Please give the live blog a chance to load (it can be a bit slow). Try refreshing the page if it doesn’t seem likely to appear.
Live blog: Lance Armstrong’s mega-successful Uber investment; another near miss with a cyclist on the same Dutch level crossing; flawed Salbutamol test could be replaced by ‘passport’ + more
All the cycling news from this site and beyond…
Thu, Dec 06, 2018 17:49
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn’t especially like cake.
19 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
HoarseMann 29 minutes ago
This has nothing to do with the type of bike - it's the type of behaviour that's the problem. Banning the sale of such bikes will not curtail the behaviour. They'll just find another type of vehicle and continue to drive dangerously as there's such a lack of enforcement. I'd sooner see them ban the bally. But really, all that's required is an improvement to roads policing.
AidanR 39 minutes ago
The EAPC Bill is welcome, but full of holes. What's to stop an overpowered but temporarily limited e-bike being sold and subsequently delimited? This is often a trivial process.
Sredlums 1 hour ago
@KiwiMike Yeah, in my over four decades of riding all over Europe I've never 'been for a ride in the countryside'. That must be it. Or, and I know this is a wild concept, you just accept that I just voiced my personal experiences and never missed a kickstand, like I wrote. Anyway, what's the big horror of laying your bike on its side for the very few occasions where there is nothing to lean your bike against?
mdavidford 2 hours ago
They may have looked, but did they see?
jackcycles 2 hours ago
Ds2025: where they are going wrong is that they are crushing the motorbike rather than the person sat on top of it. If they did the latter this issue would be solved in less than 24 hours.
Rod Marton 2 hours ago
I came this way today with the car boot sale in operation. There was a marshal at the entrance, who stopped a car turning right across the cycleway as I was approaching. So that certainly works. I think it necessary for the marshal to be there, I couldn't say if the driver would have turned if he hadn't been there but you always have to suspect the worst. Unfortunately there is no marshal at the exit, and there was certainly a car stopped across the cycleway as I was approaching it. But he pulled onto the road before I reached it, and the following car stayed off the cycleway as I went through. Ideally there should have been a marshal there too. On the whole, though, it's a really high standard piece of infrastructure. Just a pity it doesn't extend a bit further.
eburtthebike 2 hours ago
“absolute carnage” So right! Just look at the bodies piled up, blood running in the gutters and injured people limping away. It's a bit of a problem with a road, delaying some people for minutes at a time: it isn't carnage, let alone 'absolute carnage'. Anyone who exaggerates so ridiculously really shouldn't be allowed to comment in public, unless they want to demonstrate their idiocy to all and sundry.
Jakrayan 3 hours ago
I'm criticising them for not riding in secondary position, not primary. At least 60cms (2 feet) from the edge of the road as the HC explicitly recommends. Leaving aside the small minority of riders who find mounting and dismounting a bike difficult - which sounds suspiciously similar to the motorists "but, but what about disabled drivers?" when talking about LTNs - what's wrong with able bodied riders walking the few metres over that narrow, Victorian bridge? Sure, if there's clearly no-one on it I wouldn't condemn anyone for riding it slowly, but if it's not clear forcing pedestrians to stop and squeeze to the side is, frankly, a rather entitled opinion. Plus it's easy to hold a road bike a little ahead of you and hold the saddle - normally no need to hold the bars if it's straight - so you're really not taking up much more room at all. There's a railway underpass near me that links to a shared then segregated path. It's narrow, and the path approaches at an angle so you can't see if it's clear, but many riders still choose to pedal through despite the clear 'no cycling' signage. Why?? Personally I don't go that way, except on foot, preferring the surrounding roads.
bensynnock 4 hours ago
I think you're giving drivers too much credit. Many would not think twice about blocking the road if it makes their life easier, such as when turning right onto a busy road.
bensynnock 4 hours ago
They might have to, but they won't. What they will do is pull out over the cycle path while they wait for a gap in motor traffic.
19 thoughts on “Live blog: Lance Armstrong’s mega-successful Uber investment; another near miss with a cyclist on the same Dutch level crossing; flawed Salbutamol test could be replaced by ‘passport’ + more”
From the BMJ abstract:
From the BMJ abstract:
“However, a recent salbutamol case from the 2017 Vuelta a España, “
Froome
“The method is demonstrated with data from a cyclist competing in the 2007 Giro d’Italia.”
Pettacchi, by any chance? http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/petacchi-suspended-for-one-year/
“Since the observed test falls within the 95% prediction interval, the result would not constitute an AAF.”
So, reading between the lines, I think they are saying Petacchi should not have been banned.
It appears that in both the
It appears that in both the videos the train is clearly visible before the cyclist started crossing (well, in the first one it was hidden by another train, but if they had waited rather than assuming it would have been visible).
John Smith wrote:
You can’t fix stupid basically. Was the rider drunk/stoned?
Providing Lance’s investment
Providing Lance’s investment (share holding) hasn’t been diluted along the way, that makes his $100k worth nearly $3.5 billion on IPO valuatios of $120 billion for Uber. That just feels wrong.
madcarew wrote:
Why?
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Because it shows that doping does indeed pay.
Rapha Nadal wrote:
Guess you’ll be giving the likes of perennial dope cheat Merckx the same treatment, I think he’s done rather well for himself on the back of a dope fuelled cycling career? What about Moser, another self confessed doper, or maybe the Badger who refused to take tests, or any of the other successful riders BITD, or is it that you and like many others have a special reserve of rules and finger pointing when it comes to Armstrong?
he was a bully you say, well get out of bed, so was Merckx (net worth circa $20M btw), as well as a liar too, Hinault wasn’t exactly a saint either, in fact a total two faced, lying backstabbing wanker! Oh and Hinault happens to be loaded, he too invested his drug fuelled winnings, just like Armstrong.
So, just stop already with your ridiculous ‘doping’ bullshit, all the top/most successful pros were on it, you know this already. Yet you’ll only ever point the finger/villify one, why is that?
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Roid rage?
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
What the actual fuck are you on about?
Man makes money from an investment which was funded by a higher salary and/or endorsement money earned due to succesess fuelled by doping. You asked “why” and there’s your answer. What on earth possessed you to bang on like you did? Can you read things that haven’t even been written down? Good Lord, man.
madcarew wrote:
No. He invested $100k in a fund that invested in Uber. I’m sure it would be easy to calculate exactly how much he has returned, but estimating for what % of the fund was in uber, dilution, tax, and any cashing out by the fund over time, he way i think $20-30m is a better estimate. No mean feat, but once again this is imo Lance being Lance – he didn’t have to share this info, but he did. Consider it a metaphorical middle finger to the haters.
I trust Mr Vine has reported
I trust Mr Vine has reported that driver. Couldn’t be a clearer case of “it’s only a cyclist so I’m gonna pull out”.
burtthebike wrote:
There’s also an element of “That car has stopped to let me out, so I don’t need to check for myself that its clear…”
Lance, I’ve always stuck up
Lance, I’ve always stuck up for you. Can I have a bike for xmas?
It never ceases to amaze me
It never ceases to amaze me that people make up their own rules of the road. The twitter feed is full of people claiming you should show “courtesy” and let people pull out in free moving traffic. That’s not a cyclist/car thing, it’s a morons who can’t drive thing.
John Smith wrote:
Had a few people pull out on me in London like that last night, I was driving a car. The idiots assume you will stop for them if they force a collision situation. Doing it to someone on a bike is a higher order of c*ntery.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Honestly I don’t think they even think it’s a collision situation,they just think “there is plenty of room for them to slow down” and that if you don’t it’s you being rude and not playing by the rules. As evidence of this I was riding my motorbike to down a main road in to Oxford a few years ago. There was a lady in the road waiting to turn right on a bicycle shouting abuse at cars for not stopping to let her cross. Another example, my mother in law pulled out on someone and when they flashed their headlights at her she said “what’s his problem. He had loads of room to see me”.
Clearly you’re delusional and
Clearly you’re delusional and lacking comprehension. You accused Armstrong of profiteering from doping, so has every other top cyclist in history, you and others target armstrong but ignore other top cyclists who have doped/cheated their way to a fortune.
You’re not very good at this are you, go ask an adult to explain it to you!
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Please do point out where I’ve denied that other cyclists have profited from doping? I’ll wait.
You asked a question which was answered. The subject in this discussion is Armstrong & not the rest of the peloton. Keeping up yet? Had the subject matter been the rest of the peloton profitering from doping then that would’ve been addressed as part of the conversation. Jesus fucking Christ you’re stupid.
BTBS is right, ok Armstong
BTBS is right, ok Armstong was a cheat but essentially he was just king of the cheaters. Pantani’s look of ‘wtf’ when he got chased by Armstrong probably translated to ‘what gear is he on that I’m not?’
Isn’t Indurain the most ludicrous of the cheaters with an average power of 455W all day for 3 weeks? I guess when you let others win stages then you never get called out.