Promoter recently changed the Men's Masters field at a prestigious upcoming (7/10) event from a CAT 2/3/4 event to include CAT 1's.
I have mixed feelings about the change.
The Masters field has been really fickle this year - bringing out top numbers only on the driest of days. As a race promoter I can understand the need to increase the field numbers as the economics of a race promotion justifies getting as many participants as possible, so long as it doesn't exclude other legit (non- CAT 1) racers due to field limits. Perhaps the CAT 1 racers should be placed on a space available wait list, allowed to race if it isn't otherwise filled with lesser categories.
Selfishly however I would rather race with the possibility of placing highly and taking home some primes & finishing in the $$ on the podium. I was excited about the original scheme, but including CAT 1's greatly diminishes those chances.
Though racing is racing and the chance to compete with all comers will only cause me to up my game - just because there are several CAT 1's are in the field doesn't necessarily guarantee them all a cherry.
On a closing note I wholeheartedly applaud the exclusion of CAT 5's from the field as a safety precaution as most would be field fodder and unnecessarily clog the course. I also like the increase in time from 40 to 50 minutes; now if only we could convince the promoter to increase the prize purse and depth of payout (on par with the CAT 3's).
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Friday, June 11, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Friday, June 4, 2010
Hyper-hyped
The story is either one of the very best in all of sport - or the very best facade.
I have believed, as many have, that the tale of Lance Armstrong was wonderful & good, and all the detractors were making s__t up - for whatever reason (jealously, to make a buck, spite, etc). Of course I wore a "I believe Tyler" T-shirt and went to Floyd's first citizen camp the Spring prior to his summer TdF win ('er loss).
So I'm gullible - as a lot of us are - we buy the propaganda. With a lot of the recent news on cycling over the last few years (Operación Puerto, the use of CERA, Deluca, Vino, Ricco, and others) I've become more guarded in my support, and LA is now no different in my book.
Yet he still stands out as some of the best self-promotion a cyclist has ever committed to. The books (1 & 2), the Nike commercial ("what am I on? I'm on my bike 6 hours a day."), the OLN TV show (The Lance Chronicles), and of course his Foundation.
The fabled stories from his now famous coach, his spin technique, his recon of the TdF routes, his fastidious obsession to have the highest technology available (F-1 collaboration with Trek & other sponsors, utilizing aero guru Steve Hed, best helmet design, wind tunnel position, kit fabric, etc.), optimal power-to-weight ratio, counting his calories & weighing his food, and on & on. You'd think that no other cyclist had ever done this previously. Really good spin.
Already a very talented athlete, LA's post-cancer return to cycling & laying the framework to build a boost his all-American image & a solid reputation is awe inspiring - but for what purpose? To capitalize monetarily on an unbelievable comeback with the resultant millions of adoring fans both inside & outside of cycling OR to purposely create that squeaky clean image to build a base of support to help alleviate any doubt that his TdF wins were anything other than legit.
Always on point as to his work etiquette and to routinely deflect any criticism of use of PED's (Le Equipe, Walsh, Kimmage, Lemond, his association with Dr. Ferrari, etc.) by attacking the accuser, crying "witch hunt", or simply proclaiming to be "the most tested athlete in the world."
And then there's Micheal Ashenden. He was a witness in the insurance case trying to ascertain whether SCA was responsible to pay up the $5M bonus after LA's 6th straight TdF victory. He is presently on the panel of experts at the WADA. He is also a long time LA sceptic. With the recent Landis revelation's on how athlete's skirt around the biological passport, I'm sure this will further increase the surveillance.
Now there's also Dick Pound. As former chief of the WADA and still a member on their Board - he is utterly convinced of LA's use of PED's. And with the CAS siding with the UCI for Valverde's 2-year suspension, despite no direct positive PED result - circumstantial evidence might get LA in trouble yet. Though John Fahey, the current head of the WADA, says differently; show me proof.
As the UCI, IOC, WADA, FDA, & investigative (and tabloid) journalists continue to do a full court press to ensure the sport is clean or to prove & continue to insinuate otherwise - the question is will LA join a number of former teamies (Floyd, Tyler, Frankie, Roberto, Trickie, & JV) to admit or be busted for PED's? And what will the pressure (blanket immunity to tell us now or we'll hang you later) have on the likes of the other Landis accused (Levi, DZ, Berry & Hincapie) to spill the beans ('er syringe)?
As the TdF draws closer to it's July 3rd start, expect the hyper-hype on all sides to continue to ramp up, perhaps to unforeseen levels. Will LA even be allowed to start in Rotterdam under such allegations? Will the denials survive the scrutiny & test of time (can you say Festina or another Festina-like affair)?
I have believed, as many have, that the tale of Lance Armstrong was wonderful & good, and all the detractors were making s__t up - for whatever reason (jealously, to make a buck, spite, etc). Of course I wore a "I believe Tyler" T-shirt and went to Floyd's first citizen camp the Spring prior to his summer TdF win ('er loss).
So I'm gullible - as a lot of us are - we buy the propaganda. With a lot of the recent news on cycling over the last few years (Operación Puerto, the use of CERA, Deluca, Vino, Ricco, and others) I've become more guarded in my support, and LA is now no different in my book.
Yet he still stands out as some of the best self-promotion a cyclist has ever committed to. The books (1 & 2), the Nike commercial ("what am I on? I'm on my bike 6 hours a day."), the OLN TV show (The Lance Chronicles), and of course his Foundation.
The fabled stories from his now famous coach, his spin technique, his recon of the TdF routes, his fastidious obsession to have the highest technology available (F-1 collaboration with Trek & other sponsors, utilizing aero guru Steve Hed, best helmet design, wind tunnel position, kit fabric, etc.), optimal power-to-weight ratio, counting his calories & weighing his food, and on & on. You'd think that no other cyclist had ever done this previously. Really good spin.
Already a very talented athlete, LA's post-cancer return to cycling & laying the framework to build a boost his all-American image & a solid reputation is awe inspiring - but for what purpose? To capitalize monetarily on an unbelievable comeback with the resultant millions of adoring fans both inside & outside of cycling OR to purposely create that squeaky clean image to build a base of support to help alleviate any doubt that his TdF wins were anything other than legit.
Always on point as to his work etiquette and to routinely deflect any criticism of use of PED's (Le Equipe, Walsh, Kimmage, Lemond, his association with Dr. Ferrari, etc.) by attacking the accuser, crying "witch hunt", or simply proclaiming to be "the most tested athlete in the world."
And then there's Micheal Ashenden. He was a witness in the insurance case trying to ascertain whether SCA was responsible to pay up the $5M bonus after LA's 6th straight TdF victory. He is presently on the panel of experts at the WADA. He is also a long time LA sceptic. With the recent Landis revelation's on how athlete's skirt around the biological passport, I'm sure this will further increase the surveillance.
Now there's also Dick Pound. As former chief of the WADA and still a member on their Board - he is utterly convinced of LA's use of PED's. And with the CAS siding with the UCI for Valverde's 2-year suspension, despite no direct positive PED result - circumstantial evidence might get LA in trouble yet. Though John Fahey, the current head of the WADA, says differently; show me proof.
As the UCI, IOC, WADA, FDA, & investigative (and tabloid) journalists continue to do a full court press to ensure the sport is clean or to prove & continue to insinuate otherwise - the question is will LA join a number of former teamies (Floyd, Tyler, Frankie, Roberto, Trickie, & JV) to admit or be busted for PED's? And what will the pressure (blanket immunity to tell us now or we'll hang you later) have on the likes of the other Landis accused (Levi, DZ, Berry & Hincapie) to spill the beans ('er syringe)?
As the TdF draws closer to it's July 3rd start, expect the hyper-hype on all sides to continue to ramp up, perhaps to unforeseen levels. Will LA even be allowed to start in Rotterdam under such allegations? Will the denials survive the scrutiny & test of time (can you say Festina or another Festina-like affair)?
Thursday, June 3, 2010
1 year for 1 day
As one who lost a parent (Mom) at a young (impressionable) age (12), this was an interesting article and one that allowed me to reflect.
I grieved, and was depressed; though not abnormally so,
I had no pretense of putting up a facade to help my Dad (who lost his wife) & Grandma (who lost her daughter) cope,
I was not aware of much support from educators or others outside my immediate family & friends,
I didn't have fears that my Dad would also get sick & die,
I didn't have a tendency to commit violent (or other) crimes,
I didn't turn to drugs or exhibit other troubling behaviors,
I didn't grow up as a lost soul.
I also don't consider myself anything other than normal for not having any of the above. I'm sure that I had some coping mechanisms - that after almost 40 years - I don't remember the specifics; but death is part of life. My Mom died after a long illness, in & out of the hospital over a year & a half - so it wasn't a sudden loss; though I never had a chance to say goodbye & was shocked when my Dad told me (we were supposed to go to a LA Dodger game that night, they lost 8-4 to the Reds). I had vivid dreams of her long afterwards. I have pictures, slides (remember those), and 16mm film to view; nothing with the sound of her voice however.
I found this perhaps the most interesting - "73% believe their lives would be 'much better' if their parents hadn't died young; 66% said that after their loss "they felt they weren't a kid anymore." I'd be interested in how those folks categorize "much better" as it is a hypothetical? Obviously if I could change the fact of my Mother's passing to live a normal life, I would. How much that would change or increase the quality of what my life became after her death, is pure conjecture. It also potentially devalues what contributions the support structure of my friends & family have had in my life subsequent to her death.
I think organizations such as Comfort Zone are good if they head off the tendencies described in the article. But I would suggest that the best way to proceed is having the strong support of a loving family. Outsiders, no matter how well qualified or objective, are still outsiders - and don't have the inside scoop on what it is that is you.
As to the prime question - would I give up a year of my life for another day? - I'd have to say no. Would that be fair for my family, my kids? Do I really believe my Mom would want me to shorten my life to spend one more day with her? I think that's a very selfish proposition. [OK maybe I'd give up 1979] I would also surmise that the majority of those surveyed would probably describe themselves as being a member of some religion (92%) and an afterlife (85%). So I find it perplexing that of those 57% in the survey who indicated they would give up that year for a day, that they can't wait.
I grieved, and was depressed; though not abnormally so,
I had no pretense of putting up a facade to help my Dad (who lost his wife) & Grandma (who lost her daughter) cope,
I was not aware of much support from educators or others outside my immediate family & friends,
I didn't have fears that my Dad would also get sick & die,
I didn't have a tendency to commit violent (or other) crimes,
I didn't turn to drugs or exhibit other troubling behaviors,
I didn't grow up as a lost soul.
I also don't consider myself anything other than normal for not having any of the above. I'm sure that I had some coping mechanisms - that after almost 40 years - I don't remember the specifics; but death is part of life. My Mom died after a long illness, in & out of the hospital over a year & a half - so it wasn't a sudden loss; though I never had a chance to say goodbye & was shocked when my Dad told me (we were supposed to go to a LA Dodger game that night, they lost 8-4 to the Reds). I had vivid dreams of her long afterwards. I have pictures, slides (remember those), and 16mm film to view; nothing with the sound of her voice however.
I found this perhaps the most interesting - "73% believe their lives would be 'much better' if their parents hadn't died young; 66% said that after their loss "they felt they weren't a kid anymore." I'd be interested in how those folks categorize "much better" as it is a hypothetical? Obviously if I could change the fact of my Mother's passing to live a normal life, I would. How much that would change or increase the quality of what my life became after her death, is pure conjecture. It also potentially devalues what contributions the support structure of my friends & family have had in my life subsequent to her death.
I think organizations such as Comfort Zone are good if they head off the tendencies described in the article. But I would suggest that the best way to proceed is having the strong support of a loving family. Outsiders, no matter how well qualified or objective, are still outsiders - and don't have the inside scoop on what it is that is you.
As to the prime question - would I give up a year of my life for another day? - I'd have to say no. Would that be fair for my family, my kids? Do I really believe my Mom would want me to shorten my life to spend one more day with her? I think that's a very selfish proposition. [OK maybe I'd give up 1979] I would also surmise that the majority of those surveyed would probably describe themselves as being a member of some religion (92%) and an afterlife (85%). So I find it perplexing that of those 57% in the survey who indicated they would give up that year for a day, that they can't wait.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
This would explain a lot
Reigning World TT Champ (by about a minute and a half over 2nd place), from 2009; then only manages a 16th place at ATOC (1:45 behind). Hum?
He has certainly peaked and bottomed out during his career. With expectations high that he might do a double at the Worlds last year he said in a cyclingnews.com interview "People expect a lot out of me, everything, and not only at the Worlds. I try not to overwhelm myself because I am not a machine."
In a March 2007 interview with PEZ he said, "I’m normal like everybody, not a machine; I have a lot of emotion, so I needed time to take it all in and to start new,..."
Bernhard Eisel was in the lead foursome at this years Tour of Flanders heading onto the crucial Molenberg but they were caught and then blown away by Fabian Cancellara (Saxo Bank) and Tom Boonen (Quick Step). “I thought, I’d better let this motorbike come by but when I turned around and looked it was Cancellara,” Eisel said. Did he say motorbike?
So let it be kown that by his own admission Fabian is only human, though it is his machine that is suspect (as nicely summarized here). And perhaps similar to "The Push to Pass Button" on Indy cars, this may also a limited boost for those timely accelerations, attacks, or uphill assists to keep you in the game or provide a strong surge against your closest rivals.
What price victory & fame?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
