Confidence is everything - the psychology of cycling

Or the psychology of everything, really.

I can tell you how to train your guts out, how to identify your strengths and weaknesses and how to position yourself to win, but none of that will help at all if you don't truly believe in yourself.

I used to train 10 to 15 thousand kays a year - not enough, I know - but it got me into the ballpark (as an A-grade clubbie, anyway). I had some condition. I had some strength. I didn't fade too early. I was there.

I enjoyed the physical side of training and it got me fit enough to be in the game - but I needed some psychological help, too. I needed both the skills of a racer and the motivation to execute my plans. The skills came about by watching, by listening and by practising. By running it through my head as well as actually racing it out on the road.

Winning is first of all about surviving. Getting dropped is the pits. And if you have the condition - enough of it - then it's all about timing and positioning from there, really. Positioning and timing to avoid crashes, to avoid missing the break and to be there - in the right place, on the right wheel - for the sprint. Simple, eh? But how do you get it right?

For me, my head had to get it together. The training helped, the sprint repeats and intervals, the mindless laps all played a part. But it was my head that desired to win and it was my head that had to learn the hardest lessons.

My head had to understand that getting dropped hurts enough that I didn't want to get dropped ever again. And I had to be smart enough to recognise the signs and avoid the danger zones, those points in a race when getting dropped is a very real possibility. Sometimes it's positioning for a hill, sometimes it's just gritting the teeth, chasing and absolutely not letting them go!

My head also had to handle the fight for the break - be in it! Get in there, but only when it's the right move. Size it up, make a judgement. Then commit. Totally.

My head also had to mix it up in the fight for the pre-sprint positioning as well as the tussle for line honours. Sometimes it's frustrating, sometimes just plain dangerous. It's reactive and exciting, physical and mental. It's the end game and it's mostly played out in your mind!      

Heart problems bring Kaisen's career to a premature end : SBS Cycling Central

Timely indeed, given my own situation. This is Lotto Belisol's Olivier Kaisen on his heart problem:

"At training camp in December I was able to train in perfect circumstances without any problem. Now I think my moderate season in 2013 might be caused by it." Kaisen first noticed the problem during the Tour Down Under in January."After the second stage at the Tour Down Under I didn't feel well. It had been a very tiring and extremely hot day and I had ridden much at the head of the bunch for André Greipel. I did start the next stage, but immediately after the start of the third stage I felt something was wrong. I was scared and together with sports director Herman Frison I decided to quit. He said I couldn't take any risk.



The thing is, and I know this from hindsight more than any analytical brilliance, as you tend to grow into your body over time, it so rarely surprises you. You simply get used to its quirks. After all, you don't get to experience what other hearts are like, although you may still realise that there's a huge diversity in what are "normal" rhythms and rates of beating. Some are fast, some are slow and some are all over the shop. Yet they "do the job". Mostly. So you get "used" to your own quirks and they fade into the background... until one day...


And if you race - or even train hard - you are putting a hefty load on that single point of failure. That load can be extreme in a race, especially if you are dehydrated or have some other variation from the "norm" that one day may create that "perfect storm" that is ischaemia. Now hindsight is a wonderful thing and I don't want to put anyone off cycling to their full potential - far from it - but we can't see into our bodies as we go about our daily lives (well, not without some help, anyway). We have to go by feel. And that's why we need to look after ourselves, eat, rest and train right, and keep a look-out for anything that feels 'unusual'. It could be a sign that shouldn't be ignored.   

OK, last post on this for a bit...

More screenshots of the "ischaemic event"... even more self-explanatory!

My original post on how it all happened. Plus some stats and other nonsense.

Did you want some pictures to go with that ischaemia, sir?

Did you read this: http://addicted2wheels.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/double-training-used-to-work-dont-let.html? Want to know more? Sure, how about some pics? No, not of the stents being inserted (although... now that I think about it, maybe tomorrow?) just some Strava screenshots of me having a "medical event" during a training ride....

It's fairly self-explanatory... 2013 wasn't a bad year for cycling but not great either. I peaked a couple of times with semi-decent months but got sick a few times that wrecked my race season (which turned out to be a good thing, maybe).  I was playing catch-up all year. And then 2013 ended and 2014 went off with a bang (or a whimper perhaps)...

 Just another year? And then...

 One ride too many!

 I didn't feel well at all...

 And the figures prove it!

 'Creeping' is the word

 As I said, I ride a bit

 And I'm still riding!

Hopefully I'll keep it up...


My original post on how it all happened. Some stats and other nonsense. And more.   

Something else to add to my long list of broken bits!

Well I've never broken a gear hanger before... but by the glory of Felt I've done it now! (And I wasn't even changing gear - it just cracked and let go.) (This is a catch-up post, BTW.)

Double the training used to work. Now I'm not so sure. Or don't let age slow you down!

OK, so it 'used' to work. When I was 25 or so, anyway. Even when I was 35. But it started to go awry when I turned 42 or so. I'd always been relatively sensible in terms of avoiding over-training, making sure I ate right, or close anyway, and getting a bit of sleep. But the rules of thumb seemed to be breaking down. One moment all was well and consecutive 100km races on a weekend were fine, the next... not so good.

My rules of thumb? Number one, given a healthy diet and enough rest, is to train three times the distance of any given race per week, averaged over at least one month, preferably 3. After 3, back off, recover and build up again (preferably to a higher level). So if you want to race 100km, train at least 300km per week, average. That gives you base miles, basically. Build on that with specificity. I do have other rules of thumb but that's the main one.

Anyway, it worked for me until I was about 42 or so, but the signs of a problem were there from about 35, if I'd cared to look. I'd injure more easily. I couldn't mix-and-match sports as well as I used to (I was becoming highly cycling-specific but not entirely by choice!). And I was getting sick (mostly colds, mouth ulcers etc; irritants rather than 'show-stoppers') too often. And then it all went pear-shaped from my late 40s onwards. Now some of us will be luckier than others - some even less lucky than me - but my body reacted to aging by randomly mutating, as it were. It may have been stress-related, or environmental exposure to something I didn't even see. And it sent me on a medical-merry-go-round that hasn't ended.

But I persisted with training and racing, even if my racing suffered somewhat and became less frequent (I also had a young family, so was time-poor.) And that continued activity may have helped me fend off stage 2 of my medical maladies. Good aerobic fitness may well have protected me from the worst of my genetic (and perhaps dietary) failings. Which is to say that my heart attack at age 56 (whilst training, of course) was less severe than it may have been. And after 6 days off the bike I was back on - the trainer, anyway. A month or so later I am back on the road, feeling good - if a bit tentative.

What struck me down was high blood pressure, genetics and perhaps a love of dairy products. One coronary artery was significantly clogged and (since this was a new experience to me) I didn't recognise all of the early signs. Sure, I was 'treating' the high blood pressure with training (it works, up to a point, too). And I was still strong - still setting and re-setting Strava KOMs for example - but I became exhausted far too easily. There was no 'pain' as such, just lethargy and a feeling that I should 'go easy' today. Almost every day. At the time I put it down to all of the other medical issues I have collected (as you do) as well as "getting older". But when these new, sudden pains came I recognised immediately that although I had never experienced exactly this crushing sensation before, or the pain in both arms, I knew what the problem was: the heart. And I realised also that I had come 'close' to a similar feeling at the sharp end of a long sprint after a hard crit, several times. But unlike previous occasions I remained breathless and in pain, and it didn't go away. Not when I slowed down, nor even when I stopped.

Being both stupid and a cyclist (the 2 go hand-in-hand) I rode home with the pain, if rather slowly. I ran through some alternative options and even saw an ambulance and thought about flagging it down. I also remembered I had a mobile phone, my wife could pick me up in the car. Then again, I thought, maybe this is just an adverse reaction to the usual prescription medication I took this morning and it'll get better. Maybe I can just ride through this?

Oh yeah, and I live on a hill. My GPS data tells me it was the slowest I had ever ridden that hill, too. But I still wasn't the slowest. (Yes, I checked in Strava to be sure.) Although I knew with 90% certainty it was a heart attack I still wondered how I could ride home, uphill, whilst having an attack. Is that possible? And since I was averaging 200km/week I wondered how it was even possible that this could be happening at all. But it was.

The best part of 5 days in hospital and 3 stents have 'fixed' the clogged artery, now I just have to rebuild and get confident again. It takes time. So today's lesson? Don't think it can't happen. Cyclists - even long-time obsessively daily trainers like me - can have heart attacks. So be alert and react quickly and appropriately (like, stop riding and get medical help). Don't hesitate.

And yes, that daily training probably minimised the damage as well as fended off the day of the eventual heart attack itself. But listen to your body; if you aren't getting the training effect you used to get - and you are even going backwards - don't double the miles, instead take a rest or even have a chat with a doctor. It may just be over-training, lack of rest - or even an early warning sign of something far, far worse!

Some stats and other nonsense. And more.   

1998 was a while ago - do we care? Probably.

It would be nice to have a complete picture of doping in sport - all sports - globally but the truth is that it'll never happen. It's too hard, the data is lost or incomplete. Nevertheless when we have the chance to peek back at the past the temptation is hard to resist... but at the end of the day, should we care?

"Italian Marco Pantani, Germany's Jan Ullrich and American Bobby Julich who were the top three during the 1998 Tour de France were all taking the banned blood booster erythropoetin (EPO), according to reports published by French daily Le Monde." 
News: Cycling Central SBS

The samples in question are old but the test is probably valid. Worth noting that Pantani is not around to defend himself.  

The power of planned chaos - Le Tour 2013 week 1

It's been an interesting - indeed fascinating - week 1. Usually (in recent experience, anyway, as nothing is truly set in stone) Le Tour starts with a prologue that sorts the riders into something like a sprinter-heavy pecking order, followed by a few flat stages where the the sprinters swap the yellow jersey amongst themselves. Instead we got a longish and unexpectedly confused stage 1 that mixed things up a bit more than usual, and a team time trial that threw up some surprises and pushed the GC guys up and down in unexpected ways. The result was that one or 2 GC teams (including BMC) were almost out of the main game already. And then the first mountain stage (stage 8) tipped the bucket on a few more teams - most of them, actually. It looked like Sky had sewn it up already. Or so it seemed.

But in stage 9 the ever-creative Garmin team threw caution to the wind and attacked from the gun, shattering Sky's calm, possibly forever. In hindsight it was predictable. Froome's wilful, ungainly and somewhat brazen attack to grab the golden fleece always seemed premature but given Sky's dominance last year most people just expected it. Of course it will be a Sky 1-2 and of course they can hold off all comers from here. Or not, perhaps.

Two thoughts flashed through my mind as Froome took off: 'he's gone too soon, week 3 is where he should do this, if he still can'; and 'my god this looks bad - he not only rides without any style (not a problem for 2nd placed Richie Porte, though) but he looks crazed, in the worst possible 'extraterrestrial' way. Actually 3 thoughts, as I also feared for the race from here if Sky dominate crushingly like last year. As in boring. I shouldn't have worried, though, as whilst Froome still looks ungainly he can obviously defend as well as attack, and Porte (as well as the rest of the Sky team) proved fallibly human. Thankfully.

Of course Sky were aided in their less than perfect stage 9 by an agressive Movistar team taking no prisoners. If only they had a couple more Columbians to drive home the advantage they worked so hard to gain. Mind you the lack of attacks reinforced the "it's only the first week" voice inside my head and calmed the 'extraterriestrial' thoughts. They look human, and un-doped. Just. And unlike stage 8 the usual GC suspects were able to hang in there, reassuringly.
  
But what really impressed me was Garmin attacking from the blocks, gloriously oblivious to both Sky and 5 tough mountain climbs to come. Thank you, JV and team for that come-from-behind with a run-up approach.  It made the week passably brilliant.
   

"We were attacking without thinking about it, it was crazy," Martin told a news conference after the 168.5-km from St Girons."We wanted to make the race exciting. We enjoy bike riding, we wanted to put on a show for people at home." Garmin-Sharp's laid-back attitude is in sharp contrast with Team Sky's clinical approach but on Sunday they had a strategy.

"This stage was a bit of an objective for us since the start in Corsica and even after having lost Christian Vande Velde," Martin said, referring to the crash on stage seven that ruled his team-mate out of the Tour."It was a stage that suited us. With the team we have we can afford to be aggressive."

Martin is a decent climber, just like Danielson and Hesjedal, and they stuck to manager Jonathan Vaughters' plan to "cause chaos" in the race. "Craziest thing about today? We planned it," said Millar.
News: Cycling Central SBS

What really makes a difference to your race performance?

It depends of course on your level of achievement and current fitness, bike fit, diet, health and equipment.

If you have a dodgy bike that weighs a ton and threatens to fall to bits at any second - there's your priority. But if you have a decent bike - say 9kgs or so, made of any popular material and completely safe and serviceable then for 99% of us upgrading won't make much, if any, difference. If it does make a measurable difference - and it's hard to really measure these things - it'll most likely be a head gain, not an equipment-specific improvement.

Not convinced? Well then, in terms of bike improvements aim to reduce rotating mass - starting with the wheels. That is something you'll feel immediately in improved acceleration. You want stiffness? Again, look to the wheels. You'll feel that, too. But weight and frame stiffness overall is of little consequence - except at the sharp end of the elite ranks. Unless you race at that sharp end, why would you pay an extra few thousand dollars simply to reduce your bike by just a kilo or 2? Or stiffen up what is already a remarkably stiff triangle of steel, aluminium or carbon? It simply won't make a difference, except you'll maybe feel and perhaps look cooler in the bunch. Perhaps that matters. Or maybe not! 

Maybe lose some weight yourself. After all it's you that weighs the most in this equation. Bike, 9kg or so. Rider? Perhaps you weigh 80kg with say 20-25% fat onboard (not that unusual, even with fit, fast guys). Imagine how much less effort you'll need to ride fast(er) if you dropped just a few kilos off yourself? It's all about power to weight, and improving your power without dropping some weight is just addressing half the problem. Look to achieve 12% body fat or slightly less (a lot less at elite levels) but don't go silly with diets or do dodgy things. Talk with a doctor or nutritionist if in any doubt. Eat a bit less, ride a bit more.

But if power is lacking, try intervals. Repeated hill intervals or hill sprints (150-200m hillclimbs in a biggish gear but still turning easily - don't grind!) will pick your power up nicely. Balance and consistency are the keys here. Don't just do one thing over and over - you'll get tired, probably over-tired, and become a one-trick pony. Mix it up both on a single training ride and from ride to ride.

Mix in some endurance, some power work and some speed work. And get in a bunch once in a while to get speed and endurance up quickly in tandem with your bunch riding skills. And be consistent. Don't do a single big ride and then not do another for a month or more. You'll lose what you gained.

Make a plan and stick as closely as you can to it, injuries aside. You need to do long rides, perhaps for an endurance event? Then build up with lots of shorter endurance rides for a month or 2, get used to doing lots of miles in a week but not in one go. Then add those much longer rides in later. But repeat them weekly so your body "remembers". So you'll end up with regular, shorter rides dotted through the week and a bigger ride or race once or maybe twice a week. And build the whole thing up gradually and incrementally to avoid injury and form loss.

Remember to be consistent, as in a pattern of repeated behaviour, because that tells your body to adjust to that expected effort. Inconsistency sends a confused message to your body and you'll get a confused response. Throw in speed work and power efforts as well but don't over-train. And plan your rests, too. A good training plan builds gradually, reaches a new level and then eases off before climbing to new heights in the next phase. You need to recover - not stop, just ease off - before aiming higher in power or endurance, or both.

More to come, I'm sure ;-)

Is training really all about periodization, intervals and power?

Well, no, training is about everything. It's about your effort on the bike plus nutrition, sleep, rest and your mental state, too - ie everything. It's even a little about the bike, as well.

But we can get carried away with the details and forget to just ride. To have fun.

I think we all have friends who are a bit unbalanced in their training. They obsess about some aspects - usually the hardware but sometimes also about diet or technique - and forget to just get out and ride. They may even rush out and engage a coach before even attempting the basics - like just riding regularly. They tie themselves in knots trying to meet goals that are way above where their bodies are at and get consumed by the details rather than look at the big picture. Phew. You know the type, right?

So I thought I'd write something about training with a non-technical slant. Mostly for the beginner, but for anyone really: it's Rob's "Just ride" training plan.

Remember - start healthy, stay healthy. If you are really new to exercise or have any doubts at all, see a doctor first.

Now, just ride (obviously). Don't race at first. Don't do intervals or baseline efforts. It's a mistake to do intervals, hill training or big rides without building a regular, consistent base first. Just ride regularly several times a week and well within your ability. If you want to race it's all built on experience and miles in the saddle. Your body adjusts over time to what you do in life, so if you are riding lots then your body adjusts to that effort. You get used to it. Just be consistent and do it because you love it. Join a club, ride with others. Learn by doing.

But you plan to race, yes? Sure, but you certainly don't have to do mega-miles or special efforts at this stage. Unscientific Rule of Thumb Number 1 works for me: if you plan to race then ride at least 3 times that distance in training per week, on average. No intervals, nothing fancy, just ride. So if you plan to race 50km just plan to train 150km a week, minimum. Yes you can do it with a lot less - but in the back of your mind you'll be thinking 'have I done enough?' And the answer will be 'no'. Don't race until you hit - or at least approach - that goal!

Unscientific Rule of Thumb Number 2 is that you need to build up gradually - don't just leap on a bike and ride 150km in one go and say "job done!". That's cheating and it doesn't work, at least for most of us! And it can (perhaps will) lead to injury. Instead make a plan to reach 150km a week (or whatever) in a series of incremental steps. 2 to 3 months is a good period over which to build up. Your body and mind will adjust to the effort and is less likely to break. But if you do get sore, slow down a bit or rest. Take some time to build a base. And don't race unless you have met your training goals first.

Unscientific Rule of Thumb Number 3 is similar to 2, it's "be consistent". Take breaks or ease off if your body says "rest" or "oww" but always come back to a repeatable pattern of effort that works for you. So ditch the "big ride" syndrome (at least for now, we can come back to that later) and go for regular, shorter efforts. One big ride per week works for some of us but mostly it's inefficient and ineffective. A better way to train is to do shorter daily or every-2nd-day efforts. So your 150km training week may be 3x50km rides or one 50km race and 5x20km efforts during the week. This allows your body (and mind) time to recover whilst ensuring that gains are made. If you are inconsistent, however, and do irregular big rides to "catch-up" you simply don't make the same incremental gains and risk injury.  

Unscientific Rule of Thumb Number 4 is "when you have done the miles, build on it". If you have followed what I have written so far you will have set out an achievable plan, adjusted it as needed, achieved it and done your consistent base miles. You may now race with some confidence. Of course a newbie will still struggle as we haven't covered intervals, power training and basic race skills and tactics. But that's the beauty of it all - you get to incorporate what you learn into your dynamic training plan! This is the build phase. You build in efforts that address weaknesses and enhance strengths. Now if you are a newbie to racing then be open to learn as it does involve a lot of skills, rules and etiquette that are not immediately obvious. Again, join a club, ride with others to get that experience.

So the build phase is literally built on a solid, consistent, regular and repeated base of steady miles. Not an on-and-off, patchy, lots-of-days-off melange of commutes peppered with massive catch-up rides. Unscientific Rule of Thumb Number 5 tells us that you lose "some" form and fitness  - it varies from person to person and by age so let's just say "some" - after only 2 days off the bike. You keep most, sure, but you lose 'something'. It may be small but after 2 days a bit of what you just gained is lost again. But if you leave 4 days or more between rides then you lose a much bigger slice of whatever you last gained. Again it's not all lost but it's certainly not all there, either. (Cautionary note - sometimes you just have to rest and recover, treat an injury or whatever and simply must take days off. It happens, it's OK.)

In summary, your body simply doesn't waste resources. If it looks like you won't be using those muscles and endurance power systems again, rather than keep it "just in case" it redistributes those resources elsewhere. Hence regularity and consistency are king, they remind your body of what you need to do. 

Now with the base in place you can add the fancy stuff to build speed, power and endurance. If you really enjoy it and want to take it further you can read up or get a coach. And remember: have fun.   

Does pre-race carbo loading really work?

Let's face it, most of like to eat. Many of us like to eat a lot. And "carbo-loading" before a race seems like a really, really good excuse to do exactly that - pig out, guilt-free. But is it?

I have to say I've tried it a few times and it hasn't really worked. I've mostly done it in (short, amateur!) stage races or before a big road race. My performance didn't improve - seemingly, because how could I really tell? I didn't endure any better and I spent more time on the loo both pre and post race. But I did it in the '80s and the science has moved on, presumably.

The theory's good, though. In my day (the '80s, like I said) a few days to a week beforehand I'd ride to exhaustion a few days in a row - and I do mean exhaustion - whilst cutting back the carbs. And then I'd 'over-recover' for a few more days by backing off the miles, resting, and ingesting more than enough carbs than strictly necessary to simply refuel. Anecdotally this is still a popular idea - you 'fly' a few days after riding yourself into the ground. Somehow - this is the dodgy bit in my opinion - the body not only takes on what it needs it adds a bit more as a gluttony bonus, as though it senses you are about to do something extreme, or maybe even stoopid. But how does it know (insert something plausible about stimulating glycogen synthase here)?

And why would we evolve such a curious turbo-boost function? It doesn't seem likely, really, does it? If you over-eat you should simply egest or store (as fat) what you don't have room to conserve. Why would there be a secret hidey-hole for extra carbs?

Of course it's possible that waves of feast and famine coupled with our ancient mania for endurance walking have set this up for us. It's possible.

So much for the good old days. These days sports scientists generally believe it does work, even if it's just via the placebo effect (and who cares, as long as it works?). And they have generally ditched the ride-to-exhaustion bit. Rather you just do the diet and rest bit. (Which sounds a bit too convenient for me, but anyway...). The theory remains that training less ('tapering') but eating more carbs (ie eating more low-fat sugar and starch but slightly less protein and even less fibre) over 1-4 days will measurably boost your available muscle glycogen levels before an event. So it does work, indeed it just sounds like resting and recovery to me - and it's even easier than ever. But remember it's still not a licence to pig out!   

Now that was the Giro for me - coffee breaks and all

 Jose Azevedo states the obvious - the Giro isn't the Tour - but it's getting more similar. What I really like is his 'back in my day' reflection:
 
"Back when I raced the Giro, on the flat stages a break would go early on, then we'd all ease back and ride very, very gently until about 50 kilometres to go," he said.

"A lot of days, the main bunch would even have cappuccino and cake or ice cream stops mid-race in some of the villages.

Now that's a bike race.

Unpredictable Giro tests riders, staff : SBS Cycling Central | Cycling News and Results | Video Highlights

Evans and Wurf now lead Points and Sprints at Giro D'Italia 2013: Stage 9 Results | Cyclingnews.com

Ahh, the Grand Tours. It's just interesting - no, fascinating - to watch the steady, incremental progress that Cadel Evans is quietly making in this Giro. Nothing too flash, but he is relentlessly picking up bunch sprints and high placings, leading to the steady collection of points in the, umm, points classification. No surprise really, it's his style as a "GC guy" to take what's available as it presents.

If he has a plan it's to stay close, match Nibali and the less-impressive-so-far Wiggins and keep on keeping on. Perhaps he will attack on a climb when or if Nibali shows weakness? Or wait until the uphill chrono in week 3? Or just wait, period. It's only the end of the first week after all.

Wurf meanwhile is hanging on in the sprint category (a bit of a misnomer really) through consistency and grit and right-place-right-time methodology. Hansen of course has won a stage so he's happy!  

Giro D'Italia 2013: Stage 9 Results | Cyclingnews.com

Maxxis tyre go boom!

Maxxis tyre go boom_0706a, a photo by gtveloce on Flickr.

There's something about summer and bike tyres and Central Coast roads I guess. Last year (or maybe it was 2011, I don't care anymore) saw a huge bubble form on a Vittoria road clincher, so bad that eventually it was hitting the brake with every revolution. Whilst it was sensible to stop anyway, it was annoying, just 3 km short of home.

It was another hot day and another brand of tyre - Maxxis Detonator, would you believe! - that saw this bubble-and-split occur. Same road, though, and neither tyre was over-inflated, BTW. And I have ridden hot roads before without such incident.

At least this time I made it all the way home, cautiously. Are tyres just getting worse in this bubble-and-split respect?

Down but not out - first Wiggo, now Sutton hit in UK traffic

It can happen anywhere. I don't know how it happened, but it happened. I used to ride at the other end of the St George bunch from Shane, hanging on grimly or chasing back on, and whilst he was always a volatile guy he wasn't stupid. Accidents happen. Road design aside, it's vital that all riders, pedestrians and drivers are careful, awake amd aware out there.

British Cycling coach Shane Sutton hospitalized after collision with auto

Commenting on the bizarre timing of the two accidents, British Cycling wrote, “”It is extremely rare that our riders and coaches are hurt while out cycling on the road, even rarer that two incidents should occur in a short space of time, and we wish Shane and Bradley a speedy recovery.”

The federation also called on the government to put cycling “at the heart of transport policy to ensure that cycle safety is built into the design of all new roads, junctions and transport projects, rather than being an afterthought.”

LeMond never fails to speak his mind

Which is good, we need more people - real people, not just organisations, lawyers, figureheads and spokespeople - to speak out and balance things a bit. If you have followed cycling - pro racing - for the last 20 or 30 years then you'll know LeMond and understand at least a bit of his journey. And knowing the backstory helps us to trust him, or at least to acknowledge his views as worth a pause and a bit of reflection. For mine, I trust him. He seems real.   

LeMond: Armstrong Has Been Trying To Destroy Me For 10 Years | Cyclingnews.com

Former three-time Tour de France winner Greg LeMond says that Lance Armstrong has been trying to destroy him for over ten years. The now outspoken anti-doping advocate made the claims during an interview with Irish radio Newstalk in which he spoke candidly about a number of topics including his abuse as a child, living with attention deficit disorder, Lance Armstrong and doping in the sport.

LeMond: Armstrong Has Been Trying To Destroy Me For 10 Years | Cyclingnews.com

LeMond stepped away from the sport not long after retiring at the end of the 1994 season, but when Armstrong first returned from cancer he was like many, a believer. That was until he began to hear the rumours surrounding his countryman.

"I couldn’t be honest with myself. I knew too much from 2000 on," he said. "From 2001 and on I didn’t have anything good to say. I made up the logic in my mind that Festina Affair happened in '98 and it cleaned up. Somebody came back, they lost weight, that whole story I bought into. Then I started hearing rumours and the rumours were good observations from people within the sport. Then in 2000 I heard some disturbing stuff from someone in the team and it became impossible. I backed away from cycling at that point."

I don't know the truth here - like most of us I can only guess - but what LeMond says resonates with what I have seen and heard. I'm sure there's more to come.

What a bore these Grand Tours are - well, not this one. Contador finally nails it

Well, probably. After the slow grind that was Le Tour 2012 (yawn) we have La Vuelta. And it's all over the place. Attacking riding that entertains, dramatic chases that narrow gaps or explode the field and now a desperate throw of the dice that pays off. Just like the good old days. And the Giro wasn't too bad either. 

Contador Fights Back Tears After Turning Vuelta On Its Head | Cyclingnews.com

“We didn’t say anything on the radios because a lot of them are pirated by the other teams, but I told them to go for it on the front. “I have to thank [Astana rider and former teammate] Paolo Tiralongo, because he worked hard for me in the break.”

Contador tackled most of the 17km-long final climb to Fuente Dé alone after Tiralongo was unable to follow his tempo. “I had thought of attacking three kilometres from the line, but from never so far out,” Contador said. “I kept on eating and drinking because I was worried I would blow. I knew if I blew I would lose the second place overall.”

“It was pure instinct, nothing calculated. I’m not in top form, but I really wanted to do it.”

He may have doped, intentionally or otherwise - and I do hope he's clean today - but Contador has certainly stamped his name all over the Grand Tour record books. (Presuming he doesn't get knocked off his perch in the few days left, of course.) Stay clean, Alberto, Le Tour needs you!

Froome and Sky attack a fallen Valverde. Moral bankruptcy take 3 - or "that's racing!"

It's the old story. We've all been there. Sometimes we wait, sometimes we attack. It's a moral and ethical dilemma, sure, but one we decide on the road. A rider punctures, that's unlucky. Could happen to us next time. Maybe we slow down, let them catch up? A rider (or 30) fall, again we sit up. It could have been us. But then again, if we have already attacked and have a plan that we must stick to, well, we can't wait every time, can we? After all, it's the exceptions that prove the rule.

Apparently Froome and Co couldn't wait for Valverde. That's racing. Will we see same the sort of wailing and gnashing we saw when Contador 'attacked' a stricken Schleck? I doubt it.   

Vuelta A España 2012: Stage 4 Results | Cyclingnews.com

Valverde was one of a number of fallers in a crash inside the final 30 kilometres, just as Chris Froome’s Sky team was looking to split the peloton in the stiff crosswinds that buffeted the race on the run-in to the day’s final climb. Although Sky had already begun to set the pace just before Valverde came a cropper, the British team paid no heed to his plight and persisted in their efforts all the way to the foot of the Valdezcaray, in spite of the exhortations of Valverde’s teammate Beñat Inxausti.

One for the Andy-Schleck-loving-Contador-haters: Or Boonen wins again, and other ethical questions

There you go, you Andy-Schleck-loving-Contador-haters, have a go at Big Tom for exploiting an opportunity:

Belgian Road Championships 2012: Elite Men Results | Cyclingnews.com

The race was decided by a move from Boonen at 40km from the finish line, exploiting a mechanical from co-favorite Jurgen Roelandts (Lotto-Belisol).

We don't really know what was in Tom's mind, but he clearly gained advantage from the move. So what is the morality here? Does one wait? Or attack? It is, after all, a bike race, and anyone can have a mechanical, even Tom Boonen. But I'd hate to be his mechanic, post-race. Now if it was clear cut and perhaps enshrined in a universal rule then everything would be cut-and-dried and sweet. We'd probably do the "decent" or "sporting" thing and simply wait. But life - and racing - is not like that.

Sometimes mechanicals are purely random and unavoidable, and at other times it's caused by "rider or mechanic's error". If you contributed to your own demise, so be it. We can't expect everyone to wait whilst you get your act together. I think Andy Schleck's famous chain trouble was probably rider error, myself, and Contador was clearly not 100% sure what had happened. You could say he should have waited anyway, just to be sure; but it's not so cut-and-dried. Racing is complicated. You may wait, others may not. And here with Boonen, how's he to know what has caused his competitors to be delayed? Even if he did know, how is he to judge fault? Why should he assume it wasn't rider error? And if the tables were turned, would they wait for him?

There is no one supreme morality, is there? We all have our set of personal, individual rules, including a sense of what is "fair". And then we apply those rules. If we make our decisions based on our personal moral foundation and it's done "authentically" or in a way true to ourselves, then we have acted "ethically". Which will never stop others questioning our actions, of course. 

All well and good but couldn't anyone do this?

Yes, yes, it's nice to buy a brand name (at least if the cachet means something to you) but seriously, folks, every bike racer knows how to "modify" their bike to make it lighter. I mean, really.. who hasn't slapped a lighter set of wheels on at least once?

AC Schnitzer tunes the latest BMW ... bicycle?

At just 16.3 pounds (7.4 kg), the carbon-framed M Bike Carbon Racer is already a light, lithe two-wheeler. AC Schnitzer saw the opportunity to cut even more weight by adding more carbon. It stripped components off with abandon, replacing them with carbon and lightweight counterparts. Specifically, Schnitzer added a set of carbon wheels developed in conjunction with Xentis, plus a carbon saddle, a carbon saddle support and a new crank.

According to its numbers, AC successfully cut the bike's weight by a full kilogram, down to 15.2 pounds (6.9 kg). In contrast to BMW's 16.3-pound figure, AC Schnitzer lists the original weight at 17.4 pounds (7.9 kg), a fact that could have to do with the frame size (the bike is offered in five different frame sizes).