Radio-pard

August 31, 2011

So what are the potential drivers behind a Leo-Shack or Radio-pard merger/takeover?

As everybody knows, despite spending a ton of money on having a star-studded team, Leopard’s budget is still paid predominantly by Becca (or not paid, an article in l’Équipe also cites financial problems). No matter how many stars you have, finding a title sponsor for a cycling team is very difficult – unfortunately I know.

On the other side, Radioshack featured in several lists of “brands most likely to disappear in 2011” so who would blame them for looking to stop or reduce their commitment. On June 30 Bruyneel announced a 2-year extension with “our current partners” which all the journalists translated into “Radioshack”. But I can’t find Bruyneel mentioning them by name anywhere (see the odd wording in the Reuters piece).

Radioshack itself apparently never issued a press release about an extension (see their press releases here). Since real journalists check all their facts before writing something I have no reason to doubt any of this, but I still find it odd.

Even if we assume that “our current partners” means “Radioshack”, that doesn’t necessarily mean their commitment is sufficient to cover a top-team budget. So we potentially have two under-funded teams, and one common bike sponsor.

In my opinion, therein lies the key in this saga. Trek likely spends anywhere from 3-5M Euro on each team, or 6-10M Euro in total. Add a few smaller sponsors and other suppliers and you’ve got a full team budget right there.

In other words, merge the teams and it doesn’t matter what Radioshack’s financial future looks like, nor how much patience Becca can afford to have. If Radioshack remains fully committed, you’ve got yourself an OVER-funded team which I am sure the combined owners would not object to. If Radioshack doesn’t, you’re still (close to) break-even.

Or maybe this whole situation is about Trek wanting to spend 3-5M only once, not twice.

Either way it’d be great for Trek because they can now focus their marketing on just one team and have their name plastered all over it. It’s maybe not so great but better than a potential meltdown for the current team owners. It’s obviously not great at all for some of the sacrifical lambs.

BTW, I love the “scoop” in the Tageblatt that Trek president John Burke was seen spending a lot of time with Becca at the Tour de France finish in Paris. Yeah, that’s really odd, for the main sponsor of the team to spend time with the team owner at the finish of the biggest event of the year. Sinister stuff.


Leo-Shack Clue – the board game

August 31, 2011

I hope you all enjoyed me not writing for two weeks as much as I did.  In case you were expecting a follow-up on the biological passport, I want to be thorough so I sent a question to the UCI for clarification (you may remember they mentioned that a simple call could have solved any mystery, so I’ve decided to follow that course of action. I hope they come through).

But what a fun moment (insert sarcasm) to come back, with all these rumors flying around. This time it’s Leo-Shack. One thing stood out for me in the cyclingnews article:

There are 27 riders under contract at Leopard Trek and 13 riders under contract at RadioShack.

For a team to have only 13 riders under contract halfway through the Vuelta is very unusual. Possible reasons:

  1. You have an enormous problem with your rider group. While there are certainly things to point to (Armstrong investigation, the average age, etc), I don’t see anything that would require replacing half the riders on that team. And if this were the case, you’d be hiring like crazy right now.
  2. You don’t have sufficient sponsorship funds for next year to make new commitments.
  3. You’re planning a merger and combined you have too many riders.
  4. You’re a mad genius and have a plan so brilliant nobody understands it.

Obviously this list is not exhaustive, but I struggle to find other logical reasons. In the current situation, it may very well be a combination of #2 and #3. Obviously very few people know the whole story, but the clue about 13 signed riders is too big to ignore. I’ll put my money on Bruyneel, in the kitchen, with the knife.

More on this topic later today, to always get the latest you can subcribe to this blog by email, twitter, facebook, even Skype (don’t ask me how that works).


Biological passport follow-up

August 11, 2011

Thanks for the response on my blog from yesterday about the significant reduction in testing for the biological passport. I also see the need to clarify some things:

  1. I did not say there were zero tests, just that I’ve heard from riders and team managers that they haven’t seen tests being carried out, while nobody told me the opposite. And that’s a stark contrast to say 12 months ago. Obviously I did not check the 1000+ pro riders all individually.
  2. Daniel Benson reports that according to the UCI, some tests were carried out at the Vuelta, Worlds and Leopard training camp. I have no reason to doubt the UCI on that. I am not sure if that is the complete list, because if it is, then that would confirm that the number of tests has been greatly reduced.
  3. Andrew Pinfold, a rider for United Healthcare, also reports being tested for the passport. I think the team he is on in 2011 is in a different category than in 2010, so that may have something to do with it.
  4. Some people saw my post as a bashing of the UCI, but actually it is quite the opposite and therein lies part of the problem. As long as people see the biological passport as a UCI thing and therefore look at them to solve any issues, it won’t work. Riders, teams, races all have to understand how vital the biological passport is and find a way together to make it work. Some are actively supporting the UCI, others are not.
  5. The point is not if 0, 100 or 500 tests were carried out in the past year, the point is if the sport is able to support the number of tests necessary to ensure most people play by the rules. And if that ability is threatened, then action should be taken.
For future updates, you can subscribe here.

The biological passport

August 10, 2011

This has been bugging me for a while, not sure what to do with it. I’ve mentioned it to a few real journalists, and some others have called me with questions. I’ve been quite open with them because I feel it is important for the sport, which seems to be at a cross-road. Here’s what I’ve told these journalists:

I have not heard of a rider being tested for the biological passport between the end of the 2010 Tour and April 2011. After that I am not sure. While it is logical that the frequency of testing might decrease somewhat once profiles are established, the fact remains that the profile in itself is not a deterrent. The deterrent comes from testing current values against those profiles to see if there are clues indicating doping.

If what I have been hearing is indeed the case throughout the sport, then that would be worrisome. It would mean that in a crucial build-up and competition period, only riders who were on teams with independent anti-doping programs (such as HTC and Garmin-Cervelo) have been properly monitored to the extent that science is capable of. And it’s why I tweeted earlier that teams claiming they don’t have to do anything because there is the biological passport are, well, what’s the word?

Apparently defending biological passport cases in court is expensive, and in my eyes it points to a flaw in the set-up. When you come up with a new process, you have to make the riders’ rights the top priority. Only that way can you minimize costly challenges. The simple fact that riders don’t have access to all the data used to convict them risks turning the biological passport into sport’s version of military tribunals. I’ve written about this before.

I don’t think there are necessarily bad intentions here, but if the teams are paying a ton of money to fund the biological passport and all that money goes to defending cases so there is little money left for further testing, then riders, teams and federations have to sit together and figure this out, rather than just letting the biological passport die. It’s in everybody’s best interest to do so. And it gives the sport a chance to not only be the first to set up a revolutionary technology, but to also be the first to integrate it in the sport in a fair, sustainable way.

If you want cycling to continue to lead the way in the anti-doping struggle – no matter how hard – and not give up on the passport, then please spread this story. Thanks.

For future updates, you can subscribe here.


Body position vs bar height – part 3

August 8, 2011

So, what does this all mean for frame design?

Over the past decades, frames have been designed with shorter and shorter headtubes to please the pros seeking an advantage through a lower handlebar position. Those same geometries are then offered to the masses. As you’ve seen in part 1 and part 2, the only problem with this approach is that it’s wrong. It doesn’t work for the pros, let alone for the masses.

So we need to get these headtubes longer again, and thankfully there is a way to do this without creating a problem for those riders who like their low position (out of habit or because they have the flexibility to take advantage of such a low position).

You see this in the new Cervelo geometry for example. The R3, R5, R5ca and S5 are obviously race-ready, as they are used successfully by the men and women of Garmin-Cervelo. Yet the headtubes are taller than they used to be. Here’s how it works:

The new geometry from the Cervelo R3 and S5 series has a taller headtube so that people can put their handlebars on the correct height without needing too many spacers. At the same time the bars can still be placed low enough to fit any pro rider we have ever supported. The advantage of a longer headtube is that it increases the torsional stiffness of the frame, which in turn improves handling.

On aero frames, it also improves the aerodynamics because despite the headtube being wider than the bunch of spacers sitting atop of it if it were shorter, the shape of the headtube is much, much better and more than compensates for the increased frontal area.

So how do riders still attain the low position with the taller headtube? If you mount a -17 degree stem (that’s a flat stem, so a stem that sits on the bike horizontally) on the new geometry, the handlebars sit just as low as they would with a -6 degree stem (the standard) on the old geometry. 3T, FSA and several other manufacturers now have such -17 degree stems available.

Of course, that said no pro should ever ride the R3 except for Paris-roubaix (which it was designed for originally). The aero frames are ALWAYS the fastest solution, even in mountainous terrain, so every pro taking their profession seriously and wanting to get to the finish the fastest should ride them at all times (except Roubaix).


HighRoad lessons learned

August 5, 2011

I wanted to write a blog about the demise of HighRoad, but it’s too depressing. Whatever you may think of Bob Stapleton (and certainly I have some positive and some negative thoughts), I’ll remind you of two things:

  1. He was and is a huge supporter of women’s cycling. Even now that the team will fold, he’ll find a way to keep the women’s program going. I’m sure of it.
  2. He took a team that had become a mess in the public eye and turned it into an exciting team with lots of antics on the road and very few off it.
Maybe next week I’ll muster the energy to go into the lessons learned. For now, I hope you all enjoy a good ride on the weekend.

Trait 7 of champions

August 3, 2011

Self-direction: This does not mean the champion is self-coached or self-centered, but rather that the champion knows where he or she is going and will use the best available means at their disposal to achieve that end.


Body position vs bar height – part 2

August 2, 2011

Yesterday we looked at how the body will find its ideal angles almost “despite” your efforts to put it in a different position. Therefore moving the handlebars lower will result in a more vertical arm position (as the shoulders remain in the same place). More vertical arms have two disadvantages:

  1. Aerodynamics. More vertical arms means more frontal area and a worse shape for the arm cross sections (same width, less depth in the direction of the airflow).
  2. Handling. With the arms more vertical and the elbow more stretched, handling is less precise. The more your elbows are in an angle, the more you push and pull on the bars which is good. Stretching your elbows means you’re “flailing” your arms more which gives less precision, rather than pushing on one side and pulling on the other. In descents, etc, this doesn’t really come into play as people will lower their back for the corners and pedaling action is not at peak performance then anyway, so this issue plays mostly when riding on the rivet in groups, especially in high effort, high stress situations like the classics on narrow roads. See also the advice from Henk Lubberding.

Of course, riders intuitively know all of this, or at least their bodies do. Which is why in the past 30 years as the trend progressed to move handlebars down, the amount of time spent in the drops has decreased and most time is now spent on the hoods. Which in turn explains why the riders of today sit just as low as those 30 years ago, despite having dropped their bars by 4″/10cm.


Trait 6 of champions

August 1, 2011

Patience: Part of being a champion is the realization that patience is an integral part of success. Patience is not just a trait, it is a tool that a champion uses to a definite advantage.


Body position vs bar height – part 1

July 29, 2011

The information below we also share with our pro riders, to combat the misconception that lower handlebars are “better”. The basics:

  1. The riders’ bodies have “built in” angles at which they can perform the best. So when a rider is at maximum effort, the body will put the body in the position most suited for that effort. In particular this pertains to the hip angle as it is the angle between legs and torso that determines mostly how the power is generated. Note: I am not talking here about increasing power by changing body angles, the power a rider can deliver is pretty much determined by his ability to transport oxygen and flush out lactic acid, but to generate that power (whatever level that is), the body will want to put itself into its optimal position, i.e. its optimal hip angle in order to best use the muscles best suited for the effort.
  2. This means that with the bottom bracket and saddle fixed, when the body assumes its optimal hip angle, the back position is also determined. There simply is a position for the back at which the body is best capable of giving maximum performance, because it is the back position at which its angle with the legs are such that the optimal hip angle is achieved.
  3. Hence, changing the handlebar height does not really change the back position, at least not during serious exertion. Therefore, with the back position more or less fixed, a change in handlebar position means a change in arm stretch/reach/angles. With the back more or less fixed, meaning the shoulders more or less fixed, the arms will assume whatever position it takes to connect the shoulders to the hands holding the handlebars (basically the elbows take up the slack).

The idea that you will sit lower if you just lower your bars is not true in most cases, other than the extreme (basically if you can only reach your bars with stretched arms, which is a bad idea based on the Lubberding point, then lowering those barrs would pull down your entire body into an unnatural position. But if that is a position you can sustain, then you can also keep your back in that position when you raise your bars from there and bend your elbows.

Next we’ll look at what this means for performance. Any comments or questions, please leave them in the comments section below or let me know via twitter @gerardvroomen.