (Kenny) wrote:

>I mean globally. Name the favourites for the 10 WC races and the
>favourites for the three GT's at the start of the season. You'll get
>about the same number of names.


Perhaps, but if they were to approach it classic by classic, the total
list would be much larger for the classics in most years (no doubt
there are years that the one-day racers were thin in talent and/or
dominated by one racer).

Its the naming the favorites at the start of the season that might
cause it to be a closer number. It makes it more an issue of naming
the favorites in one-day races for the year than naming the favorites
for actually winning any one of the classics and compiling a list. I
think the second list would usually be significantly larger than the
first.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
C

Curtis L. Russell

Guest
On 12 Jul 2004 23:23:27 -0700, [email protected] (Kenny) wrote:

>I mean globally. Name the favourites for the 10 WC races and the
>favourites for the three GT's at the start of the season. You'll get
>about the same number of names.


Perhaps, but if they were to approach it classic by classic, the total
list would be much larger for the classics in most years (no doubt
there are years that the one-day racers were thin in talent and/or
dominated by one racer).

Its the naming the favorites at the start of the season that might
cause it to be a closer number. It makes it more an issue of naming
the favorites in one-day races for the year than naming the favorites
for actually winning any one of the classics and compiling a list. I
think the second list would usually be significantly larger than the
first.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 

Similar threads