In the rules of evidence - what a judge applies to determine what statements or material are "admissible" to be considered in deciding a case - hearsay statements are generally prohibited. The idea is that if you heard it from a friend, who, heard it from a friend, who, heard it from another - then in addition to being an REO Speedwagon fan and per se unreliable, you don't have first-hand knowledge of what happened and you aren't a witness. You're just some distant bystander who heard some rumors.
There is a special category of hearsay, however, called "statements against interest" that may be admitted as evidence. In a trial where Joe is on trial for murder, a witness Judy can testify that Bob "told me that Joe and I murdered Kate to cover up our robbery." That may be admitted as evidence against Joe because Bob's statement to Judy puts Bob in legal jeopardy. It is thought that very few people would put themselves in legal jeopardy were the statement untrue. Thus Bob's statement against his own interests is deemed likely to be reliable, and admissible.
I follow the same rule in life. If somebody is telling me something that advances their interests, I am skeptical of it and believe it only where there are other indicia of its truthfulness. If a person says something that cuts against their interest but in favor of mine - like when my mechanic says "I found the problem, it's a $3 gasket that will take me two minutes to change" (rather than a $500 part that will take a half day) then I tend to believe the statement is truthful.
The same is doubly true in politics. You should ask yourself if a partisan's version of a political argument cuts for, or against their interests. Sure, I have deeply held beliefs about various issues, but I don't believe *any* politicians deeply. Nothing they say ever cuts against their own positions. Do you think this is because they tell the truth all the time, and it just happens to line up with their interests? Or because maybe they aren't being quite truthful. This principle seems applicable to the political media, leaders of major businesses, and academia. (Although BP has a gift for saying things that cut against its own interest, and which also seem dishonest, so take them as the exception that proves the rule).
I bring this up because of three recent instances where the pictures or stories defy conventional wisdom in a "question authority" kind of way. Full disclosure: this also confirms my bias, BTW, against people who try to sell me on their vision of things.
We were told this guy is the epitome of cool:
Look, I'm glad he's riding a bike, that's awesome, but that photo makes the kludgiest Career Commuter sit slack-jawed in horror. That is not "cool." I am willing to cut the guy a break; POTUS is the shittiest job in the world, and you can't make your own base happy much less your political opponents, and he's working as best he can consistent with his views on how things oughtta go. Sometimes, he even takes a glamorous looking picture, and maybe he's cool by Senate standards, but that's the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations there. But he isn't cool. It's not that guys who play a lot of hoops and run a big enterprise can't look cool on a bike; check out Bron-Bron:
He looks good for a 6'7" galoot on a bike that's missing half a fork. Okay, so the "cool" myth about the current POTUS doesn't fly with me. Nor does the "not cool" myth with another guy who, admittedly, isn't that cool. But he's cooler than Obama, at least on a bike:
Yeah, that's John Kerry. For all his flaws, he doesn't pain the eyes quite in the way as POTUS does on the bike, and he looks like he's comfortable on that sweet ride, that looks to be a Serotta. I've seen him in lycra too, and he's no Fred. Oh yeah, and there's one other guy who was generally thought to be pretty un-cool, but who was pretty cool on the bike, and pretty cool to mountain bikers in particular.
That's Bush 43, riding the Olympic MTB course in Beijing. The Secret Service guys who rode MTB with him reported that he is an absolute hammer for a guy his age. Not exactly Deadly Nedly Overend, but still a fast rider who went hard and could handle intermediate trails pretty well.
The storylines - current POTUS = cool, last POTUS = doofus, Kerry = dork - got handed to you because they fit somebody else's agenda. If you're going to dabble in policy or politics (or economics or anything else in the public sphere) you need to question people's pre-conceived notions, particularly your own. The truth is often in a battle with our beliefs.
My point here is that Abby Hoffman was right. You shouldn't believe the received wisdom. You should question authority, question the science. If somebody in authority tells you something and it happens to support their existing positions, if it doesn't cut against their interest but it cuts against yours, ask questions. You might find that what they are saying on a particular issue isn't exactly true, even though it dovetails perfectly with what your notions of the truth are on a given issue. And don't believe what I'm telling you either.
[Updated slightly for grammar and to clarify a couple points]
The right turn only lane is, evidently, the lane one takes to get ahead of the people in the "straight only" lane. Were a motorist to run me down pulling off this sketchy move, she'd go to jail for breaking the law, and maybe to hell for killing somebody. Unless she's a congregant at the Trinity United Church speeding in order to cut me off with a right hook, so she can go talk to Jesus sooner, in which case it's apparently no big deal, the outraged cyclist's stream of profanities and fist-shaking notwithstanding. I've had a few days when I needed to speak with Jesus about something I did. Oddly enough, I didn't nearly kill anybody on my way to go pray. Evidently, this makes me an unusual sort of person.
Recovering from an injury is a confidence game. You need confidence to stay in the game. Training with power can do that sometimes. Usually the meter is harsh and truthful. Sometimes, despite your worries, it is kind and truthful, and tells you that your 1 minute intervals were the most powerful ones you've ever ridden, 102% of your prior best output for a minute. Okay, so maybe 1 minute critical power isn't my problem, maybe we need to look at the 5:00 and 10:00 and 20.
It was, no shit, really hot today, and maybe the second or third most uncomfortable day of the year to ride up the treeless first leg of the Metropolitan Branch Trail. In that weather - heat index > 100 degrees, one rides along with no intention of trying to catch the rider 20 yards ahead. Forget not wanting to do the Pathlete Criterium; I didn't even want to have to talk to the dude.
Nothing is finer than sun-boiled Accellerade. It's like sun-brewed ice tea, except without out the good taste, thirst-quenching qualities, or crave-ability.
Tonight I had sweat rolling off my forehead, down to the tip of my nose, and from there onto the top tube. This kept me chuckling for over an hour in high amusement. It is possible that my elevator sometimes does not go all the way up to the top floor.
The appropriate cycling pace for severely hot weather is Southern Old People Walking Pace. Ever seen that? It's slower than swamp water. If your riding on a wicked hot day is metaphorically faster than a 67 year-old Southern judge after a meat & three, capped with three martinis, then you need to slow down. Never mind the possibility of messing up your lungs and heat injury; it takes too much out of you mentally to piss away a hard effort on a ride that will give you negligible physical training benefit.
I don't know what cross season will hold, nor do you. One of the best things about racing is that right up until the butterflies in your stomach become unbearable, having butterflies for weeks before a race is a cool kind of anticipation that keeps you on your toes and stuck into your training schedule.
Peanut butter rocks. I like the organic stuff really well but Peter Pan Crunchy has a delightful almost fast food texture to it, so it's hereby deemed The Best. I will brook no dissent on this point.
The Vuelta should be called the Tour de Meh. The name would be more accurate. The windy flat stages are even more boring than comparable stages in the TdF since many of the sprinters are staying home and getting tuned up for Worlds, while the hill stages are rigged to favor tiny Basque climbers, who are basically racing for a stage win so that somebody else will pay for their drinks for the rest of their lives. Come to think of it, Tour de Meh may be an overly exuberant title.
I found out that one of my regular riding buddies hates all the Spanish riders except for Freire and maybe Sammy Sanchez, and he hates the Vuelta. So do I! The only thing better than finding out unexpectedly that a friend loves all the stuff you love, is finding out they hate all the stuff you hate, probably even moreso, to find a person of such striking genius and wit. It makes you feel like a big puffed up parrot looking in a mirror and going, "Who's the pretty bird?"
20 days until Charm City. I'm not racing the first race on Saturday, I'll catch the second one. So I've got 20 days to get ready.
Get ready my ass.
I've just finished my first base training period for the year, 6 weeks of increased intensity and longer rides. The time has come to pile on volume.
Compared to last year at this time - when I was training pretty hard - I'm weaker across the board, down about 10% typically. That doesn't shock me; I haven't done interval work at all, so of course my critical power is way lower.
What feels good is that without 'training training,' I'm in pretty decent shape. My maximum power output for certain durations - 4, 5, and 7 minute critical power - is within 10% of career best numbers. That 7 minute power doesn't sound important but 7 minutes is pretty much the length of one lap in a cross race, and the first 7 minutes is usually critical to having a good race. So that's nice.
What doesn't feel good is the max power I can put out at 1-3, and the 10 minute durations are really, really bad. My 20 minute number, my threshold power, isn't so hot either.
A raised threshold will come with doing intensity work; VO2 and tempo intervals push the threshold higher fast.
But getting 1-3 minute power ramped up is really a lot harder.
So tomorrow the intervals start. Yay.
Hello, Hains Point, my old friend...
The program is going to be two days of intervals, one day of cross practice, for the first 6 weeks of the season, assuming the back holds up along with the patience and willpower. Intervals on Monday (harder, VO2) and Thursday (jumps, or tempo), longer easy ride Tuesday, cross practice Weds. Friday rest. The fatigue curve will tell me when it's a rest day. Saturdays, we race.
A: Hey, who's that asshole who spends *a lot* of time in L2 and L3?
B: Oh, him? That's my friend Jim.
A: He rides like a machine.
B: Um, a machine that has trouble getting out of third gear anyhow...
Yeah, that will be interesting to nobody except for power training geeks, who will be looking at that chart, which shows the percentage of time I've spent riding at various power levels in the last month, and laughing their asses off.
FWIW, when I invite you out for a long ride and say I'm going to go at a steady L2 or L3, I really, really mean it.
It's been a great week. Got a lot of work done - not that I live for work but the sense of satisfaction I get from it gives me a warm little glow. It's a pleasure that's earned, not given. Then there was that ridiculous hill ride on Tuesday. My legs are still shattered from that and Sean punked me on our commute/workout. That said, I didn't go easy today despite the sore legs - .92 intensity this morning going in, and .91 coming out. Two hours at over .9 intensity? I'd say that's a good workout. Coming home, it was ridiculous though. I was sprinting up the short, stiff kickers, going literally all out at 1100 watts in places, and my heartrate wouldn't climb over 150 or so, a high zone 3 hr. Sounds to me like ol' Jimbo is tuckered out, and in need of a rest. So a rest it will be tomorrow, with a short ride, maybe out for coffee in the AM.
Meanwhile... Have some music. Our theme for this week is "Hills." I'll try to stick with it.
I like Peter Gabriel. All those boys who played in Genesis were super talented. You don't have to love each one's musical style, you just have to respect it. They brought the heat.
Then there's Cypress Hill. I think it's a safe bet that these boys smoked *a lot* of dope. Anybody want to disagree with me and put a $20 on it?
That somehow led to this mashup:
Nice, huh? Took a twisted mind to think of that combination. As twisted as the dude that thought of this one:
Oh hell. I've totally lost the narrative thread here. Might as well honor the town where we started that hell ride, Frederick, by playing something from Frederick's Finest Hard Rock Band, Clutch. Nice cameos here by some of the "Jackass" crew.
Have a nice weekend everybody. Ride hard, have fun.
A good chunk of the Family Bikes shop ride crew went to Frederick yesterday to ride some hills, using a cue sheet that Darren Biggs and some of the DCMTB folks had developed. I've ridden hills up in that area, and I tend to prefer the long, smooth ascents, the roads that you might know from the Civil War Century. These boys, however, cobbled together a route that includes some of the nastiest, steepest pitches I've ever ridden. It was literally the hardest ride I've ever done.
The Powertap tells the tale. 4:20 of riding time, 61 miles. Average power: 214. Normalized Power: 289. Intensity Factor: .89. TSS: 324. The TSS tells you all you need to know, really. I tried to ride within myself on the climbs and keep it just below threshold, so there are a number of 20 and 30 minute periods at 310 watts. The average power would have been much higher, of course, had I not coasted on downhills as much as possible to preserve some energy for the climbs. I've ridden longer and slower, and I've ridden much shorter and more intense rides. But I haven't gone that long, at that level of effort ever before. Although I'm nowhere near race fitness I set personal bests yesterday in 90 minute critical power, and my entire power curve past 2 hours was personal best CP. Shoot, I took the bailout and the easy way back to Frederick on Rt. 40a after mile 50, and even that resulted in a 15 minute climb at 97% of threshold. *That* seemed easy though, because it had miles and miles of 7% standard highway graded road, rather than the 15 and 20% grades we'd been riding on. I spent a couple hours, literally, cruising up hills, sweating hard, panting, staring at my front tire with my head down, going 5 MPH. Amazing hard ride.
As a promoter I would *love* to have an equal number of women's and men's classes, with equal prize lists.
As a promoter with ties to a bunch of volunteer cyclists and amateur, non-profit clubs, however, I can't do this in my races and I'm pretty sure it isn't possible in the races that I have ties to. Most grassroots (volunteer and non-profit) race promoters are in the same boat.
The reason is very simple. Amateur cycling doesn't get commercial dollars, so we rely on the contributions of the racers (race entry fees) to pay costs and to subsidize prize lists. We cannibalize our male Cat 4, Cat 3 and masters racers in order to grow the sport in the women's and juniors' classes, and to support the elites. There's a limit to how much meat you can pick of those bones. It's not about what we want to do; it's about how much money is available.
Sure, generous sponsors also support our racing habit - an inexplicable thing for which I am unbelievably grateful. But the sponsors only get you so far, and they tend to prefer to give swag rather than cash, for fairly obvious business reasons. If an amateur race can't sustain itself from entry fees, the only way to pay for the race is to soak club members with fees to help pay for other people to race. As it is, the filled classes subsidize the less filled classes - that little bit of weekly wealth transfer from M racers is bad enough. I can't imagine also telling members of a velo club that not only must they volunteer to work a race, but oh-by-the-way your membership dues are going up $50 this year because the sponsors went away but we still need to subsidize more prize lists in classes that aren't economically viable. That isn't a sustainable approach.
Let's look at some representative numbers for a road race to see how this works. This isn't particularly tied to any race, not my club's or anybody else's; but I know how much a lot of the basic services cost in Montgomery County and the surrounding areas, so it could apply to anybody's race in that area; and your local costs may be lower but the basic principles still apply.
Fixed Cost Problem At a road race, there are fixed costs. Facility rental will be maybe $1000 for parking, water, electricity, and so on. Porta potties may be another $500. You may need 4 cops to police intersections, and another 6 or so to operate the rolling enclosure for the pack. You need a couple motor refs per race, plus three or four to manage scoring and control the refs on the road. By the time you are done, each race will have a fixed cost of around $900 - $1100, depending on how lavishly you want cops & refs to support the breakaways. It doesn't matter if 3 racers are going, or 125. It will cost that much to have the field, before you start working out a prize list and cash payouts. There are other ways to try to allocate the costs (e.g. per capita) but that doesn't make a lot of sense when you consider that cops + refs for a field will be ~$600 alone, and that opportunity cost is attached to the choice of which fields to offer.
Limited Fields Problem In crits, particularly non-series lower level crits, you have some flexibility to add fields. You can sort of shaft the Cat 5's with a 30 minute race, cut the 35+ to 40 minutes plus one lap, start a little early and end a little late. Road races typically don't have that flexibility. On a typical 8-11 mile roadrace "lap" that we see around D.C., you can safely fit three fields on it at the same time, and I use the term "safely" guardedly. You start the classes at 9:00, 9:01 and 9:02, with the faster classes going earlier.
The problem you run into is that if the 9:00 runs as a bunch, they will hammer it at 27 MPH for nearly three hours. Toward the end, they will definitely run into the 9:02 race, particularly if a break in the 9:02 has been away for a long time and several teams are represented. The pack will slow because the real race is up the road, and the 9:00 race will essentially slam into the back of the cruising 9:02 race, having lapped it. With more fields the risk of mixing up fields and causing danger and confusion is high, and it's not nice to make the refs try to orchestrate tricky field neutralization, then pass the faster field through the slower one (and what about the break up the road while the fields are neutralized?) With roadraces running 2-3 hours, you get 3 fields in the morning around here, and 3 in the afternoon, and that's it. No more. You *can* do multiple prize lists in a given field (allowing you to sort of lump together odd fields here and there, like 55+, juniors, etc) but there is no room at all to shove in additional fields, so you need to figure out how to allocate field space, which is the scarcest of our resources.
The Subsidy We have prize lists in the elite races because we have to have them - it's the law, per the sanctioning bodies anyhow, and because a lot of elite racers won't come out unless the payout is at least decent. The elite fields should be big enough to support their own race a little bit, but you need a bigger-than-minimum payout to draw anything near a break-even field. What is break-even? Assuming $1100 fixed costs, break even in the elites (with a $500 payout) and big trophies is 55-60 riders. It's tough to pull that unless the weather is good and there's no decent roadraces going down in the region. The break-even point for a field without cash payouts is about 35 riders, assuming $1100 fixed costs.
This creates a bit of a problem for promoters. The Cat 5 race eats up a field spot, and with a limit of 50 riders it is barely self-supporting. The M Elite and W Elite are rarely self-supporting; at best one hopes to break even. The W 3 and W 4 tend to be pretty small and late registering typically; if a roadrace manages 35 W3 and W4 starters, it's doing pretty well. Keep in mind each of those fields has a separate prizelist, if not a separate start.
So at the start of the day, the promoter knows the Cat 5 and M 1/2/3 are going to be around break-even, possibly money losers depending on prizes and payouts awarded, and the W 1/2/3 will probably lose quite a bit of money. The W 3/4 will quite possibly be a money loser, bank on that if there are separate prize lists and if they start separately with two rolling enclosures, 4 refs and so forth. Nevermind the juniors, who will get their own class and their own rolling enclosure, usually with a dozen or so racers - we just cram them in there somewhere that we believe will be a safe spot for them to race in.
To put it very simply, the promoter has to look to the remaining 2-3 field slots to subsidize everybody else's racing. Most of the time, those classes are some combination of M3 and M4, and the M 35+.
The Quandary Does the promoter want to avoid jeopardizing the non-profit club's bank balance? If so, then the promoter will consider an M3, an M4, and an M 1/2/3/4 35+, or perhaps an M 3/4, and an M 35+ 4/5 and 35+ 1/2/3/4, or some similar combination. Those fields will fill up with riders, and their entry fees will subsidize the classes that lose money. The classes in these three fields make it possible for the promoter to hold the other classes. It's very simple math:
75 racers x $ 30 entry fee = $ 2250
The $750 or more in 'profit' realized in those sold out men's classes underwrite the other classes and cover losses that no non-profit velo club could afford to sustain over a period of years.
So how many women's fields ought we to have?
Different Solutions to the Women's Racing Problem A lot of promoters have one women's field. It's 1/2/3/4, with separate prize lists for the 3 and 4. This is the easiest solution from a promoter's standpoint because it allows the promoters to have 3 or even 4 races that are "profit" centers, an M 1/2/3 race that maybe loses some money, and a women's *field* that breaks even at least on fixed costs. With the normal fee structure in this reagion, there's no profit to speak of in running a road race, or at best there is a very modest profit. (Why do you think that guy in Pennsylvania who runs races for profit charges $47?)
This solution, however, sucks for W 3/4 racers. Many women I have spoken to who race tell me that there is a jump between 4 and 3, and another jump between 3 and 2, and races that don't recognize this suck with riders stuck in no-man's land for up to 2.5 hours. Yuck.
My preference, if it is affordable, is to break the W 3/4 into a separate field and run it apart from the W 1/2/3, even if both fields are a money loser, providing sufficient revenue can be generated from the Men's fields to underwrite the extra class. The Cat 3/4 men and the Masters pick up the tab for my choice. Consequently, payouts in those two races (and across the board) are lower than I would like, because I don't have that nice profit center of a third race to generate extra cash flow. Yet the arrangement provides a comfortable place for entry-level women to race and that should be conducive to growing women's racing, so that's why I prefer it. It's a tough call though and causes some lost sleep for promoters and velo club management, especially in the days just before a race when the pre-registered riders list is small. You see 11 women registered for the 1/2/3, or 18 registered in the 3/4 a couple days before the race and the first impulse is to wonder why you are even bothering to offer those fields, particularly in light of the 35 men on the Cat 4 and Cat 5 waiting lists...
What's a promoter to do? Usually, suck it up. It's tough though. In our current economic atmosphere, barring great sponsorship, a promoter who splits the W 1/2/3 and W 3/4 into two separate classes likely has to either cut payouts, or raise the entry fee for everybody to $35 or $40; or some combination of cutting and raising. It's tough to swap a money-making 75 rider field for an 18 or 26 or 35 rider field.
Now please don't blow your top about this; I'm a guy who works really hard to have equal payouts for M and W 1/2/3 racers in the competitions I'm involved in; I prefer to have at least separate prize lists for three of the four women's categories. But the racer numbers are just not there to support this, so I rob from Peter to pay Pauline, and I'm being honest with you about the process. I don't like doing that but it's the cost of doing business if a promoter is trying to grow the women's fields. (Nothing would make me happier than a W 3/4 with 75 racers registered for it; it would be a lot less headaches for grassroots promoters and clubs).
Sample Spreadsheets I use a very simple spreadsheet to mull over the question of cash payouts and fields when thinking about future races and look at comparable races, and how many racers attend in which fields. Since I'm trying to explain a complicated subject, race finances, I thought it might be informative to cut and paste numbers corresponding with the hypothetical race we're discussing, so that you see the point I'm making.
In the top table, we have a W 1/2/3 race and separate field with a W 3/4 race. The promoter gets wiped out, losing $430 on the race by splitting the fields thusly.
In contrast, the lower table shows a slate where the W 1/2/3 and W 3/4 are started at the same time, but with separate rolling enclosures cramming the fields together and maybe causing some unhappiness. This allows the inclusion elsewhere in the schedule of a M 35+ 4/5, a race that is a big profit center. Rather than losing $430, the promoter makes $1220, which can then be split up between the fields that receive cash payouts, and maybe some can be diverted into capital improvements with the non-profit club sponsoring the event, such as better road safety signs for marking the course. The difference is pretty stark.
Time Slots
Class
# of Racers
Entry Fees
Fixed Cost
Payout
Trophies / Medals
Net Profit/Loss
9:00
M 35+ 1/2/3/4
71
2250
1100
250
150
750
9:01
M 4
75
2250
1100
250
150
750
9:02
M 5
50
1500
1100
0
110
290
0
1:00
M 1/2/3
52
1560
1100
500
150
-190
1:01
W 1/2/3
23
690
1100
500
150
-1060
1:02
W 3/4 (separate prize lists)
26
780
1100
350
300
-970
-430
9:00
M 35+ 1/2/3/4
71
2250
1100
250
150
750
9:01
M 4
75
2250
1100
250
150
750
9:02
M 5
50
1500
1100
0
110
290
0
1:00
M 1/2/3
52
1560
1100
500
150
-190
1:01
W 1/2/3; W 3/4 (separate prize lists)**
49
1470
1450
850
300
-1130
1:02
M 35+ 4/5
75
2250
1100
250
150
750
1220
*M5 limited to 50 riders, no cash payout
**Added 1 cop, 1 ref to combined W race for extra rolling enclosure for 3/4
The Solution There's no permanent fix for financial pressures, not in racing and not in real life. But the solution to the request to provide more fields and money for women racers, at least at the amateur and regional level, is to get more women racing, to fill up existing classes, which would justify adding more classes. As it is, it kind of stinks that the men are basically picking up the tab for women's racing. The money that a class of amateur racers plows into racing should come back to them. It's not just about the prize lists and swag; it's about improving the quality of races, and maybe dropping fees where the non-profit grassroots races are involved. But we do it because most of us existing racers and promoters and club managers like to see more women in racing - that's true of the women and the men I know. If we can build up large women's classes, and the careful calculation about exactly how much women's racing a promoter can afford to sponsor will go away. So will the promoter guilt over using a couple full, very hard working men's classes to underwrite *everybody* else, including the M 1/2/3.
How do we do this? I suppose you could start by getting your club to encourage women to join. It's hard to build up a critical mass of racing women, but once it's there, it's a lot easier for them to network, recruit, and build up a solid racing cadre.
The second thing is to try to ensure development of the amateur women's classes is sustainable. I don't think they have to be profitable; I do believe, however, that they have to be break even, or at least be moving toward that. It's great to have equal payouts and lots of women's classes, but you can only do that once or twice if the cost is crippling to a race or the club that holds it. Building up the women's fields means calling women you may know and encouraging them to start racing, or calling your female racer friends and dragging them out to the races when you don't see their name on the confirmed riders list. Full fields mean joy for everybody, and full fields (or at least fuller fields) means women will get expanded opportunities and growing rewards for racing.
I spent most of the evening cobbling together a powerpoint explaining how to build a cross bike pit (and a wash pit) out of baling wire, stakes and PVC for under $200. Face it: a race is a lot classier when they don't ask you to drop your carbon fiber Crossvagen in the dirt and weeds with a lot of other nice shit that shouldn't be piled up like that. Anyhow, I have a pretty cheap scheme that lets you look PRO, even if you're actually AMATEUR. If you aren't on the MABRA cross promoters list and want a copy of the powerpoint to check it out, hit me up on email and james underscore M1 at verizon daht net.
I also have been working out the details of having a SINGLE SPEED CROSS CONFABULATION at the Tacchino. It was approved today by the Powers That Be. Sweeet!
Here's the deal. There's a lot of room in the M 3/4 race most of the time - ours is usually less than a half full field. And most guys who race single speed, or who would race cross single speed, will either be Cat 3 or Cat 4 racers, or if they are just trying cross out will need a one day license that effectively treats them as a Cat 4 for-a-day.
We aren't treating it as a whole new class - it's a legit 3/4 race and if you are in it, you are racing for the 3/4 prize list and MABRAcross series points.
Buuuuttt... and it's a big butt... single speeders will also be racing for a generous single speed prize list, a double dip of sweet swag.
It's like a race within the race, mano-a-mano, two cogs enter, one cog leaves. Any single speeder will tell this is always the deal, whether you're on the MTB, in a cross race, or doing some Drunken Hipster Street Drags at 1:00 AM, post-beers. Let the boys with complicated toys have their fun, you want to be the ace of those who think One is Enough.
So if you ever wanted to try racing cross single speed, flip around that flip-flop hub on your Cross Check or Chili Con Crosso. Put your skinniest, fastest tires on your Niner (yes, disc brakes are now legal in cross!) Then get ready to roll on November 7th.
Thing is, it's an uphill battle to win acceptance for single speeds in cross. They've been around MTB long enough for folks to know that a mono cog can be a serious weapon when handled properly. Many of us who ride a single know that prejudices remain, and we've knocked on the door long enough. It's time to kick that door in and show what we got, and I don't mean wear a dress and get hammered, SSCXWC style. Let's bring a crowd, go hard, and earn some respect.
I've heard a lot of rumbling about people wanting to do single speed cross over the years, and a lot of people sit around hoping for an SS class, an in-season race, not a side show, to strut their stuff. I'm one of those people who has been hoping for it, and all the wishing in the world hasn't made it happen yet.
So this time I've bent over backwards, or at least a little sideways, to make it happen, and the MABRAcross series promoters have very graciously agreed to let me alter the normal race day schedule and prize lists to accommodate single speeders. It's a good chance for us to advance the Gospel of One's Enough.
Hi kids. Sorry about my lack of entertainments for you this week. I've been a busy beaver getting the groundwork laid for Il Tacchino Ciclocross. Now don't get all excited and go register, because you can't. The details on that page are liable to change for a few more weeks, and it isn't open for registration. But I'm letting you know it's there, and that barring natural disaster, we'll open for business on Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 8:00 PM ET. It's going to be a cracker this year. I think we're going to get amazing support from our beer sponsor for master's races. We're going to deal with the pedestrian traffic issue. Yeah, we'll have the Suitcase of Sausage again, and we'll use its contents to compensate some lucky midpack grinders for emptying their Suitcases of Suffering. And the excellent Gallons-to-Ounces will be there to put some funk in your trunk once again.
I'm also working on some new treats. I think we'll probably have a Huffy Toss for valuable prizes. Looks like we may have a moon bounce lined up for the kids. And about four or five other perks that will blow your mind.
One thing bugs me though: when are we in this area going to get around to doing something nice for single speeders? There's a whole crew of riders out there dedicated to the proposition that One Gear Is Enough. I'm talking about the Single Speed Outlaw's Crew, W.U.S.S., and a bunch of less organized boys and girls who bring the heat but leave the derailers at home. They rock at grassroots MTB races; but is there room for them in USAC sanctioned cross? I think there should be, and I believe I'm not alone.
Is that a hint? I dunno. You want to know the answer to that, you better buy me some booze and try to wheedle it out of me. More details to follow soon.
Meanwhile, the musical pickings are going to be scarce. My theme for today is hockey.
Gotta start with the greatest Hockey Team Theme of all time, Brass Bonanza. It's what the Hartford Whalers rolled with for a long time and it has the most pleasantly dated 70's vibe this side of Starsky & Hutch reruns.
That is so good, it's a GOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAALLLLLL! Now I'm not a big Bruins fan, but they have a classy horn, and when there's a goal, you gotta get the horn.
They also have a classy theme song.
God that's awesome. Almost enough to make me root for Boston, if I didn't despise most of their fanbase as only a born & bred Yanks, Jints, Rangers Knicks fan can. I'm not all about the Celtic Punk approach to hockey songs though. This one's a good one, and it's old school down to the bone, starting with a reference to Hockey Night In Canada, which pretty much sucks the air out of the Hockey Broadcast Universe. There really isn't another show that can match it on game night, right down to the preposterously Canadian Don Cherry, who I love even when he makes me cringe. It's from Dr. Stompin Tom Connors.
Shit, hockey's such a cool sport even the groundskeeping equipment is a object of desire. as the Gear Daddies will tell you.
You know hockey's awesome when Warren Zevon recorded a great song about it, an ode to a goon who finally... well, listen to it. It's enough to bring a tear to Claude Lemiuex's eyes.
Yeah, that's awesome.
But everybody, everybody who is a hockey fan, knows that there's really only one song that is The Greatest Hockey Song of All Time.
Other than right there, you know there's only one time you get to hear it.
Ps. If you just stood up in your cubicle and started dancing and clapping just now, I won't tell anybody. Yeah, football season is starting and I'm happy about that, but hockey is coming back in a couple months, right about the time that 'cross season turns bitter cold. I can't wait.
