Noyes on AMA. Again

Carl Sundquist wrote:
> "Mark N" wrote
>>
>> I don't think rules matter that much to TV, or Nascar would have never
>> even gotten off the ground on the air with their convoluted, always-
>> changing rules. What really matters to TV is the feature class, the
>> rest is for the hard core. Close racing at the front matters, but how
>> deep the field is and what's going on down there doesn't. It's easy to
>> follow the leaders on TV, but can be much tougher at the track once
>> the leaders are into backmarkers. Etc.
>
> It's not _all_ rules, just elemental ones that need to be consistent.
> What got NASCAR off the ground was the identity of personalities within
> the sport. And that is no different than any other sport on TV...
> But even the media
> knows that isn't enough, so they create all those inane "up close and
> personal" segments (something they know is so important they start
> research and interviews two years before the big event). Even with the
> "specialness" of the Olympics, they still know "you don't know who's
> playin' without a program". Last fall, toward the end of the NASCAR
> "chase", I had the (probably 70 year old) mother of one of my clients
> tell me that on the previous Sunday, she couldn't find her Jeff Gordon
> jacket (maybe her son hid it, who knows) so she took a sticky note,
> wrote 24 on it and pinned it to her shirt so it would stay on while she
> was jumping up and down toward the end of the race. She probably
> couldn't have cared if they were driving F1 cars or Yugos. She loves the
> sport because she's a fan of the competitors.

I haven't followed it all nearly close enough to understand why Nascar
has been so successful, but I suspect MUCH more complex than what is
being discussed here, and hardly all because of superior promotion.
First off, Nascar really came on during the Cart-IndyCar war, and the
big problem there was that Cart had most of the teams and the fastest
drivers and cars, but they didn't have Indy and they were road
course-focused (I think oval racing appeals more to an American mass
audience), and became SOB (south of the border) dominated in the seats.
But in Nascar the drivers were all white and clearly all-American, and
the cars were as well, in addition to being identifiable with what was
in the driveway of any true patriot. That there is now the notion of the
Nascar crowd as an identifiable voting block says a lot about the
psychology at play there - I do not for a minute believe Nascar fans
cross cultural and economic and racial boundaries as thoroughly as
baseball or football do. It is as much a social phenomenon as a racing
marketing success story and probably much more so.

>> Again, I'm talking about growing the live gate, which is where it all
>> starts. Skipping that and going directly to TV is a big risk, and it
>> also is likely a strategy which would include gimmicks, which is how
>> most people probably think you can make a quick spash and quick buck.
>> That's part of what I would be concerned about with some of the
>> possible suitors for this job, they may not have an interest in the
>> long-term health of the sport at heart.
>
> Growing the live gate just isn't going to take the sport far enough even
> with 10 times the number of events. Sponsors need volume unless they are
> philanthropic, and you simply can't achieve the volume or justify the
> sponsorship with a 50 or even 100k live gate at a dozen events. That's
> 1.2 million total viewings max., spread out over an entire season. And
> the sponsors' advertisements are only effective within your immediate
> area.

I'm not talking about live attendance in lieu of television, I'm saying
you can't just try to grow the sport through television without also
growing the gate. In general, sports start with people making money
selling tickets, and then the TV cameras show up so people who would
like to be there and can't are able to see it anyway. Obviously that's
an old model which doesn't quite apply the way it used to, but without
the live gate you just have a TV show.

Do you think Miller was built with the expectation of a 100k live
> gate for AMA or most other professional motorsports events? Doubtful.

Actually, it was built as Miller's personal track, for him and his
friends and for club-type racing, and as it was built the plan kept
changing and growing. Today that is the expectation, or close to it -
what do you think he hopes to see when WSB comes to town in June?

> Unless a motorport event event has a tradition of live attendance, TV
> producers don't care how many people may or may not be in the stands.

No, they care about who will watch on TV. But if they scout a
prospective sport at a live event and only see a few hundred fans, will
they put it on the tube? I doubt it, too risky. They have to feel there
are real fans out there, and that can be measured by attendance.

> Naturally, the promoter does, but if the event is a big or unique enough
> sell on TV, then TV will subsidize the promoter to suport the event.

I don't think that's the case in racing - Dorna and FGSport don't give
any of the TV money to promoters, for the most part they don't let them
even profit from signage which will be seen on TV (think about the
Miller WSB/AMA dual course thing). Tracks and promoters sink or swim
based on the gate.

> That _can_ lead to gimmickry if TV decides the popularity of the event
> supercedes the location and tries to coerce a switch to less costly (for
> them) location. That's when the sanctioning body hopefully has enough
> balls to organize with the promoter and the surrounding area that
> benefits from the economic impact of the event and persuade TV not to
> yank them around. If Network A tells them to kiss off, at that point
> they can sell their already successful product to Network B with
> conditions in place to keep the monkeys from running the zoo.

I think what you're really talking about is someone controlling the
commercial side of the sport. In the case of Dorna and FGSport, they
want and get TV money, series sponsorship money, and also sanctioning
fees. The latter requires attendance, because no one is going to pay for
what they can't recoup (well, almost no one). But TV is the big ticket,
and that's why they have run their series in ways that distorted the
competition in order to give the fans (at home) what they want.

So TV is why GP goes to Qatar, which has a less-than-great circuit and
no fan base but track owners willing and able to lose huge amounts of
money. But the lack of fan base in Turkey has led to the elimination of
one of the very best circuits on the tour, and that's because the
promoters can't make enough money on the gate and can't afford to run it
at a loss.
 >> Stay informed about: Noyes on AMA. Again 

"Mark N" <menusbaum.TakeThisOut@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13otvd897k6d4e6@corp.supernews.com...
> Carl Sundquist wrote:
>> "Mark N" wrote
>>>
>>> I don't think rules matter that much to TV, or Nascar would have never
>>> even gotten off the ground on the air with their convoluted, always-
>>> changing rules. What really matters to TV is the feature class, the
>>> rest is for the hard core. Close racing at the front matters, but how
>>> deep the field is and what's going on down there doesn't. It's easy to
>>> follow the leaders on TV, but can be much tougher at the track once
>>> the leaders are into backmarkers. Etc.
>>
>> It's not _all_ rules, just elemental ones that need to be consistent.
>> What got NASCAR off the ground was the identity of personalities within
>> the sport. And that is no different than any other sport on TV...
> > But even the media
>> knows that isn't enough, so they create all those inane "up close and
>> personal" segments (something they know is so important they start
>> research and interviews two years before the big event). Even with the
>> "specialness" of the Olympics, they still know "you don't know who's
>> playin' without a program". Last fall, toward the end of the NASCAR
>> "chase", I had the (probably 70 year old) mother of one of my clients
>> tell me that on the previous Sunday, she couldn't find her Jeff Gordon
>> jacket (maybe her son hid it, who knows) so she took a sticky note, wrote
>> 24 on it and pinned it to her shirt so it would stay on while she was
>> jumping up and down toward the end of the race. She probably couldn't
>> have cared if they were driving F1 cars or Yugos. She loves the sport
>> because she's a fan of the competitors.
>
> I haven't followed it all nearly close enough to understand why Nascar has
> been so successful, but I suspect MUCH more complex than what is being
> discussed here, and hardly all because of superior promotion. First off,
> Nascar really came on during the Cart-IndyCar war, and the big problem
> there was that Cart had most of the teams and the fastest drivers and
> cars, but they didn't have Indy and they were road course-focused (I think
> oval racing appeals more to an American mass audience), and became SOB
> (south of the border) dominated in the seats. But in Nascar the drivers
> were all white and clearly all-American, and the cars were as well, in
> addition to being identifiable with what was in the driveway of any true
> patriot. That there is now the notion of the Nascar crowd as an
> identifiable voting block says a lot about the psychology at play there -
> I do not for a minute believe Nascar fans cross cultural and economic and
> racial boundaries as thoroughly as baseball or football do. It is as much
> a social phenomenon as a racing marketing success story and probably much
> more so.

It's really late here so I'll just make a few quick comments, then follow up
tomorrow evening.

Yes, the NASCAR "phenomena" is more complex than that. Lots of sports are
looking to see what they can learn and apply from NASCAR. Plus I wasn't
implying that motorcycle road racing in the US should mirror NASCAR anyway.
My point was that there are (for non city-based teams) two commodities:
events and personalities. NASCAR has a big pile of personalities and a
couple of big events (well to me, as I don't closely follow it) anyway:
Daytona and Bristol. As far as developing their fan base, the rest of the
tracks are pretty much un-unique. To me, that is part of how they were able
to expand the race series from the South to across the country. Yes, it is a
social phenomenon. Do you think MC racing in the US is much less of one?

>
>>> Again, I'm talking about growing the live gate, which is where it all
>>> starts. Skipping that and going directly to TV is a big risk, and it
>>> also is likely a strategy which would include gimmicks, which is how
>>> most people probably think you can make a quick spash and quick buck.
>>> That's part of what I would be concerned about with some of the
>>> possible suitors for this job, they may not have an interest in the
>>> long-term health of the sport at heart.
>>
>> Growing the live gate just isn't going to take the sport far enough even
>> with 10 times the number of events. Sponsors need volume unless they are
>> philanthropic, and you simply can't achieve the volume or justify the
>> sponsorship with a 50 or even 100k live gate at a dozen events. That's
>> 1.2 million total viewings max., spread out over an entire season. And
>> the sponsors' advertisements are only effective within your immediate
>> area.
>
> I'm not talking about live attendance in lieu of television, I'm saying
> you can't just try to grow the sport through television without also
> growing the gate. In general, sports start with people making money
> selling tickets, and then the TV cameras show up so people who would like
> to be there and can't are able to see it anyway. Obviously that's an old
> model which doesn't quite apply the way it used to, but without the live
> gate you just have a TV show.

I'm not talking about it either. There's nothing like the sensation of being
there. But television is sanitzed to a lot of that, ergo the live gate is
inconsequential to TV. Look at all the empty stands at the Daytona 200. The
Doha is a different animal because it simply functions (as far as the race
promoter is concerned) as an advertisement for Qatar. We know that other
than the track facility, you were less than enthralled with Turkey (I don't
know if anyone who reads rmr has figured out why you picked that race to
travel to). Not a challenge, just a clarification: was it stated that the
reason there is no more Turkey on the schedule was due to poor attendance?

(New) sports (in regard to television) don't work that way anymore. TV
contracts someone to create an event; like the X Games. If it needs
nurturing, TV either puts it on a subsidiary channel or buys airtime for the
first year and promotes the hell out of it.

>
> Do you think Miller was built with the expectation of a 100k live
>> gate for AMA or most other professional motorsports events? Doubtful.
>
> Actually, it was built as Miller's personal track, for him and his friends
> and for club-type racing, and as it was built the plan kept changing and
> growing. Today that is the expectation, or close to it - what do you think
> he hopes to see when WSB comes to town in June?

That's why I said _most_. Regardless, we've all agreed that SLC is in the
middle of a rather large, fairly desolate desert. It certainly doesn't fit
the typical race course population demographic.

>
>> Unless a motorport event event has a tradition of live attendance, TV
>> producers don't care how many people may or may not be in the stands.
>
> No, they care about who will watch on TV. But if they scout a prospective
> sport at a live event and only see a few hundred fans, will they put it on
> the tube? I doubt it, too risky. They have to feel there are real fans out
> there, and that can be measured by attendance.

That can be partially obscured by camera angles.

>
>> Naturally, the promoter does, but if the event is a big or unique enough
>> sell on TV, then TV will subsidize the promoter to suport the event.
>
> I don't think that's the case in racing - Dorna and FGSport don't give any
> of the TV money to promoters, for the most part they don't let them even
> profit from signage which will be seen on TV (think about the Miller
> WSB/AMA dual course thing). Tracks and promoters sink or swim based on the
> gate.

I agree, but not entirely. What I said was that if an event is a unique
enough sell (like Daytona or Bristol for NASCAR) and TV sees viewership
value in the location (what I should have added was "where a different
location might lose viewers, say moving the MGP race from Laguna to
Thunderhill"), TV could subsidize the promoter. As long as they also pay
Dorna or whomever the appropriate fees, Dorna couldn't give a hoot. But it
all depends on what value TV perceives the product to have. But a question
here: do Dorna and FGSport produce their own TV show and sell the feed, or
does a company come in and pay Dorna for the rights, then sell the feed
themselves? I don't know.

>
>> That _can_ lead to gimmickry if TV decides the popularity of the event
>> supercedes the location and tries to coerce a switch to less costly (for
>> them) location. That's when the sanctioning body hopefully has enough
>> balls to organize with the promoter and the surrounding area that
>> benefits from the economic impact of the event and persuade TV not to
>> yank them around. If Network A tells them to kiss off, at that point they
>> can sell their already successful product to Network B with conditions in
>> place to keep the monkeys from running the zoo.
>
> I think what you're really talking about is someone controlling the
> commercial side of the sport. In the case of Dorna and FGSport, they want
> and get TV money, series sponsorship money, and also sanctioning fees. The
> latter requires attendance, because no one is going to pay for what they
> can't recoup (well, almost no one).

They do, just not in the traditional way. IMO some (like Malaysia, China,
Qatar) probably don't get great attendance, but the gate is subsidized by
the government as a source of pride and as an indicator of economic
legitimacy. Whether Turkey left the promoter out on his own, I don't know.
But (Turkey) is just a failed business decision, or should we be sentimental
and see it some other way?


> But TV is the big ticket, and that's why they have run their series in
> ways that distorted the competition in order to give the fans (at home)
> what they want.

Cite, please.

>
> So TV is why GP goes to Qatar, which has a less-than-great circuit and no
> fan base but track owners willing and able to lose huge amounts of money.
> But the lack of fan base in Turkey has led to the elimination of one of
> the very best circuits on the tour, and that's because the promoters can't
> make enough money on the gate and can't afford to run it at a loss.
 >> Stay informed about: Noyes on AMA. Again 

Carl Sundquist wrote:
>
> "Mark N" wrote
>> Carl Sundquist wrote:

>>> What got NASCAR off the ground was the identity of personalities
>>> within the sport. And that is no different than any other sport on TV...
>> > But even the media
>>> knows that isn't enough, so they create all those inane "up close and
>>> personal" segments (something they know is so important they start
>>> research and interviews two years before the big event). Even with
>>> the "specialness" of the Olympics, they still know "you don't know
>>> who's playin' without a program". Last fall, toward the end of the
>>> NASCAR "chase", I had the (probably 70 year old) mother of one of my
>>> clients tell me that on the previous Sunday, she couldn't find her
>>> Jeff Gordon jacket (maybe her son hid it, who knows) so she took a
>>> sticky note, wrote 24 on it and pinned it to her shirt so it would
>>> stay on while she was jumping up and down toward the end of the race.
>>> She probably couldn't have cared if they were driving F1 cars or
>>> Yugos. She loves the sport because she's a fan of the competitors.
>>
>> I haven't followed it all nearly close enough to understand why Nascar
>> has been so successful, but I suspect MUCH more complex than what is
>> being discussed here, and hardly all because of superior promotion.
>> First off, Nascar really came on during the Cart-IndyCar war, and the
>> big problem there was that Cart had most of the teams and the fastest
>> drivers and cars, but they didn't have Indy and they were road
>> course-focused (I think oval racing appeals more to an American mass
>> audience), and became SOB (south of the border) dominated in the
>> seats. But in Nascar the drivers were all white and clearly
>> all-American, and the cars were as well, in addition to being
>> identifiable with what was in the driveway of any true patriot. That
>> there is now the notion of the Nascar crowd as an identifiable voting
>> block says a lot about the psychology at play there - I do not for a
>> minute believe Nascar fans cross cultural and economic and racial
>> boundaries as thoroughly as baseball or football do. It is as much a
>> social phenomenon as a racing marketing success story and probably
>> much more so.
>
> Yes, the NASCAR "phenomena" is more complex than that. Lots of sports
> are looking to see what they can learn and apply from NASCAR. Plus I
> wasn't implying that motorcycle road racing in the US should mirror
> NASCAR anyway. My point was that there are (for non city-based teams)
> two commodities: events and personalities. NASCAR has a big pile of
> personalities and a couple of big events (well to me, as I don't closely
> follow it) anyway: Daytona and Bristol. As far as developing their fan
> base, the rest of the tracks are pretty much un-unique. To me, that is
> part of how they were able to expand the race series from the South to
> across the country. Yes, it is a social phenomenon. Do you think MC
> racing in the US is much less of one?

I think to some extent motorcycling is, but bike racing much less so.
The fans that go to races mostly are people who ride sport bikes, or
have some connection to bikes. I don't get the impression that all that
many car fans show up, and almost no one who doesn't have a connection
to one of those groups.

>>> Growing the live gate just isn't going to take the sport far enough
>>> even with 10 times the number of events. Sponsors need volume unless
>>> they are philanthropic, and you simply can't achieve the volume or
>>> justify the sponsorship with a 50 or even 100k live gate at a dozen
>>> events. That's 1.2 million total viewings max., spread out over an
>>> entire season. And the sponsors' advertisements are only effective
>>> within your immediate area.
>>
>> I'm not talking about live attendance in lieu of television, I'm
>> saying you can't just try to grow the sport through television without
>> also growing the gate. In general, sports start with people making
>> money selling tickets, and then the TV cameras show up so people who
>> would like to be there and can't are able to see it anyway. Obviously
>> that's an old model which doesn't quite apply the way it used to, but
>> without the live gate you just have a TV show.
>
> I'm not talking about it either. There's nothing like the sensation of
> being there. But television is sanitzed to a lot of that, ergo the live
> gate is inconsequential to TV. Look at all the empty stands at the
> Daytona 200. The Doha is a different animal because it simply functions
> (as far as the race promoter is concerned) as an advertisement for
> Qatar. We know that other than the track facility, you were less than
> enthralled with Turkey (I don't know if anyone who reads rmr has figured
> out why you picked that race to travel to).

Actually, you have that very wrong - I really liked Turkey, although I
didn't see much more than Istanbul, and I'd love to go back to see more.
I picked that in part because the track seemed great, in part because it
isn't a zoo to attend (like the Spanish races, for instance, or Mugello,
or Assen, or...), and in part because the notion of actually being in
Istanbul was very appealing.

Not a challenge, just a
> clarification: was it stated that the reason there is no more Turkey on
> the schedule was due to poor attendance?

It's more complicated than that, but that was a factor. The track was
built and the race happened as part of the larger strategy of
"Europeanization", the effort to be admitted to the EU. But the track
lost money, and the city eventually sold out to Ecclestone, which was
the death knell of the race. [His purchase of the track was announced
during the last GP last year, and his first act was to significantly
raise the fee for the teams staying over to test after the race.] It got
dropped because it wasn't a critical component in the calendar, at a
time when the series was looking to add more races, principally Indy.
That again related to attendance and the sense that it wasn't an
important event, and there was no one making a big stink to keep it.

> (New) sports (in regard to television) don't work that way anymore. TV
> contracts someone to create an event; like the X Games. If it needs
> nurturing, TV either puts it on a subsidiary channel or buys airtime for
> the first year and promotes the hell out of it.

That's the sort of "made for TV" spectacle that I would hate to be in
bike racing's future. It seems like quick buck and gone stuff generally.
I really think you still need a live fan base to make any sport work in
the longer run, it's the foundation of the sport.

>> Do you think Miller was built with the expectation of a 100k live
>>> gate for AMA or most other professional motorsports events? Doubtful.
>>
>> Actually, it was built as Miller's personal track, for him and his
>> friends and for club-type racing, and as it was built the plan kept
>> changing and growing. Today that is the expectation, or close to it -
>> what do you think he hopes to see when WSB comes to town in June?
>
> That's why I said _most_. Regardless, we've all agreed that SLC is in
> the middle of a rather large, fairly desolate desert. It certainly
> doesn't fit the typical race course population demographic.

Ah, I don't know about that, at least in the west - look at Willow,
Laguna, Sears, Phoenix IR, PPIR. They are all located well outside the
significant population centers and on rather desolate ground, and newer
tracks like Buttonwillow and Thunderhill even more so. Big ovals like
Las Vegas and Fontana are closer, but hardly anything like big team
sport stadiums. Miller really isn't that unusual, I don't think, tracks
have to be on very cheap ground because they use a lot of it and don't
bring in that much money. What they tend to be close to are major
traffic arteries.

>>> Unless a motorport event event has a tradition of live attendance, TV
>>> producers don't care how many people may or may not be in the stands.
>>
>> No, they care about who will watch on TV. But if they scout a
>> prospective sport at a live event and only see a few hundred fans,
>> will they put it on the tube? I doubt it, too risky. They have to feel
>> there are real fans out there, and that can be measured by attendance.
>
> That can be partially obscured by camera angles.

I'm not talking about appearances on TV, I'm talking about the notion
that there are people out there who will watch.

>>> Naturally, the promoter does, but if the event is a big or unique
>>> enough sell on TV, then TV will subsidize the promoter to suport the
>>> event.
>>
>> I don't think that's the case in racing - Dorna and FGSport don't give
>> any of the TV money to promoters, for the most part they don't let
>> them even profit from signage which will be seen on TV (think about
>> the Miller WSB/AMA dual course thing). Tracks and promoters sink or
>> swim based on the gate.
>
> I agree, but not entirely. What I said was that if an event is a unique
> enough sell (like Daytona or Bristol for NASCAR) and TV sees viewership
> value in the location (what I should have added was "where a different
> location might lose viewers, say moving the MGP race from Laguna to
> Thunderhill"), TV could subsidize the promoter. As long as they also pay
> Dorna or whomever the appropriate fees, Dorna couldn't give a hoot. But
> it all depends on what value TV perceives the product to have. But a
> question here: do Dorna and FGSport produce their own TV show and sell
> the feed, or does a company come in and pay Dorna for the rights, then
> sell the feed themselves? I don't know.

I don't know about FGSport, but my impression is that Dorna does it all
- they have their broadcast team, they show the races on their pay
website, they run the post-race interviews, etc. Others can buy the feed
and add their own commentary, but it's not like the networks and the NFL
or something.

>>> That _can_ lead to gimmickry if TV decides the popularity of the
>>> event supercedes the location and tries to coerce a switch to less
>>> costly (for them) location. That's when the sanctioning body
>>> hopefully has enough balls to organize with the promoter and the
>>> surrounding area that benefits from the economic impact of the event
>>> and persuade TV not to yank them around. If Network A tells them to
>>> kiss off, at that point they can sell their already successful
>>> product to Network B with conditions in place to keep the monkeys
>>> from running the zoo.
>>
>> I think what you're really talking about is someone controlling the
>> commercial side of the sport. In the case of Dorna and FGSport, they
>> want and get TV money, series sponsorship money, and also sanctioning
>> fees. The latter requires attendance, because no one is going to pay
>> for what they can't recoup (well, almost no one).
>
> They do, just not in the traditional way. IMO some (like Malaysia,
> China, Qatar) probably don't get great attendance, but the gate is
> subsidized by the government as a source of pride and as an indicator of
> economic legitimacy. Whether Turkey left the promoter out on his own, I
> don't know. But (Turkey) is just a failed business decision, or should
> we be sentimental and see it some other way?

My problem with some of the decisions made has been that the quality of
the show on TV has suffered. Look at the tracks GP goes to today and
look at tracks they gone to over the last 20 years or so - the quality
has dropped (from a non-safety standpoint, talking layout). Turkey is
just another example and that it's being replaced by Indy as well. Give
me Spa, Paul Ricard, Monza, Salzburgring, even Hockenheim or Imola.
Seems like no one really cares about that...

>> But TV is the big ticket, and that's why they have run their series in
>> ways that distorted the competition in order to give the fans (at
>> home) what they want.
>
> Cite, please.

GP: Rossi. Bridgestone. Yellow flag passing exemption. Last corner
ramming exemption. Pedrosa. Bridgestone. No rider minimum weights. WSB:
Ducati. Ducati. Ducati.
 >> Stay informed about: Noyes on AMA. Again 

Carl Sundquist <carlsun.DeleteThis@cox.net> Thu, 17 Jan 2008 02:04:13
>Whether Turkey left the promoter out on his own, I don't know. But
>(Turkey) is just a failed business decision, or should we be
>sentimental and see it some other way?

I thought the evil Bernie Ecclestone had a hand in this. Something like
F1 buying the rights to the circuit and refusing the bikes entry.

On which note be very afraid. There's a rumour that F1 wants to come to
Philip Island.

--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
To Be Is To Perceive
 >> Stay informed about: Noyes on AMA. Again 

"T3" <notme.TakeThisOut@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:47910d8f$0$5008$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> However, you seem to have everyone catalogued, Bond's a Yank hater,
> Champ's a chump, Carl's a jerk outsider, Tweak's a redneck and on and on
> ad Nusbaumium. I guess you haven't affixed a label to Alexey yet, as he
> hasn't been around that long, though there's probably little doubt in
> anyone's mind it's coming.

This is perfect.

Not the labels, but relative to the discussion about growing the sport. For
all the head-scratching and finger-pointing, this is why motorcycle racing,
despite it's considerable financial resources, is and will continue to be a
niche sport in the USA. IIRC, Mark has felt frustrated at the lack of
[meaningful] participation in the newsgroup and has felt that he needs to
provide stimulus to help the NG survive and thrive. But it doesn't thrive.
It is not flourishing. Certainly (hopefully?) there are more lurkers than
posters on this, which is probably one of the closest things to an American
road racing NG. Yet even including the sporadic contributors, the posters
appear to total in the low dozens, an number which hasn't shown much change
that I've seen. If this NG is indicative of trying to increase the live gate
and nurture the sport sufficiently into the mainstream where the sport is
truly presented for the masses to enjoy, it is astoundingly inept.

P.S. Don't take it personally. Almost every niche sport behaves in a similar
manner.
 >> Stay informed about: Noyes on AMA. Again 

Carl Sundquist <carlsun DeleteThis @cox.net> Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:18:12
>P.S. Don't take it personally. Almost every niche sport behaves in a
>similar manner.

Feels to me like it's Usenet that's dead (as a forum for discussion),
not just this newsgroup. There are a few places where people talk about
M/C racing obsessively and with rather less rancour. Maybe it's finally
time to move. It's a shame, because I prefer the email/usenet
environment to web forums.

Anyone got a favourite? This one's not bad.
http://www.pbmagforum.com/forum34/

--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
Lemon Scented
 >> Stay informed about: Noyes on AMA. Again 

Howard Kveck wrote:

> There is one thing about this that I was wondering about. Considering how
> Johnny-On-The-Spot you normally are about correcting people's mistakes, Mark, why
> didn't you point that out at the time? Instead of letting it hang until now, that
> is...

Well, it happened in a part of the discussion in which I wasn't directly
involved, and it really wasn't a material issue, Tom was in fact
correct, although his personal attestation of that was patently false.
Given that he was in general alignment with me on that topic and that
position apparently was/is decidedly a minority position in this group
for whatever reason, I chose not to undermine his statement on that
basis. But I sure as hell made personal note of the behavior.

I don't know, it seems far less a lie than a simple case of misspeaking
to me.

Well, you would say that, because you're part of the mob here. Tell me,
what would it take for you to break from the crowd and actually say
something that might be deemed as supporting me over one of your fellow
mobsters? In mobbing behavior, there is an unspoken rule that one can
almost do or claim anything as long as it aids or assists in the general
purpose of the mob, the scapegoating of a particular individual, and the
fellow conspirators will not take any action. Frankly, I expected to
read this sort of thing from some of you guys*, even as blatant and
obvious as Tom's lie was. And even though he has so far offered no
defense of it at all.

So tell me, what sort of thing would Tom have to do in order for you not
to defend him here? If he claimed the sun rises in the west and I called
him an idiot and fabricator, would you step in and say something like,
"The whole notions of the sun rising and east and west are really
falacious, based on ancient ideas of the mechanics of the universe, so I
think Tom has a good point"?


* I do note and credit Sundquist's efforts to somewhat separate himself
from the mob here - reinforces one's faith in humanity to a degree, and
even in bicyclists...
 >> Stay informed about: Noyes on AMA. Again 

On 2008-01-19 04:28:13 -0500, Julian Bond <julian_bond RemoveThis @voidstar.com> said:

> Carl Sundquist <carlsun RemoveThis @cox.net> Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:18:12
>> P.S. Don't take it personally. Almost every niche sport behaves in a
>> similar manner.
>
> Feels to me like it's Usenet that's dead (as a forum for discussion),
> not just this newsgroup. There are a few places where people talk about
> M/C racing obsessively and with rather less rancour. Maybe it's finally
> time to move. It's a shame, because I prefer the email/usenet
> environment to web forums.
>

I like Usenet better too and will particularly miss the European slant
on things if we do decide to move on, but when an individual who
doesn't understand, or care about the difference between discussion and
debate tries to dominate most every thread with his particular view it
not only gets old and divisive, but paralyzes, or stunts the group
itself. Correct me of I'm wrong, but wasn't the driving idea behind
newsgroups a free flow of ideas and discussion? If so, RMR is in
trouble, because I haven't seen much of that around here in a while...
 >> Stay informed about: Noyes on AMA. Again 

T3 wrote:
> Mark N said:
>> Me, I'm not a liar like you.

> If, in your warped world, YOU think calling me names does anything to
> make you look better you're sadly mistaken. (again) All it does is draw
> attention to your "issues" and while there's little doubt they need some
> attention, I don't believe you're going to find it here.

I didn't call you a "name", I labeled you based on your behavior here,
and that label is directly connected to that behavior. The "issue" here
I have highlighted is your honesty, within the confines of discussion in
this group.

Even if your
> so-called event happened two months ago I probably couldn't recall it,
> much less two years ago and even if I had the time, I wouldn't spend any
> of it defending something as ludicrous and lame as what only you think
> you dredged up. A liar huh? Dude, I've been called worse a lot more
> accurately, from much, much better and saner people..

But you don't come out and deny the lie, and you don't explain it or
justify it. It's very easy to find, I gave you date and subject line.

>> Tom, when you say things like, "you seem to have everyone catalogued,
>> Bond's a Yank hater, Champ's a chump, Carl's a jerk outsider, Tweak's a
>> redneck", what you are doing is saying, "Julian, Mark is calling you a
>> Yank hater! Champ, Mark is calling you a chump! Tweak, Mark is calling
>> you a redneck!", etc., you are very much trying to scapegoat me in this
>> group, desperately trying to rally the troups to your side. In fact I
>> have not said any of that here, but you feel the need to rev
>> up the old mobbing mentality in this group, get people on your side. And
>> for what reason? Because you very much WANT to marginalize me, you WANT
>> to ostracize me, you WANT to discredit me and drive me out. Why? Well,
>> although we are relatively in alignment in a whole host of things, I
>> don't let you get away with your vendetta against the AMA without a
>> challenge. And that, in your mind, means I need to be destroyed, it's
>> all about racking up a "W" on your little scoreboard, no matter the
>> means. It could hardly be more obvious.

> Double Wow! Mark those were very close to your actual words, you've
> slighted, or outright slammed every regular in this group at one time,
> or another

I was saying within the context of this particular subject. Yes, I have
called people names in the broader sense, just as you and others have.
If that's reason enough for exclusion from this group, then we both need
to leave.

when they wouldn't accept your version of things. Let's
> review, Kvetching, Sundsquirt, anti-american Bond, chump Champ, but it
> doesn't stop there. Oh hell no, Rossifag, Eurofag, crackerfag, Sp*c and
> my all time fav, the Hayden death story and unlike you, those few I
> remembered off the top of my head and without any help from Google!

Gee, I thought you had memory problems - couldn't remember a damned
thing about a lie you wrote some seven moths ago, but can remember
things I wrote years ago? Hmm...

Me, I don't remember calling Cal "Sundsquirt", although I know I've used
"Sundpissed" repeatedly - which I've used when he's gotten his back up
from time to time. Crackerfag? Hmm, don't remember that one. As for
"Sp*c", which you can't even bring yourself to write in its entirety (is
this the "S-word"?), I think you're the one who brought derogatory
abbreviations into common usage in this newsgroup, with things like
"jap", "nip" and "wop" and "dago". Funny that you are now drawing such a
hard line in such an arbitrary spot.

Me
> marginalize you? You need absolutely no help in that endeavor
> whatsoever! Like Carl said, you bring your own whip..

But that's exactly what you're doing here, isn't it? You're not really
talking to me, rather you're playing to your mob cronies, making sure
they stay in line and remember the purpose of the mob*, and don't go
getting side-tracked by this lying business. So you're grabbing at
anything you can think of to throw at me, particularly anything you
think might rev up certain mob cronies. Rather desperate, and very
manipulative as well, but that's nothing new - it's called leadership,
right?

>> No, I don't really think Julian is a yank hater, but sometimes he needs
>> to be challenged on his ideas of things, just like everyone here does -
>> that's part of what broadens everyone's horizons, including mine.
>
> Ask yourself this question, who's horizon have you broadened?

Hard to say for sure, but I definitely think this group as a whole
(including lurkers) would have much more a pro-European slant on things
if I hadn't been here over the years. I think the general tone of this
group would be that Ducati won all those races and championships in WSB
on merit alone, that all those Spanish and Japanese riders in MotoGP
have been there on superior talent alone, that Rossi is the flawless
GOAT, etc., etc.

More specifically, I have been the only one really talking about the
size issue in MotoGP, and while the vocal consensus in this group is
apparently against that, it doesn't mean they haven't thought about it
now, they haven't considered the case to some extent, they don't have
some small doubt perhaps. At minimum some people are aware that the
field is literally shrinking and they might not have been otherwise.

>> Unfortunately, some people pray on those divides, like you, and try to
>> make them worse, for your own perverse pleasure. Or something. No
>> matter, it is what it is, you can do what you want. You can continue to
>> play around with your little social experimentation here, you can
>> continue to be disingenuous as hell, I really don't care, even though it
>> is disappointing. My mistake was actually engaging you on this general
>> topic here, thinking you might just have changed your ways a bit, might
>> be ready to seriously and honestly talk about it. But I was wrong, and
>> hopefully I learned my lesson for good this time. And you can rack up
>> your last big "W", game's over.
>
> Heh, evidently the button I pushed had a W on it! Bottom line here Mark,
> you're beyond just being a jerk, or anal, it's more in line with
> obsessive compulsive, or perhaps, something darker. I don't know if you
> actually ever interact with real live people, but if you do, for sure, I
> feel sorry for them...

Jerk, anal, obsessive-compulsive - so, once again, who's the name-caller
around here? Well, don't worry, I seriously doubt the mob will turn on
you now, Tom, the whole thing has too much momentum. People can be
embarrassed by such personal behavior, and they'd probably rather just
finish their dirty work, drive the infidel out. Then they can justify
their handiwork, for which you're already laying the groundwork - it's
ALL my fault...

But I am still trying to comprehend this lying business of yours. I know
you're opposed to debate, which strikes me as a very odd thing - no
debate allowed in usenet? I figure it's not really the testing of ideas
that you oppose so much, so maybe it's the idea of the structure within
that context, that debate actually has rules, even if very informal?
That it requires some level of self-discipline, that a couple of the
rules are that false factual information isn't good form, and that the
drawing of conclusions requires some legitimacy, some evidence of a
logical path from the assumptions?

In a legitimate debate, one can't just make up information to support
one's position. You know, like your "trust me, I've been there" evidence
of Pedrosa's microbe-like size. Any one shouldn't wander through an
exchange like this one here:

T3: As I'm sure you knew, I was sorta' holdin' back waiting for your
particular vision of the future... So, let's cut to the chase
Mark, tell us who *YOU* would like to see pick-up the gnarley-ball known
as AMA Proracing and how they should run with it...

MN: As to who, I don't have a specific answer, I don't know all that
much about the parties who are interested, and of course am not certain
even who all of them are. But I can say what I think would be good to
see and not see conceptually.

T3-MN: some back and forth on specifics

T3: Dude, this whole thing wasn't about what I want, it was about how I
though it MIGHT go. My, or your vision is absolutely meaningless in the
context "Merkan M/C racing, as I'm fairly certain neither one of us are
gonna' ever be able to dig deep enough to afford a "vision.".. Yeah,
yeah and I want to win the Lotto, but I was only asking for what you
thought might happen, remember? Jeeez, gettin' a straight answer out of
you is like trying to find gas after a hurricane, even when you finally
do, it's almost always watered down..

So in fact that wasn't what you were asking, and is just one example of
your evasive spinning and lack of discipline when it comes to
debate/discussion/whatever.

I guess what it comes back to is TRUE (T3's Rules of Usenet Engagement),
which are, in case anyone has forgotten:

Rule C.4. When backed into a corner and with no ability to reasonably
respond or argue further, do not give up, rather go on the offensive -
attack is always the answer. If the means is unclear, simply throw
your opponent's approach back at him, even if it makes no sense - if
he has exploited your item A, attack his item A in the same manner, if
he says your dog bit someone, say his dog also bit someone, even if he
doesn't have a dog. Attack his credibility and not his argument, since
the argument is already lost. If you can undermine his credibility,
even if unfairly, his legitimate argument will likely follow. Build
alliances, even if it means sucking up to people who you find very
distasteful - in the end it's just a popularity contest, if the group
generally believes something that's untrue, it doesn't matter that
it's untrue. You are angry, so try to make your opponent angry, using
whatever means are available - his anger may trip up his otherwise
logical and sensible approach. Whatever you do, NEVER answer direct
questions at this point, they can only get you deeper in the sh*t. And
the only thing better than a lie is a BIG lie, the more outrageous the
better. Don't restrict your attack to the thread in debate, attack
your opponent everywhere he may appear, constantly beating the drum of
your chosen mantra. This isn't about winning a civilized debate, it's
about winning, PERIOD.


Speaking of lies, since I'm sure no one else is still reading this, just
between us, why did you lie about seeing Pedrosa in person? I mean,
we're on the same side on that one, so I don't really care. Did it just
feel right at the time, did you just like the way the words flowed with
that BS inserted? Just curious...


*I was browsing the net on this mobbing and scapegoating business, and
found some interesting information. Here is a definition of mobbing in
the workplace:

"Scapegoating is an effective if temporary means of achieving group
solidarity, when it cannot be achieved in a more constructive way. It is
a turning inward, a diversion of energy away from serving nebulous
external purposes toward the deliciously clear, specific goal of ruining
a disliked co-worker's life. ... Mobbing can be understood as the
stressor to beat all stressors. It is an impassioned, collective
campaign by co-workers to exclude, punish, and humiliate a targeted
worker. Initiated most often by a person in a position of power or
influence, mobbing is a desperate urge to crush and eliminate the
target. The urge travels through the workplace like a virus, infecting
one person after another. The target comes to be viewed as absolutely
abhorrent, with no redeeming qualities, outside the circle of acceptance
and respectability, deserving only of contempt. As the campaign
proceeds, a steadily larger range of hostile ploys and communications
comes to be seen as legitimate."

I kinda liked this one:

"In the book MOBBING: Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace, the
authors claim that mobbing is typically found in work environments that
have poorly organized production and/or working methods and incapable or
inattentive management and that mobbing victims are usually "exceptional
individuals who demonstrated intelligence, competence, creativity,
integrity, accomplishment and dedication"."

And, closer to home:

Adapted from Ten Key Factors of the Mobbing Syndrome
* Assaults on the dignity, integrity, credibility, and professional
competence of a fellow blogger.
* Negative, humiliating, intimidating, abusive, malevolent, and
controlling communication.
* Committed directly, or indirectly, in subtle or obvious ways.
* Perpetuated by one or more group members — "vulturing."
* Occurring in a continual, multiple, and systematic fashion, over
some time.
* Portraying the victimized person as being at fault.
* Engineered to discredit, confuse, intimidate, isolate, and force the
person into submission.
* Committed with the intent to force the person out.
* Representing the removal from the blogosphere as the victim's choice.
* Not recognized, misinterpreted, ignored, tolerated, encouraged or
even instigated by the larger blogging community.
 >> Stay informed about: Noyes on AMA. Again 

In article <13p4eks7varan99.TakeThisOut@corp.supernews.com>,
Mark N <menusbaum.TakeThisOut@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:

> Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> > There is one thing about this that I was wondering about. Considering how
> > Johnny-On-The-Spot you normally are about correcting people's mistakes, Mark,
> > why didn't you point that out at the time? Instead of letting it hang until
> > now, that is...
>
> Well, it happened in a part of the discussion in which I wasn't directly
> involved, and it really wasn't a material issue, Tom was in fact
> correct, although his personal attestation of that was patently false.
> Given that he was in general alignment with me on that topic and that
> position apparently was/is decidedly a minority position in this group
> for whatever reason, I chose not to undermine his statement on that
> basis. But I sure as hell made personal note of the behavior.

"But I sure as hell made personal note of the behavior." Wow. As I said, it was
interesting that you didn't point it out the time, but obviously you didn't because
you thought that doing so would detract from your criticisms of Pedrosa.

> I don't know, it seems far less a lie than a simple case of misspeaking
> to me.
>
> Well, you would say that, because you're part of the mob here. Tell me,
> what would it take for you to break from the crowd and actually say
> something that might be deemed as supporting me over one of your fellow
> mobsters? In mobbing behavior, there is an unspoken rule that one can
> almost do or claim anything as long as it aids or assists in the general
> purpose of the mob, the scapegoating of a particular individual, and the
> fellow conspirators will not take any action. Frankly, I expected to
> read this sort of thing from some of you guys*, even as blatant and
> obvious as Tom's lie was. And even though he has so far offered no
> defense of it at all.
>
> So tell me, what sort of thing would Tom have to do in order for you not
> to defend him here? If he claimed the sun rises in the west and I called
> him an idiot and fabricator, would you step in and say something like,
> "The whole notions of the sun rising and east and west are really
> falacious, based on ancient ideas of the mechanics of the universe, so I
> think Tom has a good point"?

Jesus criminy. Firstly, the idea that I'd defend anything Tom says is probably as
much news to him as it is to me. Secondly, I need to address this whole "mob" thing
you have going here. Without getting too deep into the psychological aspects of it,
you've got a real bad case of victimhood going on. I don't see there being a mob in
here that's out to get you, as you indicate above. It's more a case of people who
sometimes get tired of the stuff you fling about in here. You really can't help your
self - you are completely convinced that you're right 100%of the time. You said a day
or so ago that you want discussion and debate in here but you do everything you can
to prevent those things from happening.

I think you have a grat deal of knowledge of the sport but I wish you would be
less obviously scornful of opinions that don't match yours. Just saying.

--
tanx,
Howard

Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 >> Stay informed about: Noyes on AMA. Again 

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 09:28:13 GMT, Julian Bond
<julian_bond.DeleteThis@voidstar.com> wrote:

>Carl Sundquist <carlsun.DeleteThis@cox.net> Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:18:12
>>P.S. Don't take it personally. Almost every niche sport behaves in a
>>similar manner.
>
>Feels to me like it's Usenet that's dead (as a forum for discussion),
>not just this newsgroup. There are a few places where people talk about
>M/C racing obsessively and with rather less rancour. Maybe it's finally
>time to move. It's a shame, because I prefer the email/usenet
>environment to web forums.

This is it, I think. Web forums are what everyone uses now, despite
them being unthreaded and full of bloated images and ava-bloody-tars.
--
Champ
neal at champ dot org dot uk
 >> Stay informed about: Noyes on AMA. Again 

Mark N wrote:
> Mark N wrote:
>> So more of the same in his third installation

> Well, an interesting article, although ultimately as disappointed as
> expected.

> In any case, I guess there's still some hope for part five, although he
> ends with, "we will look at how the technical rules are decided by the
> commercial promoters in MotoGP, World Superbike, and the British
> Superbike Championship and how the FIM and most national federations
> have opted for ‘dumbing down’ the Superbike class while the World
> Superbike promoters are taking an opposite course." If so, I guess he
> won't be mentioning the AMA series at all...