I've previously posted articles about Svein Tuft on this blog, but I think the latest one I have found in the New York Times is by far the best.
The article recounts Tuft's bike trips through British Columbia and Alaska, as well as his reasons for leaving cycling behind because of its incessant doping problems. Of course, we all know he didn't stay away that long and has since enjoyed considerable success. It seems that Tuft's surroundings have changed, but at his core, he remains the same guy. I find this refreshing in a sport that often loses its meaning.
Instead of recounting the entire article, I encourage whoever reads this to check out the Times' story.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Beglian Cyclist Found Dead
Some rather disturbing news out of the Tour of Qatar this morning.
Belgian cyclist Frederiek Nolf was found dead in his hotel room prior to the start of stage 5 of the Tour.
It has not yet been confirmed what the cause of Nolf's death was. As the article mentions, his body was quickly repatriated back to Belgium.
Belgian cyclist Frederiek Nolf was found dead in his hotel room prior to the start of stage 5 of the Tour.
It has not yet been confirmed what the cause of Nolf's death was. As the article mentions, his body was quickly repatriated back to Belgium.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Law School and Training: Is there a balance?
Among the many challenges that law school offers, for someone who is used to a regular volume of training, cutting back and fitting workouts in is probably one of the larger issues that I have faced.
A few years ago, when I was still training in kayak, I was used to fairly high volume training weeks. We were on the water 10 times a week, ran 3-4 times and also did weights 3-4 times. With an afternoon or two off and usually one complete day, volume was certainly not a problem. I admit, I was at school part-time, so that didn't offer too much of an obstacle.
When I stopped paddling and starting just cycling and running and went back to school full-time as an undergrad, I was still fitting in 6 workouts a week (once per day, with one day off), with volume ranging between 60 minutes and three hour sessions. Fitting in my school work, personal life and anything else wasn't a problem. The weeks were busy, but the balance was easy enough to handle.
But since I started law school a few months ago, the balance has not been so easy to maintain.
I'm not sure if it is by habit or just pure stubbornness, but I still want to train 6 days a week. If I don't, I get fairly discouraged and my body feels like crap (or at least I think it does.)
I don't want to say it is impossible to fit the 6 workouts in, but it is a lot more difficult. The main problem is the volume of work we have to deal with in first year. I have 6 classes and the reading for the semester ranges anywhere between 400- 1100 pages per class. That's a lot of work by any standard, but we also have to fit in the actual class time. Although it isn't astronomical, it is enough to fill the day and complicate things a little further.
Aside from just reading the material, it's usually a good idea to summarize all the cases and readings we read for exams. (Our exams are open-book, so these materials are essential.)
Finding the time to do all of this has been a challenge.
My day usually starts at 6:15am. I get out of bed, have coffee and breakfast, and start moving around 7:15am. (By moving I mean either reading or training.) On a good day, I can get a run or weights in before school (usually Tuesday and Thursday, since I start school at 10am on those days.) That is, of course, if I have managed to get my readings done for that days' class. If I haven't, I read and move my training to another time of the day. Unless I bike in the afternoon, there's no time to ride. (For me, a good ride is minimum 90 minutes- anything less than that doesn't seem to be that efficient- this is why I run- a 60 minute run is a better workout than a 60 minute ride, unfortunately.)
I usually try to get my rides in on Saturday or Sunday, Monday, Thursday and Friday (when I have a little less class time.) Wednesdays are write-offs; there is far too much class time and still reading to get done for Thursday or anything I haven't done for that days' classes. A big part of the problem is that I would take riding over running any day (perhaps this is where the stubbornness comes in.)
As the fall progressed, my training volume inevitably had to drop. I have had to learn to be more effective with the time I have. And now that the weather is a lot colder, it is somewhat easier to justify chopping a bit of volume. I haven't necessarily ramped up the intensity though. For the most part, I have been trying (somewhat unsuccessfully) to just content myself with being able to do something. It has also helped that we have started spinning inside in the evenings a few days a week and on the weekends. It's easier to justify sitting down to work all day knowing that you are going to train later in the day.
From what I understand, it gets a lot better after first year. Our learning curve is necessarily sharp this year, so the volume of work that it takes to achieve this is appropriately higher. And don't get me wrong, I enjoy what I am doing.
However, as I write, on this Friday afternoon from the library, the sun is shining outside, the skies are blue and I would much rather be turning the cranks of my bike (however cold that may be) than summarizing cases (which is where this post has to end... good procrastination, eh?)
A few years ago, when I was still training in kayak, I was used to fairly high volume training weeks. We were on the water 10 times a week, ran 3-4 times and also did weights 3-4 times. With an afternoon or two off and usually one complete day, volume was certainly not a problem. I admit, I was at school part-time, so that didn't offer too much of an obstacle.
When I stopped paddling and starting just cycling and running and went back to school full-time as an undergrad, I was still fitting in 6 workouts a week (once per day, with one day off), with volume ranging between 60 minutes and three hour sessions. Fitting in my school work, personal life and anything else wasn't a problem. The weeks were busy, but the balance was easy enough to handle.
But since I started law school a few months ago, the balance has not been so easy to maintain.
I'm not sure if it is by habit or just pure stubbornness, but I still want to train 6 days a week. If I don't, I get fairly discouraged and my body feels like crap (or at least I think it does.)
I don't want to say it is impossible to fit the 6 workouts in, but it is a lot more difficult. The main problem is the volume of work we have to deal with in first year. I have 6 classes and the reading for the semester ranges anywhere between 400- 1100 pages per class. That's a lot of work by any standard, but we also have to fit in the actual class time. Although it isn't astronomical, it is enough to fill the day and complicate things a little further.
Aside from just reading the material, it's usually a good idea to summarize all the cases and readings we read for exams. (Our exams are open-book, so these materials are essential.)
Finding the time to do all of this has been a challenge.
My day usually starts at 6:15am. I get out of bed, have coffee and breakfast, and start moving around 7:15am. (By moving I mean either reading or training.) On a good day, I can get a run or weights in before school (usually Tuesday and Thursday, since I start school at 10am on those days.) That is, of course, if I have managed to get my readings done for that days' class. If I haven't, I read and move my training to another time of the day. Unless I bike in the afternoon, there's no time to ride. (For me, a good ride is minimum 90 minutes- anything less than that doesn't seem to be that efficient- this is why I run- a 60 minute run is a better workout than a 60 minute ride, unfortunately.)
I usually try to get my rides in on Saturday or Sunday, Monday, Thursday and Friday (when I have a little less class time.) Wednesdays are write-offs; there is far too much class time and still reading to get done for Thursday or anything I haven't done for that days' classes. A big part of the problem is that I would take riding over running any day (perhaps this is where the stubbornness comes in.)
As the fall progressed, my training volume inevitably had to drop. I have had to learn to be more effective with the time I have. And now that the weather is a lot colder, it is somewhat easier to justify chopping a bit of volume. I haven't necessarily ramped up the intensity though. For the most part, I have been trying (somewhat unsuccessfully) to just content myself with being able to do something. It has also helped that we have started spinning inside in the evenings a few days a week and on the weekends. It's easier to justify sitting down to work all day knowing that you are going to train later in the day.
From what I understand, it gets a lot better after first year. Our learning curve is necessarily sharp this year, so the volume of work that it takes to achieve this is appropriately higher. And don't get me wrong, I enjoy what I am doing.
However, as I write, on this Friday afternoon from the library, the sun is shining outside, the skies are blue and I would much rather be turning the cranks of my bike (however cold that may be) than summarizing cases (which is where this post has to end... good procrastination, eh?)
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Here We Go Again
The recent spate of positive doping tests have once again cast a dark shadow on the sport of professional cycling.
Bernard Kohl, the latest to be caught using the new variant of EPO, CERA, was the third place finisher at this year's Tour de France and the winner of the coveted King of the Mountains jersey. His teammate, Stefan Schumacher, the winner of the Tour's only two time trials, also tested positive for CERA. The two riders deny there was any systematic doping system on their Gerolsteiner team. Maybe so, but they aren't giving cycling fans any reasons to believe that assertion. (Note: following Kohl's positive test, Gerolsteiner, the team's main sponsor, pulled their funding.)
Further, their actions, as well as the five other riders caught at this year's Tour, are having serious repercussions on the sport.
Today, organizers of the Tour of Germany announced that the 2009 edition of the race will be canceled. Their reason? The sport's image has been tarnished as a result of the recent positive doping tests. In fact, sports fans in Germany may have to leave the country next year if they want to watch the 2009 edition of the Tour de France. Two of the biggest media outlets in that country, ARD and ZDF, announced that they won't be covering the event next year. Can you guess why?
So what can be done about all of this? Are we headed back to the days of Operacion Puerto?
Pat McQuaid, the president of the UCI is toying with the idea of doubling the length of suspensions for failed doping tests.
Will that really deter riders from trying to cheat? Probably not. We can find proof just by looking at the decision of many riders to take CERA, the new variant of EPO. They thought they were one step ahead of the game, and, had it not been for the cooperation of the medical company responsible for its manufacture in helping WADA develop a test for it, they would have been.
Yes, those riders were caught. But for every person that gets caught, how many of them get away with it? Although these riders thought they were one step ahead of the testers, we have to ask, how many of them really are? That was one test for one drug. Surely there are more and different variations out there.
As cycling heads into its off-season, it will fall off the radar of many fans. Though most of us won't forget about what has happened this season and in previous years, when the races start up again, it won't take us long to remember the cheats of professional cycling. (I mean, really, it's easy- they won't be lining up for the races!)
But seriously, this has to stop. There won't be any races left for us to watch or athletes to encourage if this behaviour keeps up. It's a sport and I think that gets lost on a lot of people when they decide drugs are necessary to win.
Bernard Kohl, the latest to be caught using the new variant of EPO, CERA, was the third place finisher at this year's Tour de France and the winner of the coveted King of the Mountains jersey. His teammate, Stefan Schumacher, the winner of the Tour's only two time trials, also tested positive for CERA. The two riders deny there was any systematic doping system on their Gerolsteiner team. Maybe so, but they aren't giving cycling fans any reasons to believe that assertion. (Note: following Kohl's positive test, Gerolsteiner, the team's main sponsor, pulled their funding.)
Further, their actions, as well as the five other riders caught at this year's Tour, are having serious repercussions on the sport.
Today, organizers of the Tour of Germany announced that the 2009 edition of the race will be canceled. Their reason? The sport's image has been tarnished as a result of the recent positive doping tests. In fact, sports fans in Germany may have to leave the country next year if they want to watch the 2009 edition of the Tour de France. Two of the biggest media outlets in that country, ARD and ZDF, announced that they won't be covering the event next year. Can you guess why?
So what can be done about all of this? Are we headed back to the days of Operacion Puerto?
Pat McQuaid, the president of the UCI is toying with the idea of doubling the length of suspensions for failed doping tests.
Will that really deter riders from trying to cheat? Probably not. We can find proof just by looking at the decision of many riders to take CERA, the new variant of EPO. They thought they were one step ahead of the game, and, had it not been for the cooperation of the medical company responsible for its manufacture in helping WADA develop a test for it, they would have been.
Yes, those riders were caught. But for every person that gets caught, how many of them get away with it? Although these riders thought they were one step ahead of the testers, we have to ask, how many of them really are? That was one test for one drug. Surely there are more and different variations out there.
As cycling heads into its off-season, it will fall off the radar of many fans. Though most of us won't forget about what has happened this season and in previous years, when the races start up again, it won't take us long to remember the cheats of professional cycling. (I mean, really, it's easy- they won't be lining up for the races!)
But seriously, this has to stop. There won't be any races left for us to watch or athletes to encourage if this behaviour keeps up. It's a sport and I think that gets lost on a lot of people when they decide drugs are necessary to win.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
It's been a long time since I have written anything on this blog.
I had a busy spring/summer working, trying to ride as much as possible, and getting ready for law school. (For anyone who read any of my previous posts about getting into law school, good news, I finally did!) Sadly, it didn't leave much time for blogging.
Now that school has been underway for over a month, I have found myself with even less free time. Again, trying to ride a bit, balance life (I got engaged and bought a condo in the past few weeks) and deal with a very heavy first-year course load has taken up a fair chunk of time. In fact, balancing everything has been the biggest challenge so far.
It's not easy to know where to cut. School? That wouldn't make sense. Riding? I know I would just get miserable if I cut training. Life? Well, I probably wouldn't have a fiance if I took that route.
It's really easy to get overwhelmed with law school. There's a lot of work, a lot of really smart people (I still sit there wondering if they made a mistake by admitting me) and endless opportunities. It also seems like everything we learn is important, so you try (and stress) to absorb it all. I'm not sure if it's possible (or even necessary), but it does get a little overwhelming.
One thing that is certain is that I do really like it. I have found very few classes boring and most of the readings (despite being unnecessarily long at times) have been very interesting. So, perhaps a little bit of the focus of this blog, from now on, will be to reflect on school.
But what about cycling? From a fan's perspective, three moments marked this season for me as one of the best in recent memory. First, Michael Barry won a stage of the Tour of Missouri. Second, Svein Tuft's silver medal for Canada in the ITT at the World Championships this year was mind blowing.
However, the third, although I don't want to classify it as more important than the other two, was pretty amazing. I got to meet Lance Armstrong about a month ago. It was a very interesting experience that, although it didn't consist of more than a handshake and the privilege to listen to him speak from just a few feet away, was quite remarkable. Regardless of what I or other people think of his career, he still won 7 Tours de France.
It was also just a few days after he announced his comeback, so the excitement was a bit higher. Let's just say that a few of the guys that I ride with regularly were present to here the speech, but were very jealous when I got to meet him and they didn't.
Anyway, thanks to the printing off of a rather long document that I need to read, I have been able to write this post. It's also a great way to avoid reading said document. My plan is to get back on here a little more often to reflect a little bit about cycling, law school, politics and coffee.
By the way, for you Canadians, make sure you go out and vote on October 14th! I won't say who I am voting for, nor will I encourage who I think you should choose, but we need to dig ourselves out of complacency and take action by making our voices heard through the ballot box. Elections matter. Make sure you pick the party that reflects YOUR values and don't get caught up in the political rhetoric. Take some time to educate yourselves on what consequences your vote (or lack of a vote) could have.
Cheers.
I had a busy spring/summer working, trying to ride as much as possible, and getting ready for law school. (For anyone who read any of my previous posts about getting into law school, good news, I finally did!) Sadly, it didn't leave much time for blogging.
Now that school has been underway for over a month, I have found myself with even less free time. Again, trying to ride a bit, balance life (I got engaged and bought a condo in the past few weeks) and deal with a very heavy first-year course load has taken up a fair chunk of time. In fact, balancing everything has been the biggest challenge so far.
It's not easy to know where to cut. School? That wouldn't make sense. Riding? I know I would just get miserable if I cut training. Life? Well, I probably wouldn't have a fiance if I took that route.
It's really easy to get overwhelmed with law school. There's a lot of work, a lot of really smart people (I still sit there wondering if they made a mistake by admitting me) and endless opportunities. It also seems like everything we learn is important, so you try (and stress) to absorb it all. I'm not sure if it's possible (or even necessary), but it does get a little overwhelming.
One thing that is certain is that I do really like it. I have found very few classes boring and most of the readings (despite being unnecessarily long at times) have been very interesting. So, perhaps a little bit of the focus of this blog, from now on, will be to reflect on school.
But what about cycling? From a fan's perspective, three moments marked this season for me as one of the best in recent memory. First, Michael Barry won a stage of the Tour of Missouri. Second, Svein Tuft's silver medal for Canada in the ITT at the World Championships this year was mind blowing.
However, the third, although I don't want to classify it as more important than the other two, was pretty amazing. I got to meet Lance Armstrong about a month ago. It was a very interesting experience that, although it didn't consist of more than a handshake and the privilege to listen to him speak from just a few feet away, was quite remarkable. Regardless of what I or other people think of his career, he still won 7 Tours de France.
It was also just a few days after he announced his comeback, so the excitement was a bit higher. Let's just say that a few of the guys that I ride with regularly were present to here the speech, but were very jealous when I got to meet him and they didn't.
Anyway, thanks to the printing off of a rather long document that I need to read, I have been able to write this post. It's also a great way to avoid reading said document. My plan is to get back on here a little more often to reflect a little bit about cycling, law school, politics and coffee.
By the way, for you Canadians, make sure you go out and vote on October 14th! I won't say who I am voting for, nor will I encourage who I think you should choose, but we need to dig ourselves out of complacency and take action by making our voices heard through the ballot box. Elections matter. Make sure you pick the party that reflects YOUR values and don't get caught up in the political rhetoric. Take some time to educate yourselves on what consequences your vote (or lack of a vote) could have.
Cheers.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Shipping Costs on eBay
I would consider myself a moderate eBay user. Judging by my personal rating, I have made just over 60 purchases since I opened an account roughly five years ago.
Most of my transactions have gone fairly smoothly. Sometimes it takes a while for an item to arrive and once I bought something that never came. It took months for me to get a refund, but I did eventually get it.
I've never really had a problem, but lately, I feel like I am getting totally ripped off with inflated shipping costs. I am being charged one amount and then when the item arrives, I find out the actual shipping price is much cheaper.
I realize that sellers on eBay have to take the time to pack the item, go to the post office and send it off. But that's part of being a seller. Shipping costs shouldn't reflect the labour and time it takes to send the item. A shipping cost is what it costs to send the item.
Yesterday I received a couple of bike tires and a new seat from a seller in New York State. He charged me $35 USD for the shipping (combined, he says, for the 5 items I bought.)
When it arrived, the shipping label said $21. A $14 difference!
I contacted the seller and I am awaiting his response.
On one occasion, I was refunded the difference when the discrepancy was significant. It was a difference of $8, which meant I couldn't withdraw it from my PayPal account but rather had to wait until the next time I made an eBay purchase and use it for that. (They have a $10 minimum withdrawal limit, and even then, they charge you a fee.)
This just seems to be happening far too often lately. Even small amounts are getting annoying. I paid $6 to have a derailleur shipped, and then found out the actual cost was $2.
It's frustrating. The sad part is that there doesn't seem to be any effective way of controlling it, apart from the rating you give the seller. But even still, I doubt it's that effective.
I have started dealing with other local classified sites because of this problem. For bike parts, Canadian Cyclist has a great listing and Craiglist is good for local purchases.
There's no real conclusion to this post, but the issue stands as a significant problem.
Most of my transactions have gone fairly smoothly. Sometimes it takes a while for an item to arrive and once I bought something that never came. It took months for me to get a refund, but I did eventually get it.
I've never really had a problem, but lately, I feel like I am getting totally ripped off with inflated shipping costs. I am being charged one amount and then when the item arrives, I find out the actual shipping price is much cheaper.
I realize that sellers on eBay have to take the time to pack the item, go to the post office and send it off. But that's part of being a seller. Shipping costs shouldn't reflect the labour and time it takes to send the item. A shipping cost is what it costs to send the item.
Yesterday I received a couple of bike tires and a new seat from a seller in New York State. He charged me $35 USD for the shipping (combined, he says, for the 5 items I bought.)
When it arrived, the shipping label said $21. A $14 difference!
I contacted the seller and I am awaiting his response.
On one occasion, I was refunded the difference when the discrepancy was significant. It was a difference of $8, which meant I couldn't withdraw it from my PayPal account but rather had to wait until the next time I made an eBay purchase and use it for that. (They have a $10 minimum withdrawal limit, and even then, they charge you a fee.)
This just seems to be happening far too often lately. Even small amounts are getting annoying. I paid $6 to have a derailleur shipped, and then found out the actual cost was $2.
It's frustrating. The sad part is that there doesn't seem to be any effective way of controlling it, apart from the rating you give the seller. But even still, I doubt it's that effective.
I have started dealing with other local classified sites because of this problem. For bike parts, Canadian Cyclist has a great listing and Craiglist is good for local purchases.
There's no real conclusion to this post, but the issue stands as a significant problem.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Gomery's Recommendations Go Unanswered, Harper Defends His Government's Actions
In an article in the Globe and Mail today, there is much fanfare about the comments made by Justice John Gomery yesterday to the House committee on government operations.
More than two years after his report calling for greater government accountability following the sponsorship scandal, Gomery says his recommendations have fallen on deaf ears.
As he spoke to MPs yesterday, Gomery took a shot at the current Conservative government for not having followed through on his recommendations. He accused the government of not carrying out their 2006 election promise to make Canadian government more transparent and accountable.
Gomery went as far as to say that any government was effectively "sowing the seeds of its own defeat" by acting so secretly.
Recently, the Harper Conservatives have come under fire for refusing to release information on Afghan detainee transfers as well as other transparency problems. And, if anything, over the course of this minority government, power has become more and more centralized in the hands of the Prime Minister, something Gomery staunchly stood out against.
However, during Question Period yesterday, Harper defended his government's actions to ignore putting the Gomery recommendations into practice. He cited the over 60 letters he received from former politicians and civil servants that encouraged him not to follow the Gomery recommendations.
The letters, which came from former politicians such as Bob Rae and John Manley, said it would be fundamentally wrong to shift the burden of accountability away from elected officials and onto civil servants.
On CBC's The National At Issue panel last night and in her column in the Toronto Star today, Chantal Hebert, makes the same case to explain why the Harper government shouldn't have followed through on Gomery's recommendations.
Hebert explains how and why Gomery feels this way- namely that he is viewing the business of the government through the filter of the sponsorship scandal- and provides a few examples of how the Harper government has "opened up," citing yesterday's vote to extend the Afghanistan mission.
I don't really know what to make of all this. There's no doubt that the Harper government hasn't followed through on its promise to make government more accountable. Just yesterday in the Globe there was an article in which the Military Police Complaints Commission accused the Harper government of not cooperating on the Afghan detainee prisoner transfer and abuse allegations file.
On the other hand, Hebert does have a point about the Afghanistan vote yesterday. To some degrees, yes, the government is more open. However, it seems that yesterday's vote was more political pandering than anything. The question about detainee abuse is another matter. In that case, they are really just trying to cover themselves from any horrible embarrassment.
I suppose, as Hebert says, Canadians will have the opportunity to judge the current government on their practices in the next federal election- whenever that comes.
More than two years after his report calling for greater government accountability following the sponsorship scandal, Gomery says his recommendations have fallen on deaf ears.
As he spoke to MPs yesterday, Gomery took a shot at the current Conservative government for not having followed through on his recommendations. He accused the government of not carrying out their 2006 election promise to make Canadian government more transparent and accountable.
Gomery went as far as to say that any government was effectively "sowing the seeds of its own defeat" by acting so secretly.
Recently, the Harper Conservatives have come under fire for refusing to release information on Afghan detainee transfers as well as other transparency problems. And, if anything, over the course of this minority government, power has become more and more centralized in the hands of the Prime Minister, something Gomery staunchly stood out against.
However, during Question Period yesterday, Harper defended his government's actions to ignore putting the Gomery recommendations into practice. He cited the over 60 letters he received from former politicians and civil servants that encouraged him not to follow the Gomery recommendations.
The letters, which came from former politicians such as Bob Rae and John Manley, said it would be fundamentally wrong to shift the burden of accountability away from elected officials and onto civil servants.
On CBC's The National At Issue panel last night and in her column in the Toronto Star today, Chantal Hebert, makes the same case to explain why the Harper government shouldn't have followed through on Gomery's recommendations.
Hebert explains how and why Gomery feels this way- namely that he is viewing the business of the government through the filter of the sponsorship scandal- and provides a few examples of how the Harper government has "opened up," citing yesterday's vote to extend the Afghanistan mission.
I don't really know what to make of all this. There's no doubt that the Harper government hasn't followed through on its promise to make government more accountable. Just yesterday in the Globe there was an article in which the Military Police Complaints Commission accused the Harper government of not cooperating on the Afghan detainee prisoner transfer and abuse allegations file.
On the other hand, Hebert does have a point about the Afghanistan vote yesterday. To some degrees, yes, the government is more open. However, it seems that yesterday's vote was more political pandering than anything. The question about detainee abuse is another matter. In that case, they are really just trying to cover themselves from any horrible embarrassment.
I suppose, as Hebert says, Canadians will have the opportunity to judge the current government on their practices in the next federal election- whenever that comes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
