I'm not entirely sure what this race was called because I just referred to it as "the race down in Doswell" whenever people would ask. I find that to be much more useful than the names of races unless they have some sort of history. It's even better when the name of the race is actually where it's being held. That certainly makes things simpler. But, that's not the point.
This was my first race of the year and I'm pretty pleased with how I felt throughout. It was a 30 mile circuit race on a really technical course. They claimed to have 9 90 degree corners but I only counted 7. There were 3 big sweepers so maybe a few of those were thrown in for the 9 count. There was also a hill but it wasn't long enough or steep enough to really make a difference.
The 4s started out with something like 70 people but that was whittled down to about 25 or so by the time we were at 5 laps to go. We ended up doing 31 miles in just over 1:10, so it was fast. But I think the yo-yo through the corners probably shed more people than the hill or the actual speeds.
With 2 laps to go there was a group of 6 that were about 30 seconds or so up the road. We came through the start finish and everybody slowed so I went to try and bridge up to those guys. It seemed pretty obvious to me that everybody else left in the main field was content for sprinting for 7th and I wanted nothing to do with that. In hindsight I probably went a bit early as I attacked into the cross wind, then into the headwind after the right hander and burned a really big match creating the separation through there. I'm not sure if anybody would have tried to come with me had I waited till the tailwind, but I wasn't interested in towing guys with me to the break so I wanted to make sure I was by myself. Some guy after the race said he tried to go with me and couldn't, so that's at least encouraging.
Trying to get up to the guys I had to fight my way through a ton of lapped traffic who were kind enough to essentially take whatever line they wanted through the corners. I'm not sure why these people weren't pulled but they were still on the course chatting with each other or picking their noses.
I knew I had to make it to the break before the downhill with the headwind or I'd never catch on. I didn't make it so at the bottom of the hill I sort of sat up a bit to wait for the field. As they came by, much to my surprise, it somehow ballooned to at least double as all the lapped traffic decided it was a good idea to latch on and get a free tow. I wasn't sure who in this group was actually still on the lead lap so I forced myself in somewhere about 20 guys back. As we turned left into the headwind it became apparent which guys weren't on the lead lap as they all blew back up and I was left with at least 15 bike lengths between me and the guys in the main field. This was obviously annoying and so I yelled at quite a few of the lapped guys to get the F' off the course as I tried to close that gap down to the main field. I think we're all friends now. (I did apologize to a few of them on the cool down lap) But seriously, what makes you think that getting back onto the main field after you've been lapped is ok? They'd obviously be pissed if they were in my situation as well.
I chased as hard as I could the final lap but couldn't quite catch back on to field. I ended up being scored 19th but I have no way of knowing if that's actually accurate or not. If I hadn't tried to bridge up I'm sure I could have finished top 5 out of the main field but that's only a 7th place finish at best. Anything after that gets the same upgrade points as my 19th. I'm happy with my decision to try and bridge that gap. I'd rather risk losing in an attempt to win than sit in for a marginally better finish on paper.
And a small rant:
Once again the USAC officials enforce all the rules that don't make a difference and completely ignore the small things that can actually make a difference in a race. Why they stopped pulling lapped riders with 2 to go is beyond me. It seems like that is the time they should have been most vigilant about getting guys out of the race off the course. They are the only people at the race being paid to be there so I wish they'd do their jobs a bit better. I know in the grand scheme it's still just amateur bike racing but it's an amateur bike race that everybody there paid to race in and part of that entrance fee certainly pays their wages for the day. They need to worry less about the imaginary perfect place for a number to be pinned on and whether a rider has his/her hands on the handlebars and more about ensuring race results are actually accurate.
At the same time, if you're a 4 you've done at least 10 races and should in theory understand a bit of race etiquette. If you are out of the race, get off the course or at least get out of the way. You do not get to take the good line through a corner when the group is coming up behind you and you are about to be lapped. In fact, you may even need to pull over, slow down, and let the field pass you before you go into that corner. Also, under no circumstances should you get back into the main field that is on the lead lap when you are not. The guys that are still fighting to stay in the field shouldn't have to try and remember who is and isn't on the lead lap. It should be pretty evident by the people that are around them in the group.
I also saw an official up a rider taking a free lap due to mechanical into a breakaway instead of the main field the other day. This is completely inexcusable. Getting a free lap is nice enough. You shouldn't get free entrance into the break as a reward for your flat tire. Luckily that guy wasn't good enough to be in the break and after a few laps was shelled.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Monday, April 11, 2011
The Value of Good Teammates
Johan van Summeren was able to win Paris-Roubaix yesterday because Thor Hushovd refused to work with Cancellara, forcing Cancellara to get frustrated and eventually sit up. Hushovd was 100% in the right for not pulling through since he had a teammate up the road. While it was probably annoying for Cancellara and he obviously wasn't interested in towing his competitors to the finish line, Hushovd is not obligated to work in that situation. The result, van Summeren stays away.
In my opinion Sylvain Chavanel lost Flanders because Tom Boonen attacked while he was up the road drawing Cancellara out. Once Cancellara had neautralized that move and then realized Boonen wasn't that strong he kept going and eventually bridged up to Chavanel. Maybe that would have happened later, anyway, but it certainly should not have been sparked by Boonen with Chavanel up the road.
The casual observer of bike racing might not have seen either of these scenarios play out that way. But bike racing is much more about team work and tactics than the casual fan realizes. Most big races are won and lost because a strong team played their hand perfectly. This doesn't matter if it's a one day classic or grand tour. Nobody wins a bike race that matters all by themselves. Just ask Cancellara.
In my opinion Sylvain Chavanel lost Flanders because Tom Boonen attacked while he was up the road drawing Cancellara out. Once Cancellara had neautralized that move and then realized Boonen wasn't that strong he kept going and eventually bridged up to Chavanel. Maybe that would have happened later, anyway, but it certainly should not have been sparked by Boonen with Chavanel up the road.
The casual observer of bike racing might not have seen either of these scenarios play out that way. But bike racing is much more about team work and tactics than the casual fan realizes. Most big races are won and lost because a strong team played their hand perfectly. This doesn't matter if it's a one day classic or grand tour. Nobody wins a bike race that matters all by themselves. Just ask Cancellara.
A Retraction (sort of)
With Gregory Rast's 4th place finish at Roubaix I was clearly at least a little bit wrong about Radioshack's chances. Because of that I would like to offer a mild retraction. If it weren't for the long breakaway producing the winner and a bunch of top 10 placings, which he was apart of, who knows where Rast would have finished. But, that's neither her nor there. He was in that long break. It went a LONG way and he got a 4th.
Euskatel on the other seemed to follow my exact predictions. Their best placed rider was Alan Perez Lezaun in 103rd place. How many riders finished Roubaix you may wonder? 108. Perez was the only Euskatel rider to bother to finish the race. Good show!
Euskatel on the other seemed to follow my exact predictions. Their best placed rider was Alan Perez Lezaun in 103rd place. How many riders finished Roubaix you may wonder? 108. Perez was the only Euskatel rider to bother to finish the race. Good show!
Friday, April 08, 2011
Obligated to Race
This weekend is Paris-Roubaix. If you're reading this blog, you know that already. As one would expect most of the cycling chatter this week on the interwebs is directly related to Paris-Roubaix. Pictures of Roubaixs in the past, descriptions of just how terrible the cobbles are, technical reviews of the changes being made to team bikes, and, if you're velonews, a sort of odd story that features Ben King, current US National Champion and his upcoming first attempt at Roubaix on a squad that has about no chance at winning.
In the end, what I took away from this particular story is that the current system where the UCI requires the teams with ProTour license to race all the races on the ProTour calender is clearly screwed up. To prove this point, look at the roster that Radioshack is sending to Paris-Roubaix:
Ben King
Bjorn Selander
Jesse Sergent
Fumiyuki Beppu
Robbie McEwen
Nélson Oliveira
Gregory Rast
Sebastian Rosseler
My assumption would be that these guys are working for, I have no idea, nobody in that group is even a long shot at winning this race. I'm going to actually make a point to see how many of these guys even bother finishing. Clearly Radioshack is built to win stage races. With Levi Leipheimer, Chris Horner, Andres Kloden, Janez Brajkovic and the rest of their climbing/TT focused team, they don't really give a damn about the cobbled classics. Even Rast and Rosseler are flat stage body gaurds, not classics specialists in a true sense. And that's fine, but for the sake of the race, let's stop forcing teams to participate that don't care. I'm pretty sure whatever squad Euskatel is sending this week will be heavily seen at the back of the bunch and drawing straws for who gets to abandon at the first feed zone. Whichever unlucky riders draw the long straws have to abandon at the second.
Instead of forcing teams with ProTour license to show up and abandon why not give Radioshack and company the opportunity to offer their spot up and enter more wild card Continental squads. I'd be willing to bet if you replaced Radioshack and Euskatel and a few others who don't care with two Belgium squads, you replace pack filler with recognizable jerseys with guys that show up motivated to make some sort of statement in the biggest race of their careers.
Let's face it. The chairman who approved the sponsorship of Radioshack isn't going to brag at the end of the year that their team had two riders finish Paris-Roubaix and most of the Basque fans who go crazy in the mountains during the Tour de France can't possibly have any hope for their guys come Sunday. Those teams are focused on a different kind of racing and that's a perfectly justifiable decision. But the governing bodies are doing both the race and smaller, more motivated teams a disservice by forcing participation on teams that couldn't care less. I'd rather have a race that includes five teams I'd never heard of throwing hail marys every chance they get to make the race exciting than a bunch of feed zone abandons out of obligation.
In the end, what I took away from this particular story is that the current system where the UCI requires the teams with ProTour license to race all the races on the ProTour calender is clearly screwed up. To prove this point, look at the roster that Radioshack is sending to Paris-Roubaix:
Ben King
Bjorn Selander
Jesse Sergent
Fumiyuki Beppu
Robbie McEwen
Nélson Oliveira
Gregory Rast
Sebastian Rosseler
My assumption would be that these guys are working for, I have no idea, nobody in that group is even a long shot at winning this race. I'm going to actually make a point to see how many of these guys even bother finishing. Clearly Radioshack is built to win stage races. With Levi Leipheimer, Chris Horner, Andres Kloden, Janez Brajkovic and the rest of their climbing/TT focused team, they don't really give a damn about the cobbled classics. Even Rast and Rosseler are flat stage body gaurds, not classics specialists in a true sense. And that's fine, but for the sake of the race, let's stop forcing teams to participate that don't care. I'm pretty sure whatever squad Euskatel is sending this week will be heavily seen at the back of the bunch and drawing straws for who gets to abandon at the first feed zone. Whichever unlucky riders draw the long straws have to abandon at the second.
Instead of forcing teams with ProTour license to show up and abandon why not give Radioshack and company the opportunity to offer their spot up and enter more wild card Continental squads. I'd be willing to bet if you replaced Radioshack and Euskatel and a few others who don't care with two Belgium squads, you replace pack filler with recognizable jerseys with guys that show up motivated to make some sort of statement in the biggest race of their careers.
Let's face it. The chairman who approved the sponsorship of Radioshack isn't going to brag at the end of the year that their team had two riders finish Paris-Roubaix and most of the Basque fans who go crazy in the mountains during the Tour de France can't possibly have any hope for their guys come Sunday. Those teams are focused on a different kind of racing and that's a perfectly justifiable decision. But the governing bodies are doing both the race and smaller, more motivated teams a disservice by forcing participation on teams that couldn't care less. I'd rather have a race that includes five teams I'd never heard of throwing hail marys every chance they get to make the race exciting than a bunch of feed zone abandons out of obligation.
Friday, April 01, 2011
Top 5 Cyclists
I have a paper to write which of course I'm putting off till the the last possible minute. This is unfortunate because I obviously have other stuff I need to be doing as well. What I don't need to be doing is updating this blog twice in one day, but you know how that goes. This is much more fun and interesting to write than any old paper that's going to earn me a Master's degree.
As I was procrastinating from writing said paper I found this on Rapha's Blog. They polled some of their peeps for a top 5 favorite cyclist list. It's worth a quick look and of course the comments sections are a bunch of strangers top 5 lists as well.
This made me pick up a pen and jot down my top 5 and so I decided to share them and why. I also have my top 5 least favorite cyclists as well. The thing about this list is I tried to be as honest as possible. That's why in the picture you'll see Lance Armstrong was crossed out. In the Rapha blog they mention that most people pick their top five based on how they were drawn to the sport. I'd be lying if I tried to deny the fact that when I first gained interest in professional cycling I lived for July and Lance Armstrong dominance. But, over the years, I've become much less of a Lance fan for a variety of reasons, most of which I'm sure you can guess or know if you're a TeamLandall regular reader. They also mention that you usually pick guys based on what kind of rider you see yourself as, which is also true in my list. So, anyway, here they are and a brief why.
Top 5, in no particular order:
Chris Horner
When I first started following cycling, or really, the Tour de France, there was this American guy who would always do interviews after or before each stage. His interviews always talked about team tactics and how the race unfolded. His explanations were in depth but simple enough for a new student of the sport to understand what he was saying. This guy was also a fantastic domestique for what I have always considered a 2nd tier contender. That has to take a great deal of dedication which I admired. That guy was Chris Horner. He's been my favorite cyclist ever since.
George Hincapie
I'm a bit Scottie Pippen fan and George Hincapie is basically Scottie Pippen with shaved legs and bunch of bicycles in hanging in his garage. He's the guy that every single team knows is absolutely invaluable to their success. Though, I'm not sure I've ever heard George or Scottie say that in an interview. As I became more of a fan of the classics I started to like George for an entirely different set of reasons. It's easy to cheer for the favorites in Flanders and Roubaix, but my allegiance will always be with big George.
Floyd Landis
That's right. I said it. I know he's an admitted doper. I don't care. I liked Floyd when he was on Postal because of his quirky personality. I liked him when he moved to Phonak and have argued till I was blue in the face that he was clean. Obviously I was wrong. He's a polarizing figure and people can feel however they want. I'm not sure there's much that could be revealed about this guy that would knock him off my top 5 list. Floyd was not afraid to risk losing in order to win. That's something, doped up or not, is worth taking note of.
Jens Voight
Jens Voight is on everyone's top 5 list. I like guys that try to win races with suicidal moves that go from a very, very long way out. I wish I had that kind of engine.
Thomas Voeckler
Most American cycling fans think of Thomas Voeckler as the little guy that Lance was nice enough to give the yellow jersey to so many Tours de Frances ago. Thomas Voeckler is not that guy. He is a bad ass bike racer who knows his strengths and takes advantage of race situations that play into those strengths. He's not the best climber. He's not the best sprinter. He's really good out of small groups who have been off the front for a long, long time. He's got a ton of guts and when he does win races it's generally in a dramatic fashion.
Bottom 5, in no particular order:
Heinrich Haussler
The guy just strikes me the wrong way. He wears weird Ed Hardy hats in interviews, which is a characteristic you can hold against anyone! I may be of the "what have you done for me lately?" mentality when it comes to Haussler, but he just strikes me as all hype and little pay off.
Andre Greipel
Remember last year when Greipel cried constantly about not getting to race in big races? Now he is in big races and he's still not winning big races. Blah blah blah, good luck in the Tour of Turkey. I hear you're very good there.
Alexander Vinokourov
I am aware that I picked a former doper and two attacking riders in my top 5 and put a former doping attacking rider in my least 5. That doesn't really make sense right? Yeah, I don't care. I don't like the guy. He made a jersey with his face on it. That's just ridiculous.
Carlos Sastre
I remember watching the CSC documentary Overcoming and being left with the impression that Carlos Sastre is a whinny baby. I had never paid much attention to him before seeing that film and then it was the same thing in every interview. I know he won le Tour. I know he's never been tied in to any doping controversy. I know all of these things, but still, I'm just not a fan. He seems slow to respond to attacks in the mountains and except for that one time on Alpe d'Huez, he certainly doesn't attack on his own. Maybe I should make a list of wheel following grand tour contenders as well?
Alessandro Petacchi
This one probably isn't even that fair of an assessment. I'm sure there's somebody I like less than Petacchi and I'm just not thinking of them right now. But for as many times as he's busted for some sort of over the counter banned substance, I figure he's always on some sort of juice. Not to mention the fact that he gets very whinny in the media when nobody considers him a favorite in sprints.
That's enough procrastinating. That's my top 5 and least 5 favorite pro cyclist. If you feel so inclined put yours in the comments. They can be alive, dead or me for that matter. I'm probably a good choice for your list.
As I was procrastinating from writing said paper I found this on Rapha's Blog. They polled some of their peeps for a top 5 favorite cyclist list. It's worth a quick look and of course the comments sections are a bunch of strangers top 5 lists as well.
This made me pick up a pen and jot down my top 5 and so I decided to share them and why. I also have my top 5 least favorite cyclists as well. The thing about this list is I tried to be as honest as possible. That's why in the picture you'll see Lance Armstrong was crossed out. In the Rapha blog they mention that most people pick their top five based on how they were drawn to the sport. I'd be lying if I tried to deny the fact that when I first gained interest in professional cycling I lived for July and Lance Armstrong dominance. But, over the years, I've become much less of a Lance fan for a variety of reasons, most of which I'm sure you can guess or know if you're a TeamLandall regular reader. They also mention that you usually pick guys based on what kind of rider you see yourself as, which is also true in my list. So, anyway, here they are and a brief why.
Top 5, in no particular order:
Chris Horner
When I first started following cycling, or really, the Tour de France, there was this American guy who would always do interviews after or before each stage. His interviews always talked about team tactics and how the race unfolded. His explanations were in depth but simple enough for a new student of the sport to understand what he was saying. This guy was also a fantastic domestique for what I have always considered a 2nd tier contender. That has to take a great deal of dedication which I admired. That guy was Chris Horner. He's been my favorite cyclist ever since.
George Hincapie
I'm a bit Scottie Pippen fan and George Hincapie is basically Scottie Pippen with shaved legs and bunch of bicycles in hanging in his garage. He's the guy that every single team knows is absolutely invaluable to their success. Though, I'm not sure I've ever heard George or Scottie say that in an interview. As I became more of a fan of the classics I started to like George for an entirely different set of reasons. It's easy to cheer for the favorites in Flanders and Roubaix, but my allegiance will always be with big George.
Floyd Landis
That's right. I said it. I know he's an admitted doper. I don't care. I liked Floyd when he was on Postal because of his quirky personality. I liked him when he moved to Phonak and have argued till I was blue in the face that he was clean. Obviously I was wrong. He's a polarizing figure and people can feel however they want. I'm not sure there's much that could be revealed about this guy that would knock him off my top 5 list. Floyd was not afraid to risk losing in order to win. That's something, doped up or not, is worth taking note of.
Jens Voight
Jens Voight is on everyone's top 5 list. I like guys that try to win races with suicidal moves that go from a very, very long way out. I wish I had that kind of engine.
Thomas Voeckler
Most American cycling fans think of Thomas Voeckler as the little guy that Lance was nice enough to give the yellow jersey to so many Tours de Frances ago. Thomas Voeckler is not that guy. He is a bad ass bike racer who knows his strengths and takes advantage of race situations that play into those strengths. He's not the best climber. He's not the best sprinter. He's really good out of small groups who have been off the front for a long, long time. He's got a ton of guts and when he does win races it's generally in a dramatic fashion.
Bottom 5, in no particular order:
Heinrich Haussler
The guy just strikes me the wrong way. He wears weird Ed Hardy hats in interviews, which is a characteristic you can hold against anyone! I may be of the "what have you done for me lately?" mentality when it comes to Haussler, but he just strikes me as all hype and little pay off.
Andre Greipel
Remember last year when Greipel cried constantly about not getting to race in big races? Now he is in big races and he's still not winning big races. Blah blah blah, good luck in the Tour of Turkey. I hear you're very good there.
Alexander Vinokourov
I am aware that I picked a former doper and two attacking riders in my top 5 and put a former doping attacking rider in my least 5. That doesn't really make sense right? Yeah, I don't care. I don't like the guy. He made a jersey with his face on it. That's just ridiculous.
Carlos Sastre
I remember watching the CSC documentary Overcoming and being left with the impression that Carlos Sastre is a whinny baby. I had never paid much attention to him before seeing that film and then it was the same thing in every interview. I know he won le Tour. I know he's never been tied in to any doping controversy. I know all of these things, but still, I'm just not a fan. He seems slow to respond to attacks in the mountains and except for that one time on Alpe d'Huez, he certainly doesn't attack on his own. Maybe I should make a list of wheel following grand tour contenders as well?
Alessandro Petacchi
This one probably isn't even that fair of an assessment. I'm sure there's somebody I like less than Petacchi and I'm just not thinking of them right now. But for as many times as he's busted for some sort of over the counter banned substance, I figure he's always on some sort of juice. Not to mention the fact that he gets very whinny in the media when nobody considers him a favorite in sprints.
That's enough procrastinating. That's my top 5 and least 5 favorite pro cyclist. If you feel so inclined put yours in the comments. They can be alive, dead or me for that matter. I'm probably a good choice for your list.
Successful Customer Survey Campaigns
Businesses clearly want to know what you think of their business. Take a look at just about every receipt you're given these days and there is some sort of online survey that could be filled out with some sort of incentive for doing so. I fully understand why and even believe they want real feedback. But what I don't understand is why so many of them get the incentive to the customer part of this so wrong.
From my possibly limited experience, though I'd assume I'm just about as average of a consumer as the next guy, there are basically two strategies that companies use to offer an incentive to gather feedback. The first, which seems to be the most common, is to offer a chance at some insanely large reward for filling out the survey. I was at Giant over the weekend and was informed that if I filled out the online survey I could be entered into a drawing at a chance to win free groceries for an entire year. The other day Jill and I ate at a large nationwide chain restaurant which I won't name from being slightly embarrassed that we actually went there and the bottom of their receipt included a chance to win $5,000 in a drawing if you filled out their survey. I would easily characterize both of these incentives as big, but neither made me sit down at my computer and give them any feedback.
The second, which I see a lot less, is a guaranteed discount or free product on your next purchase in exchange for information. Currently Dunkin Donuts is running one of these and if you fill out their survey you get a free donut with the purchase of a medium or larger coffee on your next visit. When I lived in Portland, the greatest fast food chain on the planet, Burgerville, offered a similar incentive where you could get a free basket upgrade (think combo) if you ordered any sandwich. You know how many of these survey's I fill/ed out? Every single one of them!
I'm sure the survey I would fill out from Giant would take the exact same amount of time as the survey from Dunkin Donuts (3 mins by the way) but I'm just not that interested in the chance at winning free groceries because to be honest, I don't really believe that the drawing ever takes place. Now, I'm sure for legal reasons that it does take place, but if you don't win you're not notified of that and so to me, it just seems like a waste of time. I understand that my and everyone else's feedback is valuable to helping you improve your business, but I like stuff I can touch, feel and walk back into the store and cash in on the exchange of information I provided you with.
The thing about the guaranteed incentive is that it doesn't even have to be big. The free donut with a medium coffee at Dunkin Donuts costs $1.75, which basically saves me a little less than $1 if I didn't have the coupon. But, I'll also admit that because I do have it in my wallet, I'm a bit more apt to go get a donut and coffee on a Friday morning than if I didn't. So while I realize it's cheaper for Giant to offer a drawing that they only give away to 1 person and not 1,000s, I might not be as likely to return and purchase additional groceries for a variety of reasons (convenience being one of them) than I would if I had some sort of small tangible incentive to do so.
Maybe I'm in the minority here and everybody else rushes home to fill out the survey on the bottom of their Giant receipt to try and get free groceries for a year. To me, it's just not worth it. I'm aware these companies aren't dumb and have a lot of smart people and consultants figuring out all of the breaking points for what incentive is just large enough to generate survey results but small enough to remain profitable. But for me, I'd rather take the time to offer feedback on a business when I'm given a guaranteed return for that information, even if it is much smaller than the chance at winning a very large prize.
From my possibly limited experience, though I'd assume I'm just about as average of a consumer as the next guy, there are basically two strategies that companies use to offer an incentive to gather feedback. The first, which seems to be the most common, is to offer a chance at some insanely large reward for filling out the survey. I was at Giant over the weekend and was informed that if I filled out the online survey I could be entered into a drawing at a chance to win free groceries for an entire year. The other day Jill and I ate at a large nationwide chain restaurant which I won't name from being slightly embarrassed that we actually went there and the bottom of their receipt included a chance to win $5,000 in a drawing if you filled out their survey. I would easily characterize both of these incentives as big, but neither made me sit down at my computer and give them any feedback.
The second, which I see a lot less, is a guaranteed discount or free product on your next purchase in exchange for information. Currently Dunkin Donuts is running one of these and if you fill out their survey you get a free donut with the purchase of a medium or larger coffee on your next visit. When I lived in Portland, the greatest fast food chain on the planet, Burgerville, offered a similar incentive where you could get a free basket upgrade (think combo) if you ordered any sandwich. You know how many of these survey's I fill/ed out? Every single one of them!
I'm sure the survey I would fill out from Giant would take the exact same amount of time as the survey from Dunkin Donuts (3 mins by the way) but I'm just not that interested in the chance at winning free groceries because to be honest, I don't really believe that the drawing ever takes place. Now, I'm sure for legal reasons that it does take place, but if you don't win you're not notified of that and so to me, it just seems like a waste of time. I understand that my and everyone else's feedback is valuable to helping you improve your business, but I like stuff I can touch, feel and walk back into the store and cash in on the exchange of information I provided you with.
The thing about the guaranteed incentive is that it doesn't even have to be big. The free donut with a medium coffee at Dunkin Donuts costs $1.75, which basically saves me a little less than $1 if I didn't have the coupon. But, I'll also admit that because I do have it in my wallet, I'm a bit more apt to go get a donut and coffee on a Friday morning than if I didn't. So while I realize it's cheaper for Giant to offer a drawing that they only give away to 1 person and not 1,000s, I might not be as likely to return and purchase additional groceries for a variety of reasons (convenience being one of them) than I would if I had some sort of small tangible incentive to do so.
Maybe I'm in the minority here and everybody else rushes home to fill out the survey on the bottom of their Giant receipt to try and get free groceries for a year. To me, it's just not worth it. I'm aware these companies aren't dumb and have a lot of smart people and consultants figuring out all of the breaking points for what incentive is just large enough to generate survey results but small enough to remain profitable. But for me, I'd rather take the time to offer feedback on a business when I'm given a guaranteed return for that information, even if it is much smaller than the chance at winning a very large prize.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Please Try!
An open letter to all Pro-ass bike racers not named Fabian Cancellara.
Dear Pro-ass bike racers not named Fabian Cancellara,
I know you're 100% aware of this but the Tour of Flanders is on Saturday which is awesome. It happens to be my favorite spring classic, not that this should matter that much to you.
I stumbled upon a little video on VeloNews.com where a few of your colleagues were making comments about how Fabian Cancellara is basically unbeatable and while nobody came right out and said it, everyone was pretty much insinuating that if he attacks it's a race for second. Look, I get it, he's really fast. And, I've read and heard the accounts that say even just staying on his wheel is tough. I get that too. But please, for the love of Eddie Merckx do not, and I repeat, DO NOT have another pitiful show of cowardliness that took place at Paris-Roubaix last year. When Cancellara attacked with 60k out every single one of you besides Tom Boonen all sat up and felt sorry for yourselves that you were now going to get 2nd. Don't do that again. Please chase. Make me and all my fellow cycling fans believe that you guys actually want to win races, even if that means you risk losing them.
If Fabian wins on Sunday fine. He's a super fast bike racer and I'm sure he'd like nothing more than to prove he's unbeatable. Shouldn't all of you take that as a challenge to prove he is? I don't even care who wins I just want to see a good race where all the "stars" of cycling actually look like they've earned that title because they're willing to bury themselves to win.
I know you all want to win to so I'm sure you'll all be trying very hard and that's all we ask.
Sincerely,
TeamLandall
Dear Pro-ass bike racers not named Fabian Cancellara,
I know you're 100% aware of this but the Tour of Flanders is on Saturday which is awesome. It happens to be my favorite spring classic, not that this should matter that much to you.
I stumbled upon a little video on VeloNews.com where a few of your colleagues were making comments about how Fabian Cancellara is basically unbeatable and while nobody came right out and said it, everyone was pretty much insinuating that if he attacks it's a race for second. Look, I get it, he's really fast. And, I've read and heard the accounts that say even just staying on his wheel is tough. I get that too. But please, for the love of Eddie Merckx do not, and I repeat, DO NOT have another pitiful show of cowardliness that took place at Paris-Roubaix last year. When Cancellara attacked with 60k out every single one of you besides Tom Boonen all sat up and felt sorry for yourselves that you were now going to get 2nd. Don't do that again. Please chase. Make me and all my fellow cycling fans believe that you guys actually want to win races, even if that means you risk losing them.
If Fabian wins on Sunday fine. He's a super fast bike racer and I'm sure he'd like nothing more than to prove he's unbeatable. Shouldn't all of you take that as a challenge to prove he is? I don't even care who wins I just want to see a good race where all the "stars" of cycling actually look like they've earned that title because they're willing to bury themselves to win.
I know you all want to win to so I'm sure you'll all be trying very hard and that's all we ask.
Sincerely,
TeamLandall
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Finish Line Salutes
I really like it when riders have finish line salutes other than simply sticking both hands in the air touchdown style. Mostly I like them because they make absolutely no sense or actually need to be interpreted. Now, most of the time these types of celebrations take place on tops of mountains or after successful breakaways where the rider is coming to the line alone. It's hard to fault the bunch sprinter for not being overly creative at 70kph when he's just trying to see straight to avoid any arrant photographers. Although there was that time that Robbie McEwen did the weird running arms gesture after winning a stage of the Tour de France. He later said that was a dare from Levi Leiphemier.
Here are a few of my favorites:
Christian Vande Velde rocks the baby since he and his wife recently had a baby. Cut to about 1:30.
Carlos Sastre shows some real planning by having a pacifier available. Maybe VdV should have had some better planning. Possibly an entire bottle would have been cool.
Then there's the guys who like to incorporate weapons, real ones.
Ryan Trebon takes a sword from a fan on the finishing straight of a cross race. At least I'm pretty sure he didn't have it sheathed throughout.
Juan Antonio Flecha likes to shoot a pretend arrow.
And of course we're all familiar with Contador's fake pistol shot.
But this is something new. Today, Contador wins solo on top of a mountain and instead of pulling out his fake pistol he does what I can only assume is asking the world to have some heart when discussing his pending doping situation. It's all about the subtle suggestions.
Here are a few of my favorites:
Christian Vande Velde rocks the baby since he and his wife recently had a baby. Cut to about 1:30.
Carlos Sastre shows some real planning by having a pacifier available. Maybe VdV should have had some better planning. Possibly an entire bottle would have been cool.
Then there's the guys who like to incorporate weapons, real ones.
Ryan Trebon takes a sword from a fan on the finishing straight of a cross race. At least I'm pretty sure he didn't have it sheathed throughout.
Juan Antonio Flecha likes to shoot a pretend arrow.
And of course we're all familiar with Contador's fake pistol shot.
But this is something new. Today, Contador wins solo on top of a mountain and instead of pulling out his fake pistol he does what I can only assume is asking the world to have some heart when discussing his pending doping situation. It's all about the subtle suggestions.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Bikes are Great!
Like most people who love bikes I didn't grow up riding in lycra or even know what a derailleur was until about 8 years ago. My parents had bikes that changed gears but that didn't mean much to me. I was always more interested in finding some pile of dirt to transform into a jump. Or, if it was big enough, a table top. My first real bike, and I still consider it that today, was a Redline 220. It was a low end bmx bike that cost $200 and I remember I saved for what seemed like 1,000 years to buy it. The guy at the bike shop told me I could spend another $30 and get a Dyno something that was better. But I didn't care, I like the Redline and I had enough money for it on the spot. Didn't he realize how long it'd take me to save another $30?
I don't often speak very highly of where I grew up but one perk that even I can't bash is that we had plenty of access to trails, open fields and in some cases heavy machinery we had no business operating to build a new bmx track whenever we wanted. There were about 8 of us that would split up and make teams of 2 or 3. We were inspired by the movie Rad which we'd watch religiously and dirt bike racing, which we all wished we were doing but were too poor to afford motorcycles. Team Green (Kawasaki), Big Red (Honda)and Suzuki, if the other two got picked before you had a chance, would all work together to build a track and then race in 3-4 up matches. A lot of the cyclocross racing strategy that I employee today I learned on a bmx bike trying to pass my friend or get the whole shot. I'd do almost anything to get my Redline 220 back.
I remember one summer I had a job cutting the grass at my dad's church. Man I hated that job. But one day I decided instead of getting driven out there I'd just ride my bike. It couldn't have been more than 10 miles thinking back on it now, but on a bmx bike with a single gear ratio of something like 33x15, it took a while. It seemed like it was so far, but I remember the sense of accomplishment when I got there. At the time, I never would have guessed that a bike would eventually lead me around the perimeter of the US in 2006.
To me, bikes are beautiful. From the incredibly simplistic and clean track bike to over engineered full suspension mountain bikes and time trial rigs, bikes are beautiful. Because of that, I will watch just about any video that has something to do with cycling. My wife makes fun of me constantly for it, but the bike geek in me just can't get enough.
The bike world is incredibly diverse and I should be the first to admit that sometimes that diversity drives me insane. At times I want there to be some sort of outlaw on guys on hybrids with day-glo jackets clogging up my commute to work by riding a top speed of 12mph and swerving all over the place just to try and remain upright. I realize that's incredibly selfish and I'm working on it. Those guys have just as much a right to enjoy the bicycle as I do.
Today I saw the video below. It is absolutely amazing to me what some people can do on a bike. The bike handling skills and control that this guy has is absolutely amazing. To me, it's equally as impressive and no less brave than sprinters rubbing elbows at 70kph (~42mph for those of us in America). It's seeing a video like this or reading an update about the work that Richmond Cycling Corp is doing as they work with under-privileged Richmond youth and use cycling as a vehicle to do so that simply reinforces just how great I think the bicycle is.
Watch this video and be amazed. Watch Milan-San Remo this weekend and be amazed. Go to the Richmond Cycling Corps website and be amazed. But, don't forget to get on your bike and remember what it was like to ride as a kid.
I don't often speak very highly of where I grew up but one perk that even I can't bash is that we had plenty of access to trails, open fields and in some cases heavy machinery we had no business operating to build a new bmx track whenever we wanted. There were about 8 of us that would split up and make teams of 2 or 3. We were inspired by the movie Rad which we'd watch religiously and dirt bike racing, which we all wished we were doing but were too poor to afford motorcycles. Team Green (Kawasaki), Big Red (Honda)and Suzuki, if the other two got picked before you had a chance, would all work together to build a track and then race in 3-4 up matches. A lot of the cyclocross racing strategy that I employee today I learned on a bmx bike trying to pass my friend or get the whole shot. I'd do almost anything to get my Redline 220 back.
I remember one summer I had a job cutting the grass at my dad's church. Man I hated that job. But one day I decided instead of getting driven out there I'd just ride my bike. It couldn't have been more than 10 miles thinking back on it now, but on a bmx bike with a single gear ratio of something like 33x15, it took a while. It seemed like it was so far, but I remember the sense of accomplishment when I got there. At the time, I never would have guessed that a bike would eventually lead me around the perimeter of the US in 2006.
To me, bikes are beautiful. From the incredibly simplistic and clean track bike to over engineered full suspension mountain bikes and time trial rigs, bikes are beautiful. Because of that, I will watch just about any video that has something to do with cycling. My wife makes fun of me constantly for it, but the bike geek in me just can't get enough.
The bike world is incredibly diverse and I should be the first to admit that sometimes that diversity drives me insane. At times I want there to be some sort of outlaw on guys on hybrids with day-glo jackets clogging up my commute to work by riding a top speed of 12mph and swerving all over the place just to try and remain upright. I realize that's incredibly selfish and I'm working on it. Those guys have just as much a right to enjoy the bicycle as I do.
Today I saw the video below. It is absolutely amazing to me what some people can do on a bike. The bike handling skills and control that this guy has is absolutely amazing. To me, it's equally as impressive and no less brave than sprinters rubbing elbows at 70kph (~42mph for those of us in America). It's seeing a video like this or reading an update about the work that Richmond Cycling Corp is doing as they work with under-privileged Richmond youth and use cycling as a vehicle to do so that simply reinforces just how great I think the bicycle is.
Watch this video and be amazed. Watch Milan-San Remo this weekend and be amazed. Go to the Richmond Cycling Corps website and be amazed. But, don't forget to get on your bike and remember what it was like to ride as a kid.
A Hill in Spain from chris akrigg on Vimeo.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Stay Classy Ohio State
Remember last bowl season when the news broke that Ohio State's star quarterback and wide receiver had violated NCAA sanctions by selling memorabilia? Then remember how Jim Tressel came out and said he wasn't going to suspend his players for the bowl game because it would hurt all of the seniors who had worked so hard for four years. Instead, he would suspend his players for the first five games of next season so they'd learn their lessons. Obviously the only people that bought this line of crap were Ohio State fans because everybody knows the first five games of the next seasons are cream puffs and scrimmages. Clearly Tressel saw a way to "punish" his star players but not have any the record of Ohio State be tarnished in the process. So, if you remember all of that then you remember Ohio State went on to beat Arkansas in the Sugar Bowl. Good plan Jimmy!
Then there's this which hit the news today. Looks like Tressel's boys were slanging a little more than throw back jerseys. And, the best part, he knew about it and did nothing.
Mr. Tressel your sweater vest, parted hair and principle glasses are obviously just a costume. If you want people to believe you when you say you're trying to mold young men then the prudent thing is to actually act on those beliefs. Sometimes this may mean that your seniors are affected by the actions of your star players. But those are the players you recruited. You become responsible for them when they show up for the first day of practice and throughout their tenure at your institution. If you don't want to have to make tough decisions then recruit players that won't put you in a position to do so. But, how would you continue to win BCS bowl games without them? Take a look around. Some of your colleagues seem to be figuring it out.
Since we're talking about BCS bowl game wins here's a fun fact about old sweater vest. Ohio State has not won a BCS bowl game under Tressel that did not include a player(s) who were later sanctioned by the NCAA compliance violations.
2003 - Ohio State beats Miami for national title - Maurice Clarrett - improper gifts
2004 - OSU beats Kansas State - Troy Smith sanctioned
2005 - No BCS
2006 - OSU beats Notre Dame - Troy Smith again
2007 - Lose to Florida
2008 - Lose to LSU
2009 - Lose to Texas
2010 - Beat Oregon - Terrell Pryor & Company
2011 - Beat Arkansas - Terrell Pryor & Company (with known NCAA sanctions)
Overall BCS Record without an NCAA sanctioned star player on the field: 0-8.
Stay classy Ohio State, stay classy!
Then there's this which hit the news today. Looks like Tressel's boys were slanging a little more than throw back jerseys. And, the best part, he knew about it and did nothing.
Mr. Tressel your sweater vest, parted hair and principle glasses are obviously just a costume. If you want people to believe you when you say you're trying to mold young men then the prudent thing is to actually act on those beliefs. Sometimes this may mean that your seniors are affected by the actions of your star players. But those are the players you recruited. You become responsible for them when they show up for the first day of practice and throughout their tenure at your institution. If you don't want to have to make tough decisions then recruit players that won't put you in a position to do so. But, how would you continue to win BCS bowl games without them? Take a look around. Some of your colleagues seem to be figuring it out.
Since we're talking about BCS bowl game wins here's a fun fact about old sweater vest. Ohio State has not won a BCS bowl game under Tressel that did not include a player(s) who were later sanctioned by the NCAA compliance violations.
2003 - Ohio State beats Miami for national title - Maurice Clarrett - improper gifts
2004 - OSU beats Kansas State - Troy Smith sanctioned
2005 - No BCS
2006 - OSU beats Notre Dame - Troy Smith again
2007 - Lose to Florida
2008 - Lose to LSU
2009 - Lose to Texas
2010 - Beat Oregon - Terrell Pryor & Company
2011 - Beat Arkansas - Terrell Pryor & Company (with known NCAA sanctions)
Overall BCS Record without an NCAA sanctioned star player on the field: 0-8.
Stay classy Ohio State, stay classy!
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
Burglars, Dopers and Thieves
I'll be the first to admit I waffle on this whole doping issue quite a bit. Sometimes I want to figure out a way to be a champion for a cleaner sport. Other times I figure it's a losing battle and it would make more sense to have a buffet of drugs available to every rider before every race so that the playing field is leveled. But this argument assumes it's an accessibility issue, which, it hardly is.
I read Steve Tilford's blog on basically a daily basis. I'm not really sure why because to be honest, overall, it's not that interesting. He mostly writes about himself and changing the brake lines on his really old van. He also writes in a very "good old days" fashion, which at times can get old. But, like most blogs, there is occasionally something that is really great. A perspective on a subject that I couldn't get without the insight of an old pro. Today was one of those days and if you have a minute, read this.
At the end, Steve refers to the dopers as common criminals, robbers, thieves, burglars, etc. In a sense I've never thought of them quite like that. I've heard the argument repeated by the cycling world that you should own your victory and that dopers can not. But this is much more powerful. It takes away any onus for the dopers to have a moral dilemma by the decisions they are making. Anybody can justify their criminal behavior to themselves, that happens all the time. I think the more powerful stance is to start referring to the dopers as thieves, because there's no way of getting around it, they are absolutely stealing victories.
I read Steve Tilford's blog on basically a daily basis. I'm not really sure why because to be honest, overall, it's not that interesting. He mostly writes about himself and changing the brake lines on his really old van. He also writes in a very "good old days" fashion, which at times can get old. But, like most blogs, there is occasionally something that is really great. A perspective on a subject that I couldn't get without the insight of an old pro. Today was one of those days and if you have a minute, read this.
At the end, Steve refers to the dopers as common criminals, robbers, thieves, burglars, etc. In a sense I've never thought of them quite like that. I've heard the argument repeated by the cycling world that you should own your victory and that dopers can not. But this is much more powerful. It takes away any onus for the dopers to have a moral dilemma by the decisions they are making. Anybody can justify their criminal behavior to themselves, that happens all the time. I think the more powerful stance is to start referring to the dopers as thieves, because there's no way of getting around it, they are absolutely stealing victories.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Confused
The Contador suspension being overturned confuses me. It makes me believe Floyd even more that there is basically a top ring of cyclist where conspiracy boils over. It makes me wonder how Don Alejandro Velverde actually got suspended when to my knowledge he's never actually tested positive for anything, only linked to the Puerto issue. I could be wrong about that as now days doping stories and facts are all running together. I'm also confused as to why Contador's defense is really any different than Tom Zirbels? Seems like they both had tremendously low amounts of clenbuterol in their system. Both claimed it was ingested without their knowledge. Only difference is Contador isn't proving it came from meat but that it's the only explanation because it couldn't have been anything else and Zirbel couldn't prove which supplement it might have come from since he was notified so late. Neither seem like realistic defenses but if one works why wouldn't the other?
I'm obviously not a lawyer or a chemist working in a testing lab but as average as my mind may be I can certainly tell that if this doping issue is really going to get resolved, fair/equal treatment and adherence to policy is a good place to start.
I'm obviously not a lawyer or a chemist working in a testing lab but as average as my mind may be I can certainly tell that if this doping issue is really going to get resolved, fair/equal treatment and adherence to policy is a good place to start.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Response To a Piece on GMA
GMA ran a story on a kid this morning who got cut from his high school baseball team because he's not good enough to make the team. Unfortunately, the kid is a double below the waist amputee and therefore the version of the story they ran was about that and not about what actually gets you cut from a team, lack of skill set. I firmly believe and have written in this space before that sports are the great equalizer between a lot of other socially driven issues that face society. Take a look at at almost all professional sports from their beginnings to present day and it's clear to see the changes that took place from a socio-economic prospective. Sports, at their core are about winning, and in order to win you need the best players available to you. The owners of every major sport in the world didn't all get together and say, "Hey, let's help the racial divide by giving minorities a chance to make a living playing this game." No, they went out and found the athletes with the highest skill set and thought it was a wise decision to pay them for that skill regardless of race, creed or anything else that makes one person different than the next.
There were a few facts that GMA pointed out that I thought did not help their point in the story.
1) The kid is a pitcher. While pitchers aren't often thought to need a lot of mobility there are very specific plays in baseball where a pitcher needs to be able to run. Covering bunts was brought up in the piece. I can also think of covering home plate in the event of a passed ball and a runner on third. And, a ground ball fielded by the first baseman often requires the pitcher to cover first. These are not un-athletic moves and often turn into a foot race between the pitcher and the base runner. You would be a pretty bad coach if you simply over looked this skill set for your pitching staff. While they didn't give his 40, 60 or shuttle times in the piece, they did have ample footage of him walking at it looked a bit awkward and forced leading me to believe mobility in any of these situations would definitely be an issue.
2) The kid has a fastball of 80 mph. Without calling names I could go through a litany of guys I grew up with playing against that at the little league level threw the equivalent of 80 and were dominant. Probably the case with this kid. But, like all those guys I'm not naming, everybody else grew up too and by the time we were playing varsity baseball, the kids you used to fear were the ones you hoped were pitching because their 80mph fastball was the same as it was 5 years before. What used to be dominating was now basically a batting practice equivalent fastball. I played on a lot of pretty good baseball teams growing up and an 80mph fastball was easily on the low end for most of the guys on our staff. It certainly is not an impressive number and I'd also venture to say it's probably not accurate as there was no video footage of a gun actually recording an 80mph fastball.
3) The kid is right handed. If you know anything about baseball this is a big factor. If he's left handed and throws 80 and can't run but has other decent off speed stuff, he probably makes the team.
The thing that gets to me most about this story is that it's so easy to see this situation isn't about this kids disability or his ability to overcome it to this point in his life, but the media sensationalizing it and skewing the facts to get a reaction out of the uninformed masses sitting on their couch drinking their morning coffee. Whoever the correspondant was doing the story said the kid had a real shot as a big league prospect. This is just a ridiculous statement and no big surprise that there were no MLB scouts offering their opinions on his skills.
Jim Abbott is probably one of the greatest pitchers ever to play the game and he only had one hand. His disability didn't hold him back because the rest of the skills he brought to the table made up for the fact that he only had one hand. There was another story I saw the other day about a division one basketball player who is an amputee from the elbow down on one arm. At some point, his playing career will probably end as well, but for now, he's able to bring other skills like size to the table to make up for that fact.
Unfortunately for this young man he's reached that point where, at least to this coach, the level of the game has passed his skill set. It sucks. Believe me, I know. But no coach would be around very long if he cut talented players simply because they didn't have the legs he was born with. If you're good enough to play, you'll play regardless of what may be seen as a disability to others.
I'm not here to bash this kid. In fact I think it's great that he's overcome all of the obstacles he had to just to make it to this point in his life, much less baseball. He loves the game of baseball and wants to keep playing and he's hurt that now he's reached that point where the level of the game has passed the skill set he has to offer. Unfortunately, this happens at some point to 99% of the people who play sports growing up. Even the ones who work really hard and really want to be professionals. If it didn't, professional athletes wouldn't be as well paid as they are because they'd be easily replaceable.
There were a few facts that GMA pointed out that I thought did not help their point in the story.
1) The kid is a pitcher. While pitchers aren't often thought to need a lot of mobility there are very specific plays in baseball where a pitcher needs to be able to run. Covering bunts was brought up in the piece. I can also think of covering home plate in the event of a passed ball and a runner on third. And, a ground ball fielded by the first baseman often requires the pitcher to cover first. These are not un-athletic moves and often turn into a foot race between the pitcher and the base runner. You would be a pretty bad coach if you simply over looked this skill set for your pitching staff. While they didn't give his 40, 60 or shuttle times in the piece, they did have ample footage of him walking at it looked a bit awkward and forced leading me to believe mobility in any of these situations would definitely be an issue.
2) The kid has a fastball of 80 mph. Without calling names I could go through a litany of guys I grew up with playing against that at the little league level threw the equivalent of 80 and were dominant. Probably the case with this kid. But, like all those guys I'm not naming, everybody else grew up too and by the time we were playing varsity baseball, the kids you used to fear were the ones you hoped were pitching because their 80mph fastball was the same as it was 5 years before. What used to be dominating was now basically a batting practice equivalent fastball. I played on a lot of pretty good baseball teams growing up and an 80mph fastball was easily on the low end for most of the guys on our staff. It certainly is not an impressive number and I'd also venture to say it's probably not accurate as there was no video footage of a gun actually recording an 80mph fastball.
3) The kid is right handed. If you know anything about baseball this is a big factor. If he's left handed and throws 80 and can't run but has other decent off speed stuff, he probably makes the team.
The thing that gets to me most about this story is that it's so easy to see this situation isn't about this kids disability or his ability to overcome it to this point in his life, but the media sensationalizing it and skewing the facts to get a reaction out of the uninformed masses sitting on their couch drinking their morning coffee. Whoever the correspondant was doing the story said the kid had a real shot as a big league prospect. This is just a ridiculous statement and no big surprise that there were no MLB scouts offering their opinions on his skills.
Jim Abbott is probably one of the greatest pitchers ever to play the game and he only had one hand. His disability didn't hold him back because the rest of the skills he brought to the table made up for the fact that he only had one hand. There was another story I saw the other day about a division one basketball player who is an amputee from the elbow down on one arm. At some point, his playing career will probably end as well, but for now, he's able to bring other skills like size to the table to make up for that fact.
Unfortunately for this young man he's reached that point where, at least to this coach, the level of the game has passed his skill set. It sucks. Believe me, I know. But no coach would be around very long if he cut talented players simply because they didn't have the legs he was born with. If you're good enough to play, you'll play regardless of what may be seen as a disability to others.
I'm not here to bash this kid. In fact I think it's great that he's overcome all of the obstacles he had to just to make it to this point in his life, much less baseball. He loves the game of baseball and wants to keep playing and he's hurt that now he's reached that point where the level of the game has passed the skill set he has to offer. Unfortunately, this happens at some point to 99% of the people who play sports growing up. Even the ones who work really hard and really want to be professionals. If it didn't, professional athletes wouldn't be as well paid as they are because they'd be easily replaceable.
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Football Trick Shots
Holy crap, this has nothing to do with cycling!
I found this retweeted on twitter through the various channels. I guess this guy is the backup QB at UConn and if you're the backup QB at a small program, this is probably the best way to showcase your arm strength and accuracy. I'm not sure how many other D1 QBs would watch this video and shrug as something they all sit around and do and never thought to film. I'm guessing a lot. Still, it's pretty good stuff if you like this kind of thing. Some of the throws are pretty impressive, especially if you go ahead an assume it was the first take on each one, which, there's no real proof of that. In my opinion the best throw is when he hits the ball that's been kicked off the tee. I would think those don't exactly fly in straight lines.
What I've never understood about these videos, since there's basketball versions all over the place, is how excited the other guys around get when he makes it. Sure it's impressive, but jump up and down, leap over a trash can impressive? I don't know...
I found this retweeted on twitter through the various channels. I guess this guy is the backup QB at UConn and if you're the backup QB at a small program, this is probably the best way to showcase your arm strength and accuracy. I'm not sure how many other D1 QBs would watch this video and shrug as something they all sit around and do and never thought to film. I'm guessing a lot. Still, it's pretty good stuff if you like this kind of thing. Some of the throws are pretty impressive, especially if you go ahead an assume it was the first take on each one, which, there's no real proof of that. In my opinion the best throw is when he hits the ball that's been kicked off the tee. I would think those don't exactly fly in straight lines.
What I've never understood about these videos, since there's basketball versions all over the place, is how excited the other guys around get when he makes it. Sure it's impressive, but jump up and down, leap over a trash can impressive? I don't know...
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
Finally a Non-Doping Cycling Controversy
The latest cycling controversy has nothing to do with anything that can be put in your body to help you perform better. Well, that's not entirely true. Radio ear pieces are inserted into your ear and without them as a modern day rider you probably perform less efficiently.
As most are aware the UCI wants to ban the use of two way radios used by riders and their directors in professional cycling. This year they have instituted a ban on the radios at all but the largest races and the riders are not happy about it. Most of them cite safety concerns about being alerted to road conditions and other crap like that. But, let's face it, most of these guys have matured through the professional ranks with someone in a team car, watching the race feed on a tv, telling them exactly what's going on. I don't have any specific statistics to back it up, but I'd be willing to bet way fewer breakaway attempts succeed these days because the team directors can tell their boys exactly how fast to ride to catch the break inside the final kilometer. This is insanely valuable information if you're the guy/s who is/are assigned to lay down a pace that will ensure the break gets caught. You don't want to catch them too quickly because other attacks will get launched. You don't want to leave it too late, because, well, you lose. Without a team director in a car with a calculator and a radio you've got to send a guy back to that car to try and find out this information. The riders can give me all the lines about safety they want, I'm not buying it.
But, the real concern here shouldn't be safety or the dissemination of information. The real concern should be what long term affects this fight between the riders and the UCI will have on the sport. We've already seen our first protest by the riders at the Mallorca Challenge. They all defied the rules by using radios and the UCI fought back by neutralizing the stage and not recording results. Tyler Farrar won the bunch sprint, but without real results he basically won a group ride on closed roads. Minus the closed roads, I now have something in common with Tyler Farrar.
On twitter this morning Robbie Hunter writes that the UCI will lose the fight. But, I'm not so sure. The UCI is nothing if they aren't stubborn and I think we can clearly see with their constant denial of ever doing any wrong and their need to always be the ones dictating policy, I don't know that they'll ever back down.
The way I see it the two sides both have these chips to play. Riders can continually defy the rule by wearing radios. Which, they've already shown is sort of a weak hand to play because even after their first little exhibition at the Mallorca Challenge they already folded for the rest of the race and will not use radios out of respect to the Mallorca Challenge fans and race promoters. At the Tour of Qatar, same thing. Riders were going to protest and then the chest beating ended when a punishment that nobody was really willing to chance was laid out in front of them. Every time the riders decide they want to protest by using radios, the UCI, who has the power here, can simply lay out some harsh punishment and call everyone's bluff.
The real test is going to be for much bigger races with a larger viewing audience and much more prestige to the winner. Sure Tom Boonen really likes being the winner of the Tour of Qatar, but I'm sure he'd trade every Qatar victory for just one more Paris-Roubaix (They can use radios at Roubaix). Criterium International and Ghent-Wevelgem are both big races where radios are banned. Player lockouts and strikes happen in other sports all the time. Maybe a unified rider strike at either of these races would get the point across. But, it just seems apparent to me that as soon as riders stop racing big time races over something as frivolous as the use of radios, sponsors start fleeing and taking their money elsewhere.
We've already seen big time teams struggle to find title sponsorship and with the other controversy that is consistently hanging over the sport like a black cloud, who in their right mind is going to pony up a few million bucks just to have their logo on the butt of some cyclist planted firmly on the ground?
I'm not saying the riders are completely wrong. And I'll admit this opinion completely omits a larger problem that the radios are really just a piece of the total problem. The UCI is basically a tyrant writing new rules without consulting the constituencies they represent. But, in the end, like most things, it's going to come down to money. If the riders stop racing their bikes I hope they all have some other form of gainful employment lined up because the money that feeds them is going to dry up pretty fast.
And, while I clearly think the safety argument from the riders is stupid, I'm not in favor of the ban. I actually think Craig Lewis has the best idea.
As most are aware the UCI wants to ban the use of two way radios used by riders and their directors in professional cycling. This year they have instituted a ban on the radios at all but the largest races and the riders are not happy about it. Most of them cite safety concerns about being alerted to road conditions and other crap like that. But, let's face it, most of these guys have matured through the professional ranks with someone in a team car, watching the race feed on a tv, telling them exactly what's going on. I don't have any specific statistics to back it up, but I'd be willing to bet way fewer breakaway attempts succeed these days because the team directors can tell their boys exactly how fast to ride to catch the break inside the final kilometer. This is insanely valuable information if you're the guy/s who is/are assigned to lay down a pace that will ensure the break gets caught. You don't want to catch them too quickly because other attacks will get launched. You don't want to leave it too late, because, well, you lose. Without a team director in a car with a calculator and a radio you've got to send a guy back to that car to try and find out this information. The riders can give me all the lines about safety they want, I'm not buying it.
But, the real concern here shouldn't be safety or the dissemination of information. The real concern should be what long term affects this fight between the riders and the UCI will have on the sport. We've already seen our first protest by the riders at the Mallorca Challenge. They all defied the rules by using radios and the UCI fought back by neutralizing the stage and not recording results. Tyler Farrar won the bunch sprint, but without real results he basically won a group ride on closed roads. Minus the closed roads, I now have something in common with Tyler Farrar.
On twitter this morning Robbie Hunter writes that the UCI will lose the fight. But, I'm not so sure. The UCI is nothing if they aren't stubborn and I think we can clearly see with their constant denial of ever doing any wrong and their need to always be the ones dictating policy, I don't know that they'll ever back down.
The way I see it the two sides both have these chips to play. Riders can continually defy the rule by wearing radios. Which, they've already shown is sort of a weak hand to play because even after their first little exhibition at the Mallorca Challenge they already folded for the rest of the race and will not use radios out of respect to the Mallorca Challenge fans and race promoters. At the Tour of Qatar, same thing. Riders were going to protest and then the chest beating ended when a punishment that nobody was really willing to chance was laid out in front of them. Every time the riders decide they want to protest by using radios, the UCI, who has the power here, can simply lay out some harsh punishment and call everyone's bluff.
The real test is going to be for much bigger races with a larger viewing audience and much more prestige to the winner. Sure Tom Boonen really likes being the winner of the Tour of Qatar, but I'm sure he'd trade every Qatar victory for just one more Paris-Roubaix (They can use radios at Roubaix). Criterium International and Ghent-Wevelgem are both big races where radios are banned. Player lockouts and strikes happen in other sports all the time. Maybe a unified rider strike at either of these races would get the point across. But, it just seems apparent to me that as soon as riders stop racing big time races over something as frivolous as the use of radios, sponsors start fleeing and taking their money elsewhere.
We've already seen big time teams struggle to find title sponsorship and with the other controversy that is consistently hanging over the sport like a black cloud, who in their right mind is going to pony up a few million bucks just to have their logo on the butt of some cyclist planted firmly on the ground?
I'm not saying the riders are completely wrong. And I'll admit this opinion completely omits a larger problem that the radios are really just a piece of the total problem. The UCI is basically a tyrant writing new rules without consulting the constituencies they represent. But, in the end, like most things, it's going to come down to money. If the riders stop racing their bikes I hope they all have some other form of gainful employment lined up because the money that feeds them is going to dry up pretty fast.
And, while I clearly think the safety argument from the riders is stupid, I'm not in favor of the ban. I actually think Craig Lewis has the best idea.
Friday, February 04, 2011
Connect the Dots
With all the new talk about the Floyd interview and what that might mean there are a set of dots that I'm connecting that I'm not sure most people are. It's not a complicated line of logic to follow but it's sort of indirect.
Bill Strickland, editor something or another at Bicycling magazine, wrote a blog where he looked at all the podiums of Lance's 7 Tour de France victories and he wrote something along the lines of fine, you want to say Lance was on the juice, here's the other podiums and how many of those guys have been connected to doping so who do you give the award to? How far down the placings do you have to go before you find the first legitimate clean guy to FedEx a yellow tshirt too? His podiums here. And, obviously those are more my words than his because he gets paid to type things and I just do it because I want to.
Sticking with the same idea we make it to the 2006 Tour de France and Floyd wins, then he doesn't, and Oscar Pereiro becomes the new champion and he makes public statements about how Floyd stole his Tour de France title but Floyd says he knows for a fact that Pereiro wasn't clean either. Floyd was his teammate the year before on Phonak and witnessed Pereiro taking part in blood transfusions. Then Floyd says he talked to Pereiro before the final TT of the 06 Tour and Pereiro says he still has half a bag of blood to take. But, Pereiro says he's clean, Floyd says he isn't, you can decide for yourself who you want to believe. But, if we go by the same sort of logic that Strickland is using above, if Floyd's dirty then the next guy probably is too, so who should actually be winning the 2006 Tour de France?
This brings us to our most current doping controversy in this drama free sport. Three time Tour de France winner Alberto Contador and contaminated beef ingestion related positive. Here are the facts, the amount of clenbuterol found in Contador's system is so little that the performance boosting affects are scientifically questionable at best. Here's another fact, on that great battle to the summit of Mt. Ventoux this is past Tour de France a seemingly clean Andy Schleck had no issue matching a doped Contador pedal stroke for pedal stroke. This can only mean a few things, 1) Contador is really clean or 2) Schleck isn't so clean either. I guess it could also mean 3) Schleck is super human going uphill but sucks against the clock?
Basically, what I'm trying to say here, is all you Andy Schleck fans out there might want to keep your stones in hand before chucking them at Contador through the walls of your glass house. I know Andy Schleck is the golden boy in the media, but I'm not sure you've got to jump to too many conclusions to connect the dots in this situation. I'm not convinced that if you want to find the real clean winner of the 2010 Tour de France your search will stop at the 2nd step of the podium.
And, please don't take this as some sort of cry to give Levi the jersey. Levi used to be a guy that was good for two weeks and then dropped time like a rock in water. There's no way I believe age and experience have suddenly made him a 3 week contender. Gonna have to keep looking down the results list further than that.
Bill Strickland, editor something or another at Bicycling magazine, wrote a blog where he looked at all the podiums of Lance's 7 Tour de France victories and he wrote something along the lines of fine, you want to say Lance was on the juice, here's the other podiums and how many of those guys have been connected to doping so who do you give the award to? How far down the placings do you have to go before you find the first legitimate clean guy to FedEx a yellow tshirt too? His podiums here. And, obviously those are more my words than his because he gets paid to type things and I just do it because I want to.
Sticking with the same idea we make it to the 2006 Tour de France and Floyd wins, then he doesn't, and Oscar Pereiro becomes the new champion and he makes public statements about how Floyd stole his Tour de France title but Floyd says he knows for a fact that Pereiro wasn't clean either. Floyd was his teammate the year before on Phonak and witnessed Pereiro taking part in blood transfusions. Then Floyd says he talked to Pereiro before the final TT of the 06 Tour and Pereiro says he still has half a bag of blood to take. But, Pereiro says he's clean, Floyd says he isn't, you can decide for yourself who you want to believe. But, if we go by the same sort of logic that Strickland is using above, if Floyd's dirty then the next guy probably is too, so who should actually be winning the 2006 Tour de France?
This brings us to our most current doping controversy in this drama free sport. Three time Tour de France winner Alberto Contador and contaminated beef ingestion related positive. Here are the facts, the amount of clenbuterol found in Contador's system is so little that the performance boosting affects are scientifically questionable at best. Here's another fact, on that great battle to the summit of Mt. Ventoux this is past Tour de France a seemingly clean Andy Schleck had no issue matching a doped Contador pedal stroke for pedal stroke. This can only mean a few things, 1) Contador is really clean or 2) Schleck isn't so clean either. I guess it could also mean 3) Schleck is super human going uphill but sucks against the clock?
Basically, what I'm trying to say here, is all you Andy Schleck fans out there might want to keep your stones in hand before chucking them at Contador through the walls of your glass house. I know Andy Schleck is the golden boy in the media, but I'm not sure you've got to jump to too many conclusions to connect the dots in this situation. I'm not convinced that if you want to find the real clean winner of the 2010 Tour de France your search will stop at the 2nd step of the podium.
And, please don't take this as some sort of cry to give Levi the jersey. Levi used to be a guy that was good for two weeks and then dropped time like a rock in water. There's no way I believe age and experience have suddenly made him a 3 week contender. Gonna have to keep looking down the results list further than that.
Thursday, February 03, 2011
I Believe Floyd
If you follow cycling and all the related drama you are well aware of the interview that Floyd Landis recently did with Paul Kimmage. I would post the link to the entire 30,000 word un-edited transcript, but, like most things that speak ill of Lance Armstrong, it has been taken down. Or, at least I can't get to it anymore.
When I started reading it I thought there's no way anything new will be said. It'll be the same old Floyd sounding a little bit crazy, but there were parts that completely blew me away. Without access to actually quote them, I'll be paraphrasing as best I can remember so, bear with me.
First, I've always thought that Lance Armstrong doped his way to 7 Tours de France victories. I've had conversations with people as far back as 2004 where I took that exact stance. Whenever he was questioned about it he always took the exact same stance that I did when I was questioned about my fake ID at the age of 19. I would pretend to be completely outraged that anyone would question me. I would act tired of reciting my birth date and address. I would then grab the idea back from the person and insist that I would take my business elsewhere. Sound a bit familiar?
What I didn't ever say was that I blamed him for it, just like I don't blame Floyd, or any other guy who wants to race, much less win, the Tour de France. I've always taken the stance that every single one of us makes some sort of decision at work because that's what we're expected to do or even what we think we have to do to keep our jobs. For some of us those decisions are easy, for others, they are not. One could obviously make comparisons to other professions decisions that need to be made, but that's neither here nor there. For a Pro Tour level cyclist, that's the decision you have to make and I am not about to point the finger at anyone, whichever direction they decide on. So again, I've always thought that Lance doped, just like I always thought everyone else did also, but I never realized how corrupt and just how much of an asshole he is.
There were two main pieces of that interview that stunned me.
1) When Mercury stopped paying Floyd and the UCI wouldn't force the team to pay him out of the bank guarantee and Lance stepped in to tell Floyd to quite down and even apologize because down the road they'd need a favor, ie., make a positive go away like (maybe just like Lance's 1999 test), I was pretty blown away.
So that's how you do it? Wow. Tough to fault anybody for doping when you proceed under the impression that the guys who are meant to govern the sport are complicit in the act. It's one thing if everybody dopes and everybody has the same access to all the same drugs. Then, essentially the playing field is leveled. But, if only the biggest and richest stars can dope without having to worry about a positive test because it can be made to disappear, then the playing field's not really so level is it?
2) People always talk about how much of a difference the dope makes. I've always found that the people talking about this difference aren't the people on the juice and therefore don't have a first hand experience of just how effective the stuff is. The reason for this is pretty obvious; if you are juiced up you can't exactly come out and say how much better you’re riding thanks to the extra blood bag you just shot up the night before. But, in this case, we have Floyd, who has stopped pretending like he was clean and flat out said, it's helpful, but probably not 40% more helpful, which is the made up statistic that is generally thrown around.
Floyd says in the interview that the stuff helps, but you still have good days and bad days. It's no surprise that his incredible ride in stage 17 on the way to Morzine at the 2006 Tour was the day after a transfusion, but, the wattage numbers have been looked at from that day, and it wasn't exactly impressive from the standards of a guy with double the fresh red blood cells in his veins. So, who knows, maybe everybody else was just too tired to chase?
In fact, Floyd says that the guys in the peloton speak pretty openly about what they're doing and that he knew, from speaking to Oscar Pereiro (who denies all of this, obviously) that he still had half a bag of blood to transfuse before the final time trial. If you remember, Floyd ended up beating Pereiro in that time trial by enough to take the yellow jersey back and win the 2006 Tour de France. Floyd doesn't specifically say that he didn't juice more before that last day, but he does say that he knew Pereiro had the bag and that he still wasn't worried because he knew he was just a better time trialist.
Again, this is pretty useful because if the stuff is going to make you 40% better and the guy I need to beat basically has a turbo button and I don't, I'm pretty nervous about my chances. Even with knowing that Pereiro would be juiced up for the final TT, Floyd still knew he could beat him. So is the stuff effective? Of course, but it's probably not the turbo button that everybody thinks it is. Especially if you just go ahead and admit to yourself that everybody else is doing it too.
So again, I believe Floyd. Why? That'd be a good question because he did write a book that I bought that was 100% about how he didn't use drugs. But I believe him because at this point he's giving this information away. We live in a world where TMZ and all the other smut rags are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to get first pictures of celebrities kids. This morning I watched another 20 minute piece on GMA about Charlie Sheen. If Floyd wanted to, he could make all of his money back by selling this information to those news outlets about how everybody's cancer hero used drugs. If the person that Floyd is essentially accusing of doping all these years wasn’t a huge celebrity, then there’d be no opportunity to sell it and, there obviously is. But that's not what he's doing. Instead, he sat down with a journalist, answered a ton of questions and then allowed the unedited transcript to be posted online for anybody who was interested to read it.
I'm not sure what implications this has for cycling in America or the world or if at all. The more of this stuff that comes out the more convinced I am that Lance Armstrong is in a ton of trouble. And I also have a feeling that Lance isn't a guy that's going to go down alone which means that all his boys from all of those postal days, which makes up most of the popular US Cyclist (Hincapie, Zabriskie, Vande Velde) probably aren’t sleeping so well either.
I do know that the more I read about all of these exceptions being made of Lance recently it adds a ton of credibility to what Floyd's saying about his power to have the higher ups make positives go away. What exceptions you might ask? When Lance came out of retirement the UCI waived his biological passport requirement so he could race the Tour Down Under. At this year's Tour of California there's another doping requirement being waived for Lance if he wants to race there. I get that race directors would be foolish not to push to have Lance at their race. Any race with Lance is bigger than without. But if the UCI and WADA and any other governing body wants the public to believe that they were and are anything but complicit in the doping issue, these would be good times to tell even Mr. Armstrong that he's not above the law. Or, maybe he is?
When I started reading it I thought there's no way anything new will be said. It'll be the same old Floyd sounding a little bit crazy, but there were parts that completely blew me away. Without access to actually quote them, I'll be paraphrasing as best I can remember so, bear with me.
First, I've always thought that Lance Armstrong doped his way to 7 Tours de France victories. I've had conversations with people as far back as 2004 where I took that exact stance. Whenever he was questioned about it he always took the exact same stance that I did when I was questioned about my fake ID at the age of 19. I would pretend to be completely outraged that anyone would question me. I would act tired of reciting my birth date and address. I would then grab the idea back from the person and insist that I would take my business elsewhere. Sound a bit familiar?
What I didn't ever say was that I blamed him for it, just like I don't blame Floyd, or any other guy who wants to race, much less win, the Tour de France. I've always taken the stance that every single one of us makes some sort of decision at work because that's what we're expected to do or even what we think we have to do to keep our jobs. For some of us those decisions are easy, for others, they are not. One could obviously make comparisons to other professions decisions that need to be made, but that's neither here nor there. For a Pro Tour level cyclist, that's the decision you have to make and I am not about to point the finger at anyone, whichever direction they decide on. So again, I've always thought that Lance doped, just like I always thought everyone else did also, but I never realized how corrupt and just how much of an asshole he is.
There were two main pieces of that interview that stunned me.
1) When Mercury stopped paying Floyd and the UCI wouldn't force the team to pay him out of the bank guarantee and Lance stepped in to tell Floyd to quite down and even apologize because down the road they'd need a favor, ie., make a positive go away like (maybe just like Lance's 1999 test), I was pretty blown away.
So that's how you do it? Wow. Tough to fault anybody for doping when you proceed under the impression that the guys who are meant to govern the sport are complicit in the act. It's one thing if everybody dopes and everybody has the same access to all the same drugs. Then, essentially the playing field is leveled. But, if only the biggest and richest stars can dope without having to worry about a positive test because it can be made to disappear, then the playing field's not really so level is it?
2) People always talk about how much of a difference the dope makes. I've always found that the people talking about this difference aren't the people on the juice and therefore don't have a first hand experience of just how effective the stuff is. The reason for this is pretty obvious; if you are juiced up you can't exactly come out and say how much better you’re riding thanks to the extra blood bag you just shot up the night before. But, in this case, we have Floyd, who has stopped pretending like he was clean and flat out said, it's helpful, but probably not 40% more helpful, which is the made up statistic that is generally thrown around.
Floyd says in the interview that the stuff helps, but you still have good days and bad days. It's no surprise that his incredible ride in stage 17 on the way to Morzine at the 2006 Tour was the day after a transfusion, but, the wattage numbers have been looked at from that day, and it wasn't exactly impressive from the standards of a guy with double the fresh red blood cells in his veins. So, who knows, maybe everybody else was just too tired to chase?
In fact, Floyd says that the guys in the peloton speak pretty openly about what they're doing and that he knew, from speaking to Oscar Pereiro (who denies all of this, obviously) that he still had half a bag of blood to transfuse before the final time trial. If you remember, Floyd ended up beating Pereiro in that time trial by enough to take the yellow jersey back and win the 2006 Tour de France. Floyd doesn't specifically say that he didn't juice more before that last day, but he does say that he knew Pereiro had the bag and that he still wasn't worried because he knew he was just a better time trialist.
Again, this is pretty useful because if the stuff is going to make you 40% better and the guy I need to beat basically has a turbo button and I don't, I'm pretty nervous about my chances. Even with knowing that Pereiro would be juiced up for the final TT, Floyd still knew he could beat him. So is the stuff effective? Of course, but it's probably not the turbo button that everybody thinks it is. Especially if you just go ahead and admit to yourself that everybody else is doing it too.
So again, I believe Floyd. Why? That'd be a good question because he did write a book that I bought that was 100% about how he didn't use drugs. But I believe him because at this point he's giving this information away. We live in a world where TMZ and all the other smut rags are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to get first pictures of celebrities kids. This morning I watched another 20 minute piece on GMA about Charlie Sheen. If Floyd wanted to, he could make all of his money back by selling this information to those news outlets about how everybody's cancer hero used drugs. If the person that Floyd is essentially accusing of doping all these years wasn’t a huge celebrity, then there’d be no opportunity to sell it and, there obviously is. But that's not what he's doing. Instead, he sat down with a journalist, answered a ton of questions and then allowed the unedited transcript to be posted online for anybody who was interested to read it.
I'm not sure what implications this has for cycling in America or the world or if at all. The more of this stuff that comes out the more convinced I am that Lance Armstrong is in a ton of trouble. And I also have a feeling that Lance isn't a guy that's going to go down alone which means that all his boys from all of those postal days, which makes up most of the popular US Cyclist (Hincapie, Zabriskie, Vande Velde) probably aren’t sleeping so well either.
I do know that the more I read about all of these exceptions being made of Lance recently it adds a ton of credibility to what Floyd's saying about his power to have the higher ups make positives go away. What exceptions you might ask? When Lance came out of retirement the UCI waived his biological passport requirement so he could race the Tour Down Under. At this year's Tour of California there's another doping requirement being waived for Lance if he wants to race there. I get that race directors would be foolish not to push to have Lance at their race. Any race with Lance is bigger than without. But if the UCI and WADA and any other governing body wants the public to believe that they were and are anything but complicit in the doping issue, these would be good times to tell even Mr. Armstrong that he's not above the law. Or, maybe he is?
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Losing Motivation
Back in November I decided I wanted to qualify for the Boston Marathon for a really good reason. I want, and always have wanted, one of these:
When I decided to do this I convinced myself that running through the winter would be better than riding through the winter and I've got to tell you, no the weekends, it is. Going out for 10-15 miles in sub freezing temps for a run is a bit easier to do than the equivalent long ride. It's easier to stay warm and besides the occasional 20mph wind gust freezing my face off, I can generally tune out the cold and just run.
When I first started this plan I was able to run outside at lunch. Now it's gotten a bit cold for that considering that I'd have to bring tights and the whole super hero get up to work on a daily basis. The obvious solution to that was run on the treadmill and while that was ok for a while, I'm over it. I just can't seem to get motivated to run on the treadmill at all anymore. This really shouldn't be surprising since it's about the most boring thing you can do. I rode indoors on my rollers the other day and was blown away by how much easier it was to mentally get through a hard 90 minute roller session with intervals than to stay on the treadmill for even 5 minutes. As soon as I start I just want to get back off.
So, here I sit, typing this instead of running during my lunch hour. It's supposed to be close to 50 today so I was looking forward to getting the change to run outside. When I just checked the weather, it's 35 and feels like 32. Warmer than I'll probably run in this weekend, but I didn't bring the right clothes for it.
All of this for a silly jacket. Hell, I don't even care if I run 9 hours in Boston (ok, that's not completely true) but I just want to qualify once and get my jacket. And, while we're sort of talking about motivation, why is it easier to get motivated to run 15 miles in 20 degree weather than 30-45 minutes indoors on a treadmill in a temperature controlled environment? That part confuses me a bit also.
Alright, I better go run because later Jill will ask me about it and I like telling her I did it rather than making up an excuse. I want warmer weather and longer bike rides!
When I decided to do this I convinced myself that running through the winter would be better than riding through the winter and I've got to tell you, no the weekends, it is. Going out for 10-15 miles in sub freezing temps for a run is a bit easier to do than the equivalent long ride. It's easier to stay warm and besides the occasional 20mph wind gust freezing my face off, I can generally tune out the cold and just run.
When I first started this plan I was able to run outside at lunch. Now it's gotten a bit cold for that considering that I'd have to bring tights and the whole super hero get up to work on a daily basis. The obvious solution to that was run on the treadmill and while that was ok for a while, I'm over it. I just can't seem to get motivated to run on the treadmill at all anymore. This really shouldn't be surprising since it's about the most boring thing you can do. I rode indoors on my rollers the other day and was blown away by how much easier it was to mentally get through a hard 90 minute roller session with intervals than to stay on the treadmill for even 5 minutes. As soon as I start I just want to get back off.
So, here I sit, typing this instead of running during my lunch hour. It's supposed to be close to 50 today so I was looking forward to getting the change to run outside. When I just checked the weather, it's 35 and feels like 32. Warmer than I'll probably run in this weekend, but I didn't bring the right clothes for it.
All of this for a silly jacket. Hell, I don't even care if I run 9 hours in Boston (ok, that's not completely true) but I just want to qualify once and get my jacket. And, while we're sort of talking about motivation, why is it easier to get motivated to run 15 miles in 20 degree weather than 30-45 minutes indoors on a treadmill in a temperature controlled environment? That part confuses me a bit also.
Alright, I better go run because later Jill will ask me about it and I like telling her I did it rather than making up an excuse. I want warmer weather and longer bike rides!
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
State of the Union and a Hail Storm
I think I need to write more. I had a paper due in one of my grad classes and the act of just getting it going was tough. That’s usually not the case when I spend just a little bit of time each day filling in the 4 relatives of mine who read this thing on what’s going on inside my brain. If you’re reading this, you realize this place is mostly used for commentary and filled with grammatical and spelling errors, but if nothing else, it helps to keep that side, whichever side it actually is, of my brain working when it’s actually needed for class.
There’s another cycling blog I frequent, http://www.theservicecourse.com/ where the guy (who happens to live just blocks from me in Alexandria but we don’t know each other, but maybe we should) ends each of his posts with a section called the “Broomwagon.” For those of you not in the know, the broomwagon is the car that follows a bike race and when riders abandon, they are swept up in the broomwagon. Or, rather, they get into the thing and generally slump down and try to stay out of direct sight of the fans who are going to try and figure out who dropped out. At the 2009 Tour of California I saw Freddy Rogriguez in the broomwagon on the last stage but he clearly didn’t care about being seen as he was waving cheerfully, probably happy to not have to climb Cole Grade outside of San Diego. But, I digress. I bring up this idea of the broomwagon simply to give myself an outlet to write about things I’m thinking about if they wouldn’t make an entire post on their own. And, with that in mind, here we go:
--
I watched the State of Union last night and wasn’t entirely sure what to think. I’ve always been a big believer in the saying “Actions speak louder than words” so when politicians cut into network programming to speak, I generally take whatever they say with a grain of salt. One commentator summed up the speech by comparing it to cotton candy, it sweet but doesn’t fill you up. I think that’s probably about right, but, to be fair, what’s he supposed to say? People who listen to these speeches and then get all fired up from the promises of the president are probably the same people who get really disappointed when all of the change that Obama ran on hasn’t quite made its way into reality yet.
To me, the most telling piece of that speech had nothing to do with what Obama had to say. It was the democrats and republicans sitting with each other as opposed to across the isle. Hopefully, this is the first step to a government where cooperation and compromise start to enact change. For as long as I can remember it’s always appeared to me that the reason our government doesn’t get much accomplished is because the biggest issue isn’t the issues at all. It’s the power struggle between the democrats and republicans who instead of compromising, filibuster and sabotage any bill from the other party. Maybe America is finally sick of this behavior and government is taking note. Maybe we’ve finally elected some officials who are tired of not actually accomplishing anything in this old style. Whatever the case is, I’m encouraged for the first time in a long time, but, we’ll see what happens…
--
This commuting by bike thing has been working out. Today the weather was a beautiful 36 degrees, wind chill somewhere in the high 20s with a mix of drizzle and sleet. At first it was just drizzly, which is no big deal but then about ¼ of the way to work it turned into sleet which, without sugar coating it, sucks. However, somewhere along the way I started smiling and really enjoying the ride in. My fingers were freezing off and my face but the exfoliation of the sleet on my face has got to be great for my complexion. But, the reason I started smiling is because I remember the last time I was on the Fondriest and found myself riding through upper 30 degree weather in sleet (well, that time it was actually big pieces of hail).
It was on my bike trip and I was leaving Show Low, Arizona and crossing into New Mexico heading to a tiny little town called Quemada. It had rained the entire previous day and through the night but when I woke up that morning I could see that the storm had moved off to the east in the direction I was going. The roads were damp but for the first 4 hours of that day I had completely clear skies and temps around 70. At this point my trip I was really starting to struggle with being lonely and just wanting it to be over so this clear day was turning out to be pretty great.
As I followed the storm up ahead I could sort of tell that I was catching it but I was hoping that maybe I wouldn’t. About 20 miles from Quemada it suddenly got really dark and really cold and I knew my luck had run out. This stretch of country is high desert at about 6,000’ of elevation and there were no trees or anything taller than me on a steel bicycle in sight. So, when the first bolt of lighting hit the ground I started to get a little nervous. It of course started to rain but with no place to take shelter I kept on pedaling because I figured I didn’t have any better option. As more lighting struck in places that seemed a bit too close for comfort and the thunder boomed loud enough to actually vibrate me and the bike, I peddled faster. The sudden drop in temperature wasn’t helping matters and I was starting to shiver and lose feeling in my hands. When the rain turned to hail I started to curse and even I was a little surprised I had kept in until that point. The occasional car would drive by and optimistically I would stick out my thumb. Not that any of these cars or trucks were obligated to pick up some weirdo riding through a hail storm on a bike pulling a trailer, but I would curse at their taillights all the same.
After what seemed like forever but was probably 15 minutes of surviving the hailstorm a white extended cab pickup truck pulling a trailer pulled over in front of me. As I approached the driver was already out of his truck to stop me, took my bike and trailer and put them in his trailer and told me to get in. When I got into the truck his wife handed me a quilt and I saw on their digital thermometer in the rear view mirror that it was 34 degrees. It took a while before I stopped shivering enough to actually tell them where I was going and why. They were nice enough to drive me the remaining 10 or so miles into Quemada and drop me off at a service station where I could get some coffee and call the family I was staying with. I have no idea who those people were but I wish I did so I could send them a Christmas card/thank you note every single year.
I’m sure if they hadn’t stopped I would have made it into Quemada just like I made it to work this morning but it wouldn’t have been pleasant and that’s why I was probably the only cyclist commuting to work this morning with a smile on my face. This beautiful January morning reminded me of another ride and the kindness of strangers.
There’s another cycling blog I frequent, http://www.theservicecourse.com/ where the guy (who happens to live just blocks from me in Alexandria but we don’t know each other, but maybe we should) ends each of his posts with a section called the “Broomwagon.” For those of you not in the know, the broomwagon is the car that follows a bike race and when riders abandon, they are swept up in the broomwagon. Or, rather, they get into the thing and generally slump down and try to stay out of direct sight of the fans who are going to try and figure out who dropped out. At the 2009 Tour of California I saw Freddy Rogriguez in the broomwagon on the last stage but he clearly didn’t care about being seen as he was waving cheerfully, probably happy to not have to climb Cole Grade outside of San Diego. But, I digress. I bring up this idea of the broomwagon simply to give myself an outlet to write about things I’m thinking about if they wouldn’t make an entire post on their own. And, with that in mind, here we go:
--
I watched the State of Union last night and wasn’t entirely sure what to think. I’ve always been a big believer in the saying “Actions speak louder than words” so when politicians cut into network programming to speak, I generally take whatever they say with a grain of salt. One commentator summed up the speech by comparing it to cotton candy, it sweet but doesn’t fill you up. I think that’s probably about right, but, to be fair, what’s he supposed to say? People who listen to these speeches and then get all fired up from the promises of the president are probably the same people who get really disappointed when all of the change that Obama ran on hasn’t quite made its way into reality yet.
To me, the most telling piece of that speech had nothing to do with what Obama had to say. It was the democrats and republicans sitting with each other as opposed to across the isle. Hopefully, this is the first step to a government where cooperation and compromise start to enact change. For as long as I can remember it’s always appeared to me that the reason our government doesn’t get much accomplished is because the biggest issue isn’t the issues at all. It’s the power struggle between the democrats and republicans who instead of compromising, filibuster and sabotage any bill from the other party. Maybe America is finally sick of this behavior and government is taking note. Maybe we’ve finally elected some officials who are tired of not actually accomplishing anything in this old style. Whatever the case is, I’m encouraged for the first time in a long time, but, we’ll see what happens…
--
This commuting by bike thing has been working out. Today the weather was a beautiful 36 degrees, wind chill somewhere in the high 20s with a mix of drizzle and sleet. At first it was just drizzly, which is no big deal but then about ¼ of the way to work it turned into sleet which, without sugar coating it, sucks. However, somewhere along the way I started smiling and really enjoying the ride in. My fingers were freezing off and my face but the exfoliation of the sleet on my face has got to be great for my complexion. But, the reason I started smiling is because I remember the last time I was on the Fondriest and found myself riding through upper 30 degree weather in sleet (well, that time it was actually big pieces of hail).
It was on my bike trip and I was leaving Show Low, Arizona and crossing into New Mexico heading to a tiny little town called Quemada. It had rained the entire previous day and through the night but when I woke up that morning I could see that the storm had moved off to the east in the direction I was going. The roads were damp but for the first 4 hours of that day I had completely clear skies and temps around 70. At this point my trip I was really starting to struggle with being lonely and just wanting it to be over so this clear day was turning out to be pretty great.
As I followed the storm up ahead I could sort of tell that I was catching it but I was hoping that maybe I wouldn’t. About 20 miles from Quemada it suddenly got really dark and really cold and I knew my luck had run out. This stretch of country is high desert at about 6,000’ of elevation and there were no trees or anything taller than me on a steel bicycle in sight. So, when the first bolt of lighting hit the ground I started to get a little nervous. It of course started to rain but with no place to take shelter I kept on pedaling because I figured I didn’t have any better option. As more lighting struck in places that seemed a bit too close for comfort and the thunder boomed loud enough to actually vibrate me and the bike, I peddled faster. The sudden drop in temperature wasn’t helping matters and I was starting to shiver and lose feeling in my hands. When the rain turned to hail I started to curse and even I was a little surprised I had kept in until that point. The occasional car would drive by and optimistically I would stick out my thumb. Not that any of these cars or trucks were obligated to pick up some weirdo riding through a hail storm on a bike pulling a trailer, but I would curse at their taillights all the same.
After what seemed like forever but was probably 15 minutes of surviving the hailstorm a white extended cab pickup truck pulling a trailer pulled over in front of me. As I approached the driver was already out of his truck to stop me, took my bike and trailer and put them in his trailer and told me to get in. When I got into the truck his wife handed me a quilt and I saw on their digital thermometer in the rear view mirror that it was 34 degrees. It took a while before I stopped shivering enough to actually tell them where I was going and why. They were nice enough to drive me the remaining 10 or so miles into Quemada and drop me off at a service station where I could get some coffee and call the family I was staying with. I have no idea who those people were but I wish I did so I could send them a Christmas card/thank you note every single year.
I’m sure if they hadn’t stopped I would have made it into Quemada just like I made it to work this morning but it wouldn’t have been pleasant and that’s why I was probably the only cyclist commuting to work this morning with a smile on my face. This beautiful January morning reminded me of another ride and the kindness of strangers.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
BCS Championship Game Recap in 10 pts or less.
This should be quick.
Last night I watched what must have been the worst national title game I've seen. And, by the reaction to sports fans that I follow on twitter and facebook, I'm not alone in this observation.
Here's what I took away from it:
1) Dear SEC everyone, stop talking about how f'in great you are. If you were so good you would have destroyed the Oregon team from the weak Pac-10. Instead, what we saw, were two teams that were probably just about evenly matched play a pretty crappy football game. They both had a seemingly infinite amount of time to prepare for each other and were able to pretty much contain the other's offense.
2) Chip Kelly is insane with play calling, both good and bad. He goes from looking like a genius with huge balls on his 2 pt conversion and fake punt that both work, to, in my opinion, three to four terrible play calls in a row on the goal line.
3) Great athletes don't make great [name sport or position] players. Cam Newton is an incredible athlete but he's just an ok quarterback and that seemed obvious.
4) What was up with the field? It's the biggest game of the year and you have some turf down that guys are slipping and sliding all over? Good job Fiesta bowl.
5) It's easy to say retroactively that someone should have taken the points instead of getting stuffed on 4th and goal, but when you lose the game by 3, you gotta sort of wonder what Chip Kelly was thinking? I know you run a razzle dazzle offense with like 80,000 option reads and all, but you're really going to just leave points on the field because you think you can score 50 in the second half?
6) Farley, the DT for Auburn should have been the MVP.
7) Oregon's socks were ridiculous. Their helmets were worse. I sort of love that they have absolutely no desire to conform to any of the norms about a uniform. It's obviously that Nike is a big fan of that fact as well.
8) TCU would have beat either of those teams.
9) So would Wisconsin.
Last night I watched what must have been the worst national title game I've seen. And, by the reaction to sports fans that I follow on twitter and facebook, I'm not alone in this observation.
Here's what I took away from it:
1) Dear SEC everyone, stop talking about how f'in great you are. If you were so good you would have destroyed the Oregon team from the weak Pac-10. Instead, what we saw, were two teams that were probably just about evenly matched play a pretty crappy football game. They both had a seemingly infinite amount of time to prepare for each other and were able to pretty much contain the other's offense.
2) Chip Kelly is insane with play calling, both good and bad. He goes from looking like a genius with huge balls on his 2 pt conversion and fake punt that both work, to, in my opinion, three to four terrible play calls in a row on the goal line.
3) Great athletes don't make great [name sport or position] players. Cam Newton is an incredible athlete but he's just an ok quarterback and that seemed obvious.
4) What was up with the field? It's the biggest game of the year and you have some turf down that guys are slipping and sliding all over? Good job Fiesta bowl.
5) It's easy to say retroactively that someone should have taken the points instead of getting stuffed on 4th and goal, but when you lose the game by 3, you gotta sort of wonder what Chip Kelly was thinking? I know you run a razzle dazzle offense with like 80,000 option reads and all, but you're really going to just leave points on the field because you think you can score 50 in the second half?
6) Farley, the DT for Auburn should have been the MVP.
7) Oregon's socks were ridiculous. Their helmets were worse. I sort of love that they have absolutely no desire to conform to any of the norms about a uniform. It's obviously that Nike is a big fan of that fact as well.
8) TCU would have beat either of those teams.
9) So would Wisconsin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)