Yeah, I know, everyone else is concerned about doping and what-not.

So what better time to report about a couple of things I've been playing around with this summer.

1. road tubeless:  you've probably read that campy determined that tubeless tires decrease rolling resistance around 30% over clinchers (and probably a similar amount over tubies, but I don't want to star that debate).  Anyway, I did, and at the same time, a corsa evo cx that I'd been riding since september decided to die, so I was in the market for tires anyway, so I asked the guys at the LBS about tubeless.

Continue reading this post »

Especially this year, tour watchers will need to be aware of an unfortunate, and often overlooked fact about the Tour: at least one gc favorite will be eliminated, for whatever reason, during the first week.

2001: Frankie Big-House, capo di Fasso Bortolo and a rider who blocked out every gear above 16 on his bike, has to be towed back to the field repeatedly during the early stages.  K-Boom.

1999: Passage au Gois.  Forget Sestrieres and the time trials.  Armstrong won his first tour here when Zulle crashed and lost six minutes in the ensuing chase down.

And then there's the stage one Haselback (can that be a word like doodsmack?) in '03 that took down Hamilton and Leipheimer.

Who can forget Iban Mayo's introduction to cobbles and echelons in '03?

And, last (just like this one), who can forget a big reason that Lemond was able to come back in 1989--Pedro Delgado's inexplicable two-minute delay in getting to the start house for the prologue?

I'm sure I'm forgetting others, but here's the point: at least one of the gc contenders will be removed from contention in the first week.  Question is: who?

Cool article about research into the metabolic processes of iditarod sled dogs, who can somehow manage to burn 240 calories/pound during competition (TdF riders = 100 calories/pound) without going severely catabolic.

Darpa's funding the research for military application, but you just know  . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/science/06dogs.html

I tried.  Really, I tried to watch the Versus coverage of Tour de Georgia and Romandie today.

But, honestly, it's just too pathetic to put up with.  I suppose I should expand and itemize all of the ways that this coverage has become irrelevant, (not least of which being the almost complete lack of actual coverage of RACING, once you get past the "features" which are really ads and then the ad breaks themselves), but I don't have the heart.

I guess it's sort of sad, but now I just have to convince the rest of the family that we don't need the cable package in which Versus is included . . . Update [2008-5-4 20:20:42 by R Mc]: After reading comments, I guess I should add that I've got videos of CBS coverage of the 1983 Tour de France (sponsored by Winning magazine!!!) the infamous 85 and 86 John Tesh covered Tours, and a couple of Tours du Ponts (although the one where--I swear, an amateur French climber named Virenque wins into a climb in Virginia has gone missing). The point is--I've been watching cycling coverage for a while. Phil and Paul have not descended to the levels of a Duffield or Adrian Karsten, BUT Versus no longer provides a product worth my time. Especially when there are options like Cycling.tv that provide coverage that doesn't insult the intelligence of a semi-knowledgeable fan.

So . . . everyone who follows cycling figures out fairly soon that the classics feature more exciting racing than the grand tours.

Don't believe me?  Think Denis Menchov (and up to this year, Cattle Evans).  They have all the panache of Oscar Meyer bologna, but they're grand tour contenders.

Cordero's desperately trying to find a way to make the vuelta relevant.  I have a suggestion: stop basing the gc on elapsed time.  Make the vuelta an omnium.  (There could be some problems with finishes turning into crash-fests, but that perhaps there's a work-around for that.)

is the sound of used doping products and other human bio-waste hitting the fan . . . in track and field.

It's really tempting, as a long-suffering cycling fan, to sit back and soak up the schadenfreude:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/sports/13doping.html?hp

"LAREDO, Tex. -- When one of the most successful coaches in the history of track and field goes on trial next month in the long-running federal investigation into doping in sports, lawyers for both sides are prepared to reveal that cheating in track is far more widespread than previously known."

Ok, So I watched the Brabants Arrow (yay Sylvain!) this morning and watched a bunch of the highlights of E3 from yesterday.

I've skimmed the results for the International Crit. (BTW, why is there no criterium in the criterium international?  There should be one . . .  ANYway).

My point is really very simple: where the heck is Hincapie???????

A few days ago appeared the post about identifying the sometimes conflicting criteria that us uber-welt-schmertzlich radsport fans (Consider that my tip of the hat to Freiburg) have developed to detect "ET" performances, as Gibo put it.

So, I was wasting time that I should have been spending grading papers this morning looking at race photos, and as I stared at Cattle winning the Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra stage (how dare you post that video, Chris?!!), it occurred to me--has Cattle been a wheel-sucker because that's the only way that  guys like him could survive?

Similarly, the emergence of Chavanel this year also raises the same question--are we seeing new faces because the game has changed?  And if so, what are the characteristics of "clean" racing?

I'm sorta stealing this idea from Gavia:  

For years it's sort of been an article of faith among some of us cycling-cynics that George Hincapie was a more talented Ludo Diercksens--i.e. a super strong guy who lacked the patience and tactical sense to win a major classic.

(Aside:  Does Diercksens coach Devolder?  It would explain a lot . . .)

Anyway, but Hincapie's hit that magic Duclos-Lassale age where he could either win a couple of career-defining classics or fade away into lantern-jawed obscurity.

I know he wants to win Paris-Roubaix, but the more I think about it, he seems more like an RVV winner.  Thoughts?

I have discovered the true reason for Astana's exclusion from the Giro: rider safety.

See, it turns out that your favorite rolling road hazard, Rene Hazard-braker, uh, Haselbacher had set his sights on causing mayhem during the Giro:

"René Haselbacher of Team Astana was looking forward to the Giro d'Italia as his season highlight, but the announcement by race organiser RCS Sport that Team Astana would not be invited put an end to that plan - and possibly more. RCS Sport Events Director Angelo Zomegnan "should explain to me personally why I can't take part. Right now, I am seriously considering whether it would be better to think about changing my profession at the end of the season," the Austrian stated to LaOla1.at.

"The Giro was my main goal this season. But it's over. I can forget it now. Why I can't start? I still don't know," the 30 year-old continued. "Honestly, I don't really care any more. I'm taking a break of training."

See, it's all about rider safety with Zomegnan . . .