"Steals it on the line!": Lorena Wiebes left red-faced as early celebration lets Marianne Vos snatch Amstel Gold Race win

don simon fbpe wrote:

I could have wasted so much time watching the race, now the result is up there, I can do other things. Cheers.

Every time you complain about this. Has it not occurred to you that maybe the best thing to do is not to visit a site devoted to road cycling and racing if you don't want to know the result?

Or perhaps piss poor journalists could learn how to write headlines without spoilers? It's not hard. I could indeed stop using the site to avoid spoilers, but that would defeat the purpose of the site while there's a shit load of races happening. That's a very poor response even from you.

Staggering narcissism, you want the journalists to report on the result of races without actually putting the result in the headlines so that you can watch the race at your leisure without knowing the result. Either watch the race live or don't come here until you've watched the recording of it. There is nothing "piss poor" about journalists including the result of a race in a headline to an article about who won the race. Stop being ridiculous.

Staggering victim blaming, but only to be expected. Have you ever noticed that commentators have started to feel the backlash of spoilers when commentating as they are aware that once they have spoiled the result people won't watch? They actually do that, good to see you keeping up the condascending "stop being ridiculous" shite, you are a special one. And I'm not wasting more time engaging with stupids, chao!

EDIT, I have enjoyed watching the women racing some of the same roads on the same day as the men, logistical nightmare and totally ridiculous, but still good to watch (without spoilers too)...

don simon fbpe wrote:

Staggering victim blaming

You think you are a "victim" because you chose to come to a cycling website and saw the result of a race that you didn't want to know? A "victim"? Absolutely hilarious.

Have you been watching any racing where they've followed your ridiculous suggestion and had "women mixing it up with the men"? Didn't think so.

don simon fbpe wrote:

good to see you keeping up the condascending

It's spelled condescending, dear.

Rendel Harris wrote:

don simon fbpe wrote:

Staggering victim blaming

You think you are a "victim" because you chose to come to a cycling website and saw the result of a race that you didn't want to know? A "victim"?Absolutely hilarious.

Have you been watching any racing where they've followed your ridiculous suggestion and had "women mixing it up with the men"? Didn't think so.

 

Isn't that what children do?

I couldn't watch Paris-Roubaix or Amstel Gold live this year. My partner totally understands when I tell her I'm going on a social media blackout until after I've watched the race to avoid a spoiler. 

KDee wrote:

I couldn't watch Paris-Roubaix or Amstel Gold live this year. My partner totally understands when I tell her I'm going on a social media blackout until after I've watched the race to avoid a spoiler. 

Because Mrs H teaches during the day, whereas I work from home, during the Grand Tours I will watch the coverage until about 50 km out then pause it until she gets home, then we watch the finale together. While I'm waiting for her to come home I don't come to the road.cc website and, like you, I avoid social media where I might see the result. Funnily enough I don't think that makes me a victim!

"then the women would swiftly be dropped* and you'd end up with two separate races on course at the same time, which would be a logistical nightmare in terms of team cars, ambulances, TV coverage etc."

I wonder which prick said this in their haste to "win" whatever they think they're winning. Of course, there was no logistical nightmare in terms of team cars, ambulances and TV coverage on the recent Itzulia, men's race.

I have a strange feeling of deja-vu abut this thread.  Isn't there something on the other channel about helmets?

I've just found out Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's dad. Don't tell anyone.

Ah man...don't tell me which episode that's in 

don simon fbpe wrote:

"then the women would swiftly be dropped* and you'd end up with two separate races on course at the same time, which would be a logistical nightmare in terms of team cars, ambulances, TV coverage etc."

I wonder which prick said this in their haste to "win" whatever they think they're winning. Of course, there was no logistical nightmare in terms of team cars, ambulances and TV coverage on the recent Itzulia, men's race.

That's what I said would happen if organisers followed your ridiculous suggestion that men and women should race together (direct quote, "Let the women mix it up with the men"). And that is what would happen. Racing the same course on the same day, not at the same time, is complex but can be made to work, although it's not ideal as has been seen in the past where women have been forced to have their race shortened or even to come to a standstill whilst a problem with the men's race has been sorted out.

How's that not wasting any more time engaging with me working out for you?

Don't go changing what you said, dear, makes you look a proper twunt. Just make sure you're riding cruiser brakes with this new found taste for back pedalling. I assume you do have a bike. You'll be able to explain why race coverage flips between the live men's and live women's race on the same day and course, won't you? All without changing your story.

Now get back to annoying someone else with your trolling. It really doesn't take long to get the right wingers masks to slip, does it? Here we have another people loving "left winger" who not only revels in telling women what to do, but has a little wank dance when they think they're upsetting someone else, right up with that other right wing dickhead.

What a peculiar little person. I want to tell women what to do? I believe it's you who said that the solution to low financing for women's races was to make them race with the men, and ever since you've been sulking about the fact that I pointed out just how ridiculous that idea was. As for calling me a right winger, that is so far beneath contempt I'm not going to give you details of how much of my life has been spent campaigning for left-wing causes and volunteering for left-wing organisations, because you're simply not worth the bother.

By the way I was amused the other day to see, when I was looking at an archived article on this site, that your username was present in the comments about five years ago. Of course we all know that if you change your username on this site it changes for every comment you've made in the past, you certainly weren't here under your current name back then so would you care to tell everyone what your previous username was and why you've changed it?

But your actions and words betray you pretensions of being left wing.

Nice to know you've been stalking me too, and, of course, if I have changed a user name (something I'm not aware of beyond the fbpe addition), you'll be happy to tell me the reasons behind doing so (along with evidence as I'm intreeged to know what other names I may have used, but I'm sure you've convinced yourself it's for malitious reasons).

Do you want to know what I've found about you in the archives here?

Crumbs. This all looks strangely familiar.

don simon fbpe wrote:

Do you want to know what I've found about you in the archives here?

Sure, go for it.

Fuck all because I'm not sad enough to go looking.

Rendel Harris wrote:

don simon fbpe wrote:

Do you want to know what I've found about you in the archives here?

Sure, go for it.

Hahahahaha you have been so stitched up trendy, that you might as well just give up. 

Why don't you get a life

I picture you lying semi-conscious in your hole, the occasional twitch of your snout the only indicator of any brain activity. But as soon as you sniff the slightest opportunity to post your bile, it's all systems go, and out you crawl in in a frenzy of hate, anger and impotent frustration. Job done, you slither back underground, where you are overcome by a sense of profound satisfaction and return to your near-vegetative state.

Am I close?

don simon fbpe wrote:

Or perhaps piss poor journalists could learn how to write headlines without spoilers? It's not hard. I could indeed stop using the site to avoid spoilers, but that would defeat the purpose of the site while there's a shit load of races happening. That's a very poor response even from you.

Could you find me a single example of journalists reporting on a sporting event where the headline doesn't include a spoiler?  Any sport; any publication or website.

GCN managed it in their covearge quite well. Eurosport do a decent job with their programme thumbnails too. But you're right.

don simon fbpe wrote:

GCN managed it in their covearge quite well. Eurosport do a decent job with their programme thumbnails too. But you're right.

There's a big difference between a highlights programme and written coverage.  To take a simple example - BBC Match of the Day doesn't tell you the results before you watch the highlights, but the BBC Sport website does.

MotD actually does give spoilers and I've never understood it.

don simon fbpe wrote:

MotD actually does give spoilers and I've never understood it.

I stand corrected.  I only ever watch it when Palace win.  So not very often.

Anyway, this discussion puts me in mind of the classic "Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads" episode.