Easy on the slurs!

I can't wait until I use this on a police officer. "What do you mean that's illegal. Until you show me the legal code, I'm an Astronaut!"

Somebody posted this on Facebook, fascinating video of the 1995 world champs 200m qualifying

Nice try at changing the subject! Back to the slurs! Slurs! Slurs! Slurs! Slurs!

But that's a pretty good video. Thanks for posting it. It's a great video for people who want to learn how to ride an F200. This is on a 333m track. Notice how the faster guys stay higher? Many people try to hit that 200m line at max speed at or near the red line. If you think of trying to ride the F200 as TWO separate 100m splits, you'll ride it faster. Most people have a really slow second half, but if you go into it still accelerating, then your last half is not nearly as slow, giving you a higher speed.

In my opinion, Niewand rode the fastest line by staying high and easing down into turn 3. Harnett didn't stay as high, and may have been using a steeper drop to get on top of a larger gear. Hard to say if he would've went faster with a line more like Niewand's.

Here is another channel to watch if you like the classics -

Here's a good paper on it:

Slurs and Stereotypes - Jeshion - 2013 - Analytic Philosophy - Wiley Online Library

You can dig deeper from there. There are no derogatory stereotypes of white people that the 'slurs' are picking out. '*******' is for blandness. That's not a serious personality or identity defect in the same way as real slurs work. That's a big reason why.


And yes, I'm a professor who focuses on this topic (among others). Published on it, give talks on slurs...etc.

Also, most of us don't think that use of a term makes it a slur. What matters is what it does and how it works. 'Slurs' for white people don't do the social harm and structural oppression that other slurs do. So no, 'how you use it' doesn't make it a slur. Slurs are terms where the derogatory content can't be separated (that is, can't be used in non-slur contexts). 'Cr@cker' can be used to talk about tasty snacks. The TERM, the word itself, is not a slur. The n-word IS a slur, since it doesn't have non-slur contexts. Issues of slur reclamation are separate from whether the term is a slur, though. Don't get that twisted.

I can think of 5 words right now that only have 1 meaning...all of which are derogatory towards people of Caucasian descent. What's more is that the paper to which you link above mentions one of them...as being a slur.

Then it goes on to compare the severity slurs...but all in the list are slurs nonetheless. This is like comparing the "hotness" of hot sauces. Some are hotter than others, but all on the table are indeed hot sauces.

I grew up in Mobile, Alabama, educated in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and currently live in Atlanta, Georgia. This is as "Deep South" as it gets. Come visit and you'll find them.

Saying that there are no slurs for Caucasian people is like saying that "[insert minority] can't be racist!". Yes, indeed, they can.

As much as I want to continue this discussion, it's fine now, but is precariously close to possibly becoming offensive to some (or many). It should be continued in maybe: https://www.bikeforums.net/politics-religion/

Actually, there is a strong argument that oppressed groups can't be racist towards white people (but can be prejudiced).

LOL -- sorry to stir the pot on the language issue, -- i just thought it was amusing that the auto-editor registered that as a derogatory term

For me it would be the rough equivalent of someone trying hard to call me skinny in a malicious manner. (Given that i could stand to lose a few kilos)

"Hey Skinny! Your just a bag of bones - i bet your cold All the time in the winter! It probably makes you real self conscious to wear lycra and still have it be loose on you !! ".

As a grown man, (slightly overgrown) this would make me chuckle ---

The flip side would be if i was a gangly 13 year old drinking 5000 calories of muscle shakes a day in an effort to get the scale to inch past 92 so i could quit wearing size 10 slims, -- it would be a more applicable insult, and i also would still be in a developing emotional state as a child where such comments might actually hurt a lot

Black people in the Deep South don't use that term to refer to Caucasians being skinny or pale. It refers to the crack of a whip...as when people used whips on other people in the US.

It's certainly not a term of endearment.

http://thegolfnewsnet.com/wp-content...3611849188.jpg

I'm out.

Just trying to use an analogy -- as to a lot of us its a derogatory term that makes no sense, - -- For an insult to have the desired effect, it has to mean something to the other party

To bring it back to cycling, when Lance was accused of being a doper, for years he would maliciously strike back as it made him seethe with rage because he was trying his best to portray an image of Mr Clean --- but to call him that in 2017 would just be water off a ducks back since he's already come out of the closet -- accusing him of being a doper means nothing anymore

I spent a good portion of my formative years in Metter GA, about 220 miles or so southeast of you towards Savannah, - and just returned from a not so relaxing 3 months in Savannah in support of the hurricane Irma relief effort . Ive likely been called every name in the book -- and with my occupation as a catastrophe insurance adjuster, --- ive also been called names that probably aren't in any book

Ugghh --- I HAD to try to make an analogy about doping ----------------- and all this time I thought it was only Masters track cyclists trying to get an edge


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/13/s...me-doping.html

Well, I think it depends on the purpose of using the slur. For example, if people of Group A use a slur within Group A to refer to people of Group B as an "inside joke" or "inside slur", then the people of Group B would be none-the-wiser about it, yet the slur is still doing it's job of conveying negative sentiment, albeit only within Group A's walls.

This is common when Groups A and B don't share a common tongue. e.g.: The several slurs in Mexican Spanish that Mexicans have for non-Mexicans who do not speak Mexican Spanish. Or the many Itailian language slurs for Black people. I would hear them in movies and think they were simply saying some generic "idiot" in Italian like the word "git" is used in British English.

NOW...if Group A wants to make that slur sting the those of Group B, then they make sure that Group B knows what the word means.

Yeah, I heard about this. I haven't had a chance to read up on the details, so no opinion yet. But, testing positive (even with a good reason) is not good for business, that's for sure.

I can't get the meme image to post, but the phrase is:

"Hold my calls, someone on the Internet is wrong."

As for Froome, he took too much asthma medication. It is debatable whether it has any profound effect on his performance. He exceeded the maximum amount allowed for a "rescue" inhaler. From what I understand from my pulmonologist, this is not really a big deal. It's an arbitrary maximum amount set. Also, had he been overusing a long-acting asthma medication, like Advair or Symbicort, that would have been bigger issue.

From the brief radio segment I heard yesterday, the asthma medication isn't necessarily on the list for being asthma medication. It's there because it has been used to mask more heinous performance enhancing drugs.

A therapeutic use exception could/should clear this up. But, I'd imagine that WADA is like, "OK, so tell us again why you need to take so much of this stuff? :foo: "

This is why Fred the Football Fan will never give a tinker's darn about cycling. Not that they ever have .

Most cycling insiders had their feelings that Armstrong was just as dirty as anyone else during his decade of glory, ---- but in his defense, he did get Freddy Football and Bobby Basketball to tune in for a couple of weeks in July

Kind of like horse racing, --- most people aren't hardcore fans, but they can get pumped up for the Triple Crown, and its especially compelling if a horse has a chance at it --------- But cycling has become the human equivalent of a roided up horse race to the general public .

Regarding Froome , his elixir he was tagged for may have been entirely necessary, but when the geeks on Sportscenter get ahold of the fact that its popularly used as a masking agent too, it still casts shadows of doubt

I had a non cycling friend ask me in all seriousness not too long ago if I had ever used anything ---- LOL -- i'll probably be a cat 4 for life --- but I guess that doesn't even matter in light of the dentist at Worlds -- Cat 4's and 5's can shoot up with the best of 'em


--- As an aside, its certainly apparent for me that the long cold days of winter are drawing near, as ive been squandering more and more of my employer's valuable time on this forum and the C&V road forum -- LOL

I think this may interest Carleton (or any other US cyclist):


USA Cycling defines new national team with set criteria | Cyclingnews.com

Thanks!!

Soooo...then if a rider makes it, it's is essentially the US National Team Club, not the US National Team. Because "Team" implies that you actually get a chance to play.

It's definitely a step in the right direction, no doubt. I think the term "US National Team" is being used a bit liberally. When I hear "US National Team", "French National Team", "Australian National Team", etc... I think of the ladies and gentlemen that go to the international events and represent those countries.

Also, there is the Catch-22 of: In order to make the US National Team in order to race international events one has to race international events AND make the podium at said international events.

Anybody that good will already be ID'd and put on the National Team beforehand. If they aren't, then someone needs some new eyeglasses. Talent like that doesn't come out of nowhere...unless you are the child descendant of Olympians and you fell down from Mt. Olympus:

https://cyclingresults.files.wordpre...nd_pursuit.jpg

(That's a track WC jersey :D )

So, a few things:
The thing about World Cups and the World Championships is that they have their own selection criteria, and they're open to all athletes; I don't think the US National Team (or any other) can insert some other automatic-qualification standards that supersede those.

I can assure you that the French National Team and the Australian National Team includes riders who are NOT at any given international event... and that the purpose of the Nat'l Team, at least for the Track squad, is to develop olympic-caliber riders - which requires international competition. So they will be there, racing for the USA, as they have been all this WC season. The USA is one of the few teams that sent riders to all 4 WCs this year. Including some riders who aren't on this new National Team - which implies that one can get an automatic qualification for the Nat'l Team, but that the Nat'l Program will also support or train a development squad hoping to earn their place.

They almost certainly don't want to guarantee support to somebody who wins the National Championships, because a one-off race winner is a terrible way to determine who's the fastest. The way to get USAC's attention seems to be: race high-level races including the NCs, perform well, get invited to Colorado, demonstrate skill, earn a trip to a WC, and if you get results then you get the full suite of support.

Given that this National Team has attracted a bunch of domestic pros, and that the National Championships this past year were extremely exciting - given the fact that the National Program used them as part of their development process - I'd say that this structure is working out pretty well.

From today's Denver Post Newspaper

Young up and coming Canadian Stefan Ritter. A little excerpt from his Pan American experience last year.

http://www.juventus.ab.ca/club-news/2016/11/14/frp8hot1hrt7xgudpv8ql2q4rr25r7

This is awesome! :thumb:

CyclingTips has a great write up:
https://cyclingtips.com/2017/12/usa-...-program-isnt/

For those who don't want to read, $1M/year for the program, funding athletes at 3 levels ($25k, $12.5k, benefits only), travel coverage or assistance to qualifying events and camps, coaching, etc.

More info on the USAC website:
https://www.usacycling.org/team/track

Here are the track-specific criteria for the funding levels:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/imm-usac-ua...n-Criteria.png
https://s3.amazonaws.com/imm-usac-ua...n-Criteria.png


And Velonews has lots of national team track coverage too:
Video: Inside USA Cycling's altitude training chamber | VeloNews.com
Q&A: Kristin Armstrong helps Team USA toward gold in Tokyo 2020 | VeloNews.com
Q&A: Greg Henderson brings Olympic expertise to U.S. men's pursuit | VeloNews.com

I like the idea of the program, but how many athletes in the past, say, 5 years would have made those Sprint time standards? To make the cut, a male would have to ride a 10.046 indoors below 1,500M altitude.

I think Olympian Jimmy Watkins is the only one who would have made the time standard. Jimmy Watkins rode a 10.018" in 2012 in LA* to set the track record (it has since been broken). I can't think of any other US sprinter who would have the results to meet the time standard. I'm not familiar with everyone's historical times. I hope I'm wrong, but even Olympian Matt Baranoski's 10.2" in LA in 2015 wouldn't be good enough to make the cut without a discretionary invite.

So, that means the entire Sprint team would simply be filled discretionary members.

My point isn't that these riders are "slow". They are very fast. It's that maybe the qualification criteria are really high. And if so, why are they so unreasonably high?



*I recall that he did it in training while being timed by Jamie Staff. Not sure if it was hand or electronic timing.