Search results for:

Really? Wales aren't that good. A gutsy performance against Slovakia, for sure, but it was sloppy at times. If England play like they did against Russia they will tear them apart. Problem is, England seem incapable of replicating form from one match to the next.

I'm hard pressed to justify a new jersey right now after recently acquiring the De Marchi Pt jersey at a reduced rate, but I'm delighted to see that they do a man's version of the Boel Dolman's jersey:

http://www.boelsdolmanscyclingteam.com/en/shop/team-kit#product-detail

If Russia get kicked out I would have thought results against them would be null and void.

Go with the white bar-tape. It will compliment the white detail on the frame.

If you were running silver rims then I'd say ditch the black stem. But you're not, so the black stem should work with the black rims (and black saddle and black gear leavers). Black and white aren't really colours as such (they are achromatic colours) so you should be able to absorb as much of it as you like.
As it stands you've got pink, blue, black, white and a bit of silver, which is pretty understated in my opinion, so you probably could get away with gumwalls if that's what you fancy. In any case, it's looking like a well coordinated build.

NB. In light of the saddle being black, I'd be inclined to keep the hoods black but the bar-tape white - see the Concorde you cited at the start of the thread.

Sure, but religion's morality is not up for debate, wherein the secular world we're not so sure of ourselves, less inclined to judge, more tolerant of opposing views, etc.
It can just get a bit 'burn the witch' with regard to doping around here, which is more something you'd expect from the religious.

This has got dick all to do with the philosophy. This has to do with people judging other people against their own moral standard and maintaining that their moral standard is somehow absolute. I'm saying that someone who dopes might not even consider that what they're doing is wrong - like how Maradonna thought his handball against England was perfectly legitimate, as did however million South Americans.

"To say that religion has cornered morality, or that humankind are incapable of forming a secular code of morality is false-we have a secular legal system and a criminal code, the code of conduct in relation to sport and doping is no different."

Didn't say that religion has cornered morality or that it was incapable of forming a secular code, just that morality without the divine to back it up is fairly arbitrary - utilitarian, if you will.

Yeah, I'm well aware of all that.

I'm only stating that religion is the sole source of morality in as much it's the one source of morality that backs itself up with the notion of the divine, which is hard to argue with.
If man creates his own morality then it cannot be immutable because the physical world is not immutable: at what point would it turn around and say, yes, we've got it right and nothing shall change from here on in? The moment a cyclist cheats and we decide it's not on, perhaps?

It appears that we have taken this as far as we can, unless you've got some interesting theory as to what defines right or wrong, other than what your parents could come up with or whatever it is you have decided you want it to be.

You are completely missing/avoiding my points.

1 - Let's assume the new substance was a natural plant extract - or crisps.
2 - Not all Religions have the same view, so why is one view any more valid than the next?
3 - See my reply to uber-gruber. The ethics of reciprocity is all that really counts, so if you're not forcing harm on others....

You dope, it's you who dies, not someone else. I assumed this went without saying.

The link between pharmaceutical companies and sport is interesting and one that I do feel wanders into the realms of ethics. That said, nobody's being physically forced to dope.

The last point, I haven't got time to go into in great detail, but I never alluded to state-sponsored doping (again, this is a more murky subject). What I was doing was kicking against this demonisation of individuals that have opted to dope vs. the supposed honesty of those who haven't.

Finally, with regard to religion not having anything to do with it, on what other basis are you deciding what's right or wrong? Thou shall not do this, thou shall not do that. On what authority? We may not, generally, as a society believe much in God, but our moral standards are very much devolved from the teachings of the New Testament. And if you say they're not and they're just born out of some evolutionary imperative, then so too could the mind-set of the person who cheats - for all we know, they could be ahead of the evolutionary curve. Anyway, I don't really want to get into all that - just wanted to point our how puritanical that string of thinking can sound. (Oh, the irony.)

1 - My hypothetical mystery substance that Sky may or may not choose to use was just that - a hypothetical substance.

2 - If your upbringing was anything like mine, then it was instructed by Christianity, regardless of whether you consciously subscribe to the religion's doctrines' (I don't, by the way). If you were born in, say, a Buddhist country your view could be entirely different.

3 - Sport is, by definition, a game. The fact that a business is built around it it does not elevate it beyond that. If a cyclist dopes, nobody dies. They are not faced with ethical dilemmas the way a healthcare professional might be, or a soldier.

"If it's not banned, is it still doping?"

This suggests that prior to it being banned you believe the taking of EPO was perfectly acceptable. Yet if nobody else had access to it, it would still have give a sizeable advantage to those who did, thus depriving those who didn't out of their income?

I take your line of reasoning, but I still think it's got little to do with morality.
You have to take a view. I'm merely saying that a clean rider doesn't not dope not out of the goodness of their heart but because they don't think its worth the risk. If you were to offer Team Sky some new supplement that wasn't illegal but offered a 1% increase in performance then they'd be all over it. Ergo, it's not the act of enhancing of performance that you're defining as immoral but the enhancing of performance by way of a substance that WADA has prohibited. Therefore, it is the breeching of rules you object to, not the desire to gain an advantage over a rival. I'm sure you'll accept that not all rules are moral and are very often based on practicality.

You don't think cyclists enjoy what they do? It's a high-risk career move if you're in it just for the money.

Why is doping immoral?

I know it's not desirable, but that's not the same thing.

For doping to be immoral then sport itself as to be moral, but it's not, it's amoral, just a game, fun.

What's morality got to do with sport? Sport is arbitrary competition and you'd be hard-pressed to apply ethics to it.

I'm being a little disingenuous here, so let me say this: the moral outrage toward doping strikes me as rather puritanical. So if you're a Protestant then fine, yes, it is a moral issue and God will see to it you are punished if you dope. The rules against doping are otherwise practical, to keep the sport operating in the way we want it to and to keep it interesting and, dare I say, profitable.

Doping isn't even a moral issue. Chris Froome takes what products have a tick next to them and avoids those that have a cross. Everybody agrees to do this because it makes for a more level playing field. If it was to do with morality - it's the taking part that counts - then nobody would care because the competitive element would be unimportant.

I would have thought that the manufacture of sportswear was a fairly amoral issue. Buy it or not however you see fit.

The obligation to maximise shareholder value isn't 'legal' either. It merely follows that those who invested in the business will be paid their dividend if the company turns a profit.

Has Silver Bullet ever played the Silver Bullet I wonder?

Could do without 'Shopping'.

Ha Ha!

But seriously, they're all retired so that won't address the labour shortage either.

My theory is this: if we leave then a lot of European immigrants, who are white, will leave the UK, and we'll need to attract immigrants from elsewhere to fill the void, who will be more than likely brown. This will reflect badly on Cameron as his voter base prefers white people to brown, so he has little choice but to ask we remain.

Or he could increase minimum wage, invest in education and force people back into work, but they - the Party - all pissed themselves laughing when somebody suggested doing that.

Perfect, I love shallow black rims and they carry gumwalls very well - neither too retro nor too modern.

My friend made the hilarious observation of how Edmonds likes to continually put his own spin on Deal or No Deal, much, we like to think, to the chagrin of the producers.

"Welcome to 'The Dream Factory'."

"Welcome to 'Deal'."

"For Christ sakes, Edmonds, stick to the script!"

He really is a very strange man....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vR_2nb16n9Q