The Paceline Podcast #27

The Paceline Podcast #27

The dash down Peyresourde. The run up Ventoux. There are plenty of Chris Froome highlights to choose from, but which one tops them all? We take a stab at picking the top Froomey moment and a couple may surprise you. We also pick our non-Froome moments from TDF ’16. And the Paceline puts in its proposal for a fifth jersey. We have some ideas on what that competition should be and a color for that jersey.

The Paceline gets back on what of its regular topics: advocacy. Padraig expands on his post on supporting not just one, but a number of groups doing work so we can ride. The idea is to spread the wealth.

IMBA has responded to the bill introduced in Congress that would open up the Wilderness Act and allow local land managers to decide if mountain bikes should bed allowe on trails.

We have a follow up to a city council’s dilemma about what kind of signage to post in their community. There was a vote and we have the results. The City of Palos Verdes Estates has taken a major step forward but there is more to be resolved.

Gear stuff: another electronic group set has been spied at the Tour. But FSA is still giving us the silent treatment on how it all works. And Padraig has a review of the station wagon of bikes. You will be surprised as to how much fun it can be to ride.

 

 

Courtesey of Michael Barraclough

Courtesy of Michael Barraclough

 

Show Links:

Laurens Ten Dam Facebook page

Advocacy by Padraig

IMBA response to Wilderness Act bill

City Votes for “3 Feet It’s the Law” signs

Spicy Curry

Fatty’s fundraiser. You donate and decide what he should ride

, , , , , , , ,

3 comments

  1. Quentin

    I love the orange jersey idea. Make it happen Strava and ASO! If they want to test it out, do it in one of ASO’s one week stage races. The sponsorship cost of doing something like that I should be manageable for someone like Strava and would, I think, pay off.

    Here’s what I think is going on with Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee and the Wilderness Act bill: conservatives really like the idea of local control. They would point to the part of the constitution that gives powers to the states that aren’t explicitly claimed by the federal government as a core conservative principle and argue that even federal decision making should be made as locally as possible. In this case, I tend to think it’s a good idea. The responses by IMBA and everyone else who is wary of the sponsors seem like classic “slippery slope” arguments, which I generally tend to find uncompelling. Having said that, I still have this nagging (though maybe irrational) fear that this could somehow be abused in a way that enables people like those yahoos in Oregon last winter, and I wonder if that isn’t what is on the minds of other skeptics of the bill. However, it sounds like the scope is sufficiently narrow that there shouldn’t be anything to worry about.

  2. Jon Edwards

    Concerning the “public land seizure” agenda, this is a reference to the support many western politicians have for the divestment of public lands. Mike Lee says as much here: http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/issue-lands.

    I would love to see more users on public lands for exactly the reasons you stated; more individuals with vested interests in land management. However, I think suspicion of the motives of Senators Lee and Hatch is merited.

    (I am a couple weeks behind in my paceline listening, so if you have readdressed this topic, I apologize.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *