SB Nation User Blog: R Mc

Les veins du tour, or the inevitable hot-i-tude thread

R Mc — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:58:20 -0000

Sparing you I will, the photos of the high-5 nightmare interchange of veins in George Hincapie's left calf. I have it on good authority that Lee-noos left HIgh Road because George wouldn't take him up on the offer of heavily discounted laser surgery . . . (What authority? The sort of authoritay that must be respected. Respect.)

But we--that's the paranormal we that us ph.d's get to use in deep discussions such as this--also know what happens when you put clinically low bodyfat percentages together with serious aerobic activity in the supra-pedal extremities: serious veinage running from the subtly sexy to "has a med. school called you about being the visual aid at their anatomy lesson?"

Discuss and provide visual aids as necessary (or not):

Why not me? Cadel Evans

R Mc — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:37:07 -0000

Our generation's Poulidor or a candidate for glory? [edited in light of Dekker's being thrown under the bus on the way to Monaco.]

Why he will win:

The course favors him. He out-grintas Menchov and can ALMOST hang onto Contador's most lethal mountain attacks. The only problem for Contador is that there aren't that many mountains suited to his style, so advantage to the Diesels. The Team Time Trial is short enough--and early enough in the race--that his team won't be a serious liability. His team, for once, is actually built around him, as opposed to his being the after-thought to Robbie McEwen. With my pollyana glasses on, I'll even assert that Thomas Dekker's exclusion--and his replacement with Wegelius--improves Evans chances in the overall. Removing Dekker removes a rider of questionable dedication and sporadic performances in favor of a consummate professional who--while NOT a Chris Horner--is a solid climby domestique.

Another reason Evans will win: He will be there just waiting to pick up the pieces after the Astana implosion or explosion.

Why He Will Not Win:

The last 10 kilometers of stage 17 of the 2002 Giro d"italia from Corvara to Folgaria. Evans, through no fault of his own, wound up being Mapei's leader due to Stephano Garzelli's positive for Probenecid. Remember--this was 7 years ago: Evans had just crossed over to road racing from a successful MTB career, and he was just supposed to help out Garzelli. But once in rosa, he gave everything he had to become the first Aussie winner of the Giro.

I re-watched this stage today (lotta rain = roller workout). Knowing what to look for, I came away with renewed admiration for Evans. He was clearly suffering like a dog by 15k to go, but he suffered it out for another 5k until he just imploded. Hamilton saw him lose Cioni's wheel and attacked, which opened the door for what turned out to be the winning GC move by Savoldelli. Evans bobbed-and-wove his way up the climb, losing 17 minutes in 10k.

My point: Such a colossal blow-up scars a psyche; it causes one to ask questions at times requiring total commitment. Whether I'm correct in identifying that moment as the ultimate source of the stress, the past couple of tours have provided ample evidence that Evans does not handle the stress of being a podium contender well.

Beyond the personal level--there are still immense questions about whether or not Silence-Lotto--especially the management--have the abilities requisite to bring home a GC victory.

While no one should dis-respect the level of effort and commitment Evans brings to his racing, unless he addresses his mental limiters he will not be getting his flowers on the top step of the podium in Paris.

Driving That Train: Beyond the Engine

R Mc — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:53:08 -0000

I'm gonna learn this story template sooner or later. Anyway, I thought about quoting from REM instead of the Dead, but oh well . . . I've been in a Phish phase, so jam band it is.

The last post was about identifying the real contenders. If you're interested, this one is an invitation to wrap some pixelated type around the psychological characteristics that go into winning a GT.

There seem to be 3 basic strategic approaches to winning a Grand Tour--which I'll label the Merckx/Hinault, Indurain, and Armstrong methods. All 3 methods have worked--but part of the task for a director and contender is to figure out what sort of psychological profile they are working with and adapt to that

Method 1: Merckx/Hinault: never waste an opportunity to inflict harm on your opponents. Definitely the highest physiological stress option, but this strategy has the benefit of reducing your opponents to quaking masses of indecision by the latter stages of a race. Non-GT example: in the finale of the 1981 Paris-Roubaix, HInault runs into a loose dog going through a turn and crashes. After the fastest remount I've ever seen, Hinault chases back--this despite the presence of Moser trying to drive the pace. Within 500m of rejoining the group (with no follow car assistance or anything else). Hinault is back on the front and his pull drops two riders: In sum, the psychological profile for this method: "strategy? My strategy is to pummel you repeatedly, you ok with that?" Riders for whom it does not work: Chiapucci, Valverde, Vinokourov.

Method 2: the Indurain method. I thought about calling this one the Menchov method. It's sort of the rope-a-dope response to the Merckx/Hinault method. In other words, it's all about taking punishment and hanging on until your opponent over-reaches. Of course, as Evans and Leipheimer have learned to their cost, when your opponent over-reaches, you have to shift out of punching-bag mentality long enough to land a blow yourself.

Method 3: Oh crud, I seem to have turned into a Hegelian, since the Armstrong method is sort of a synthesis of the proceeding two, with the addition of a team strategy. Instead of waiting out the opposition the Armstrong (and you have to give Bruyneel credit too) approach is to use your team to dictate when and where the signficant attacks will happen--and save your leader's energy for only THOSE places. After that, you use your team as a bunch of surrogate Hinaults (or picadors, to vary the combat metaphor slightly) to control your opponents--or goad them into making a blunder. Riis and Sastre notably adopted this method last year--gambling that they could wring victory out of just one stage of the tour.

So, did I come close to suggesting what is becoming the most fascinatiing part of Grand Tour racing: the match of psychological abilities with strategic choices?

The 5. Who are they?

R Mc — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:09:18 -0000

Note: this is not an Ursula post. Expect no research. Expect no clear reasoning. Just a lame assertion followed by minimal support an then an invitation to discuss.

Lame Assertion:

The pool of cyclists actually capable of winning a Grand Tour--specifically le Tour--is always very small. Arbitrarily, I'm saying 5. The prime variables in my calculus for determining who is NOT on the list refer to primarily psychological rather than physiological characteristics. [Note: again, this 'calculus' I write of is purely a figment of my imagination--although I plan to package up some bogus test questions and interest profiles as the "McLamore battery" and offer it to Pro-Tour teams sorta like Gil Brandt cooked up scouting packages for the Dallas Cowboys after he got tired of taking baby photos].

more after the click

Part of the problem, then, is that it's never straight-forward about who the GT contenders COULD be. Could Spartacus be a GT contender? It depends on the model of winning a GT he plans to use. Certainly the Sastre model won't work, but the Indurain model might. But does Cancellara have the psychological tools to impose himself on the top of the GC? Survey says yes. So . . . he could be one.

But then there are riders who exist as GT contenders because of some good LT or VO2 max numbers and a need for journalists to turn out copy. Though there are many examples of these riders out there, perhaps Jean-Francois Bernard is the best example to bring up. Coddled and cuddled as Hinault's heir . . . he promptly got his lunch-money stolen from him by Andy Hampsten in the 86 tour and never lived up to his potential.

A last complicatiing factor: aging. the mantle of "5-ness" is fleeting.

So . . . who's on your list as the 5 REAL contenders this year?

Five Terrors TT Third thready-thingy

R Mc — Thu, 21 May 2009 13:59:27 -0000

Graphics?? Girbecco ate 'em. (And Sastre's regular helmet).

The story develops . . .

Just Go . . .

R Mc — Mon, 11 May 2009 14:06:00 -0000

Away.

That's my reaction to the unsurprising news of Alejandro Valverde's suspension. Here's CN's brief report, of which more will certainly follow: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2009/may09/may11news3

People can (and will, that's mostly what this post is for) debate the various issues related to this. I want to make my position clear: after going through the Hamilton and Landis imbroglios and deducing the following take-away message--suck it up, they doped and the tests worked and were administered efficiently enough, I have little patience for the sorts of 'tranquillo" defenses proffered by Valverde. (It doesn't help matters that Arne Baker's "defense" of Landis is rife with red-herring arguments AND that he was responsible for planting false information about AFLD).

Granted much of the evidence against Valverde is circumstantial--but it is worth mentioning that he has been pointed out as tainted ever since Jesus Manzano first went public about the systematic doping program at Kelme. Subsequent events have done nothing but corroborate the basic outlines and, in many cases, the particulars of Manzano's allegations.

So . . . as more information appears, we'll be sure to add it in, but my initial position is clear: Valverde's suspension is LONG over-due.

open letter to giro broadcasters:

R Mc — Sun, 03 May 2009 00:31:11 -0000

Howdy, G'day, etc.:

We know that many of you cycling media types peek in here to PdC. Well . . . that is . . . the English speakers; Auro, Davide, and Allessandra we're not so sure about. Thanks for the shout-outs guys.

Cycling.tv guys (especially Anthony and Brian--you's guys rock)--we know you're aware of how much we dislike the technical and customer service glitches, so it's worth reminding you how much we appreciate the insights and connections you bring to the race. (By connections, I mean stuff as cool as being able to phone up Scott Sunderland in the CSC car while O'Grady was soloing in to the win. That was a good one). And Brian's accent almost makes up for him not being Auro.

Versus . . . Is there a bike race going on amidst all those commercials and promos? And if so, are Phil and Paul watching it with a special Bruce-delay (new-comers: see the glossary)?

Enough of that: here's the point--Long-time readers will have put up with at least one of my rants about what English-speaking cycling broadcasting should be about. Newcomers, consider your self lucky. I know what I'd like (and if I don't get it, I turn the sound off). Whatever.

But what are the rest of us wanting out of race announcing?

(note: R Mc reserves the right to rant at some point in the future about the strangeness of terms like "preventative" and "commentator" that are afflicted with a non-essential syllabic hiccup).

t-m: does your garmin do this???

R Mc — Fri, 01 May 2009 23:53:43 -0000

A long way away from production, but this was in my in-box this afternoon (and the student is a good guy who's started doing triathlons):

"Tuesday, May 5th Physics major Todd Neer will present his senior research proposal, "Ultrasonic Watch". The goal of the project is to build a prototype ultrasonic dog deterrent device into a wristwatch case for joggers."

a modestly immodest fake press release from the uci

R Mc — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:21:48 -0000

Luzianne--

Recognizing that the Pro Tour concept has not worked to secure financial stability for professional cycling or sufficient brand exposure for sponsoring corporations and that in large part these failures stem from the persistence with which "doping" allegations continue to surface about professional cycling, the UCI, in consultation with Patrick Lefevere, Eufemiano Fuentes, Jesus Marzano, the spirit of Marco Pantani, a couple of recently deceased Polo ponies, and several corporate executives, hereby announce the formation of a new top level of professional cycling:

The Pro-pharma test tour.

Much like Motorola's sponsorship revolutionized the sport in the early 90s with the use of their radio technology, the formation of teams explicitly sponsored, funded, and supplied--in every sense of the term--with the newest and best performance-enhancing substances to emerge from the research labs of the big pharma companies will no doubt produce the most exciting racing. To provide oversight, each pharma-tour level team will be "presented by" a noted sports medical facility, which will provide testing, medical support, and the occasional forensic services for the riders..

t-m: a few millimeters, or position

R Mc — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:31:50 -0000

This post is NOT about retul or any of the other super high-tech bike fit methods available now.

It is about how absolutely important going by feel, rather than "cool" is for getting a usable fit. Background: I'm flexible, not Mongolian contortionist flexible, but I can place my palms flat on the ground when doing the "touch-your-toes" stretch. I have longish legs and a short torso (and, frighteningly, could be well-fit on a woman's specific design.) These two facts, aligned with a somewhat ridiculous, if understandable desire to have a bike set-up like the 'cool kids' is just about all you need to know for what follows.

Except: when I first started riding in the 80s, I'd tweak everything every couple of weeks until a guy in town (who worked summers etc at Lemond's camp, and had been trained in the Lemond/Guimard 'fit' offered to check out my set-up. My self-selected position coincided almost exactly with the Lemond guidelines. Thus was a monster born.

Because . . . I was no longer just innocently listening to my body, but filtering that through what I thought a cool bike should look like.

Jump ahead to 2000 . . . my wife buys me a new frame because I've begun riding a lot again. So, I set it up. And because I'm so flexible I can make myself ride the abomination (I've got a couple of pictures: my butt's in a different time zone than my arms and there's a near Bartoli-ish saddle-to-bar drop). And thus was begun an 8 or 9 year nightmare: the speed wobbles. No fun, especially not at 40+ in a pack. I know to clamp top-tubes, all the stuff . . . and sometimes it makes no difference.

Through 3 different frames, probably 10 different wheel-sets, a few forks, a bunch of different saddles, etc. I'd get speed wobbles on a few hills (others weren't problems, and strangely, some of these wobbles wouldn't happen the second time through the same hill on a circuit.

Over the years the saddle came way forward, the top tubes on my frames went from 56 to 54, and the drop lessened a bit, but still, put me on a couple of hills the wrong way, and it felt like I was losing control to the front end.

The last straw was a couple of weeks ago at Fort Davis. I sucked on the hill climb, sucked even worse in the time trial (an out and back into a . . . no kidding . . . 30+ mph headwind . . . ouch). And on Sunday's 74 mile road stage (with a couple of passes for fun) I dropped myself on the first moderate descent. Then, stupidly, kept going for the next 50 miles to finish.

On the long drive home, I started wondering about the perception of losing the front end. Next day, I played around at the bike shop on some bikes set up way more upright than mine, and sent off an e-mail to my buddy Richard Wharton (he's a coach--consider this a plug). His answer coincided with what I thought I was feeling on the shop bikes.

So, (and apologies for the long post, here's the action part): I lowered my saddle maybe 2 millimeters and raised my stem 5 (by switching out spacers). A net change of 3 mm. And the difference in how I feel the center-of-gravity and how I can steer and control the bike from the core instead of with head and shoulders is amazing.

Now if someone will just decide they need me to review a set-up procedure for The Racing Post . . .