# Eddie Merckx. The Pete Rose of Cycling



## intrrwrldchmp

http://www.shutupandride.ca/articles/article_view.php?art_id=321


----------



## PaulCL

*Maybe I missed something?*

But how in the world does this article equate EM to Pete Rose?? As a native Cincinnatian, Pete Rose ranks somewhere between raw sewage and lima beans on my favorites list. As you can guess, the comparision is rather insulting to EM IMHO. Explain?


----------



## Bonked

you beat me to it...i was going to ask the same thing...


----------



## Dave Hickey

PaulCL said:


> But how in the world does this article equate EM to Pete Rose?? Explain?


They weigh the same  Although Eddie does have more hair


----------



## intrrwrldchmp

*gambling*

They've both gambled on their respective sports. By Eddie saying who is going to win, he is essentially gambling, he is taking a gamble that he could be wrong. Pete Rose was banished from baseball for essentially the same thing. Cycling has been very good to Eddie, I'm shocked that he would risk it all by gambling.


----------



## Sintesi

intrrwrldchmp said:


> They've both gambled on their respective sports. By Eddie saying who is going to win, he is essentially gambling, he is taking a gamble that he could be wrong. Pete Rose was banished from baseball for essentially the same thing. Cycling has been very good to Eddie, I'm shocked that he would risk it all by gambling.


Hoo boy.


----------



## T-Doc

You must like long stems and toptubes 'cause that is quite a sttrrretch.


----------



## cmgauch

*Very poor analogy*

He is simply analyzing the race, course and riders & picking his favorite. He’s not gambling in any way.

Now, if back in ’74, he bet real money on the # 2 racer in the World Road Championship, raced hard and then “cramped up” and lost in the end to the #2, your analogy would be more appropriate. Or maybe if he had a long history of betting on pro cycling while involved in the sport as a racer, team manager, etc…

To quote Jules in Pulp Fiction (expletives deleted): “ain't the same ballpark, ain't the same league, ain't even the same f-in' sport.”





intrrwrldchmp said:


> They've both gambled on their respective sports. By Eddie saying who is going to win, he is essentially gambling, he is taking a gamble that he could be wrong. Pete Rose was banished from baseball for essentially the same thing. Cycling has been very good to Eddie, I'm shocked that he would risk it all by gambling.


----------



## intrrwrldchmp

cmgauch said:


> He is simply analyzing the race, course and riders & picking his favorite. He’s not gambling in any way.
> 
> Now, if back in ’74, he bet real money on the # 2 racer in the World Road Championship, raced hard and then “cramped up” and lost in the end to the #2, your analogy would be more appropriate. Or maybe if he had a long history of betting on pro cycling while involved in the sport as a racer, team manager, etc…
> 
> To quote Jules in Pulp Fiction (expletives deleted): “ain't the same ballpark, ain't the same league, ain't even the same f-in' sport.”


Analyzing a race is one thing, but when you call someone "the biggest favorite" you come just short of posting odds. I would even take this a step further and say that in addition to gambling on the sport he is acting as an odds maker. In my opinion.


----------



## smokey422

intrrwrldchmp said:


> http://www.shutupandride.ca/articles/article_view.php?art_id=321


IMHO, this is a ridiculous comparison. Eddy is simply saying who he thinks has the best chance of winning. If this is the case, there are a whole bunch of people involved in gambling. How many cyclists have picked Lance to win #6? It doesn't make them gamblers. Also, Eddy Merckx to my knowledge has never been involved in professional wrestling.


----------



## intrrwrldchmp

smokey422 said:


> IMHO, this is a ridiculous comparison. Eddy is simply saying who he thinks has the best chance of winning. If this is the case, there are a whole bunch of people involved in gambling. How many cyclists have picked Lance to win #6? It doesn't make them gamblers. Also, Eddy Merckx to my knowledge has never been involved in professional wrestling.


You're 1/2 right. He has not (to my knowledge) been involved in Pro Wrestling.


----------



## Mike Prince

*troll post*

I don't know the poster so not a commentary on them, but this post is drug-induced...


----------



## intrrwrldchmp

*Fred*



Mike Prince said:


> nmnmnm


mmm ummm


----------



## benInMA

Stupid, but interesting...

Do belgians (and other Europeans) have the same puritanical/hypocritical attitudes about gambling as we do?

AFAIK, they do not. So it might not be a big deal if Eddy WAS betting on cycling. Is he a DS, etc.. ? Or does he just make bicycles?

Ben


----------



## TNSquared

*yep..*

Exactly what I said last week when she posted that Axel Merckx is not a legitimate pro because "he's not as fast as his father." Interestingly enough, she used a baseball analogy in that post as well.

Baseball fanatic with something against the Merckx family?


----------



## 97 Teran

*Forgive me if I'm wrong, but...*

isn't he paid to be a cycling commentator in Belgium? Granted these comments were supposed to be made in public on personal business, but can any commentator in ANY sport be doing their job properly without mentioning/discussing who the favorite(s) are? By saying he thinks an African country will win the World Cup by 2000-and-whatever, was former football/soccer player Pele being an immoral, odds-influencing party back in the 90s? I honestly don't see what your point is, intrrwrldchmp, I just don't see any connection whatever between Merckx's comments and any moral issue. Let alone the Pete Rose thing... 

And finally, what does it matter whether someone influences the oddsmaking? Dozens of people do for each event such as this. I think people who pay attention to odds have more serious, immediate problems than worrying about who influences them.


----------



## intrrwrldchmp

TNSquared said:


> Exactly what I said last week when he posted that Axel Merckx is not a legitimate pro because "he's not as fast as his father." Interestingly enough, he used a baseball analogy in that post as well.
> 
> Baseball fanatic with something against the Merckx family?


He is a she, Axel is not as fast as his father was, I don't watch baseball, and I don't have anything against the Merckx family. It's sad when Freds call a real rider, who cares about the sport's image, a troll !!!


----------



## haiku d'etat

*that'll do on the name calling*

please don't escalate the name calling.

keep it respectful or please don't post it.


----------



## PaulCL

*Thanks Dad*



J's Haiku Shop said:


> please don't escalate the name calling.
> 
> keep it respectful or please don't post it.


But it isn't a surprise that this post degenerated quickly. Afterall, you wouldn't go on Catholic church website and insult the Pope, would you?? Insult Bush on the republican.com site??? Insulting Eddy on a road bike site??? That's just inviting trouble. All things considered, I think the responses were rather civil considering the post came out of left field....dare I say....trolling?????


----------



## TNSquared

*Ok...*



intrrwrldchmp said:


> He is a she, Axel is not as fast as his father was, I don't watch baseball, and I don't have anything against the Merckx family. It's sad when Freds call a real rider, who cares about the sport's image, a troll !!!


1) I edited my last post to read she
2) NOBODY is as fast - or more accurately, as successful - as Eddy Merckx
3) You know alot about baseball for someone who doesn't watch it
4) I can attribute two negative posts in one week about Axel and Eddy to coincidence
5) I retract the "troll" characterization at the Moderator's request, and because I generally just don't use this tactic (in fact, you'll see from the Axel thread that I pretty quickly edited my original reply to delete the troll reference - without Moderator intervention)
6) I'd respectfully suggest that anyone who cares about the sport's image should refrain from dividing cyclists into "real riders" and "freds" 

I can debate either of your topics on a friendly level, and I still completely disagree with both of your assertions (that Axel is not a legitimate pro and that Eddy gambled on cycling.) By your standards, there is not one single legitimate pro in the whole of cycling, and all sports analysts from the local radio jockeys to the ESPN anchors are compulsive gamblers.


----------



## terry b

Sorry, it doesn't make him gambler, it makes him a pundit. Now we can argue all day long on which is worse, but a gambler he is not.

In order for him to come close to Rose, he'd have to be Bettini's manager and be placing bets on people to beat him.


----------



## TypeOne

*Agreed*

Strange comparison, and posted simply to get a rise out of everyone. And she did.

Let's try to link Rebecca Twigg and Marge Schott next!


----------



## hrv

*Yeah, STFU, and....ride lots!!*



intrrwrldchmp said:


> http://www.shutupandride.ca/articles/article_view.php?art_id=321


Like I said, shut up and ride.


----------



## TNSquared

*In retrospect, maybe I'm a little overly sensitive...*

ya see, I just bought one of these.....


----------



## 4bykn

The moderator asks us to stop calling others names and what do you do? 
You call him Dad!!!!


----------



## High Gear

*Why?*

Why are you making a fool of yourself intrrwrldchmp? If you know PRO CYCLING this is a opinionated statment made by someone in the know. You could ask LeMond his favorite in a certain race and I'm sure he would reply. You are looking too deep into this and pointing a finger at the best cyclist that ever lived. The first thing you need to know is how to spell his name right.


----------



## froze

Well by an overwhelming percentage of the people on this post, we have all agreed to one thing: YOU AN IDIOT INTRRWRLDCHMP!!

Gambling means you are risking something of value-usually money-in hopes that you will win and get a larger return on the investment risked. Playing the stock market is gambling by the way...oops, better stop with that one before I'm labled an idiot. Anyway Pete Rose was gambling with money and not pennies and dime gambling but thousands of dollars. Eddie by saying he expects someone to win is not putting any thing of value to in hopes of getting a larger return. That's like me, if I had responded first to your post saying I think Intrrwrldchmp is going be declared an idiot by the majority of the people here. Whether they do or not declare you and idiot doesn't make me a gambler because I lost or won nothing by the outcome. If however I instead said, I'll bet $100 dollars that more than 75% of the responders to Intrrwrldchmp will declare him to be an idiot and Intrrwrldchmp betted that he would not be declared an idiot by 75% of the responders then we're gambling.

Why not look up the meaning of gambling in the dictionary, you know the book that is almost obsolete now due to spell checkers! Just look for a big book covered with dust!


----------



## buffedupboy

*I don't know anymore*

By this same logic, what do you make of Mr. Armstrong then? Every single race he enters, he claims that he is not the favourite..... I mean, everytime he wins the TDF, he claims that Jan is the favourite.... what does that mean? **** I better go start putting down my bet for this year's addition... maybe there is a career in cycling afterall.

Ciao,
Sean


----------



## The The

intrrwrldchmp said:


> They've both gambled on their respective sports. By Eddie saying who is going to win, he is essentially gambling, he is taking a gamble that he could be wrong. Pete Rose was banished from baseball for essentially the same thing. Cycling has been very good to Eddie, I'm shocked that he would risk it all by gambling.


You are completely wrong here. You aren't even using sound logic to make your argument. Pete Rose placed monetary bets on games. Eddie Merckx was merely stating who he believed was the favourite in a race. The difference between these two actions is huge.


----------



## PaulCL

*a joke*



4bykn said:


> The moderator asks us to stop calling others names and what do you do?
> You call him Dad!!!!


Just a little joke. Wasn't meant as a negative. oops. I see how it was taken the wrong way.


----------



## intrrwrldchmp

froze said:


> Well by an overwhelming percentage of the people on this post, we have all agreed to one thing: YOU AN IDIOT INTRRWRLDCHMP!!
> 
> Gambling means you are risking something of value-usually money-in hopes that you will win and get a larger return on the investment risked. Playing the stock market is gambling by the way...oops, better stop with that one before I'm labled an idiot. Anyway Pete Rose was gambling with money and not pennies and dime gambling but thousands of dollars. Eddie by saying he expects someone to win is not putting any thing of value to in hopes of getting a larger return. That's like me, if I had responded first to your post saying I think Intrrwrldchmp is going be declared an idiot by the majority of the people here. Whether they do or not declare you and idiot doesn't make me a gambler because I lost or won nothing by the outcome. If however I instead said, I'll bet $100 dollars that more than 75% of the responders to Intrrwrldchmp will declare him to be an idiot and Intrrwrldchmp betted that he would not be declared an idiot by 75% of the responders then we're gambling.
> 
> Why not look up the meaning of gambling in the dictionary, you know the book that is almost obsolete now due to spell checkers! Just look for a big book covered with dust!


We've been asked by the moderator to stop calling each other names. Did you read that? Do you need a definition of what it means to call someone a name?


----------



## 4bykn

Yeah, my post was intended in a humorous vein too. It's pretty damned hard to imply humor on these forums.


----------



## froze

intrrwrldchmp said:


> We've been asked by the moderator to stop calling each other names. Did you read that? Do you need a definition of what it means to call someone a name?


No I did not have time to read all the posts. I was trying to be funny by building on this idiot theme and having gambling as the backdrop to it...the humor must have failed. So I apologize for calling you name.


----------

