Lucky Luke.

I don't doubt it considering Jules was 2nd in VA and won your bunch sprint on a freaking singlespeed

I heard Cav rode into the back of someone and bumped his arm. The tweet ended with ' .. in case anyone cares' and in my case I have to say I really didn't.

Agreed, the local shops should accept CRC and use their status as part of the local bike scene / community or whatever you want to call it, to distinguish themselves. They might as well put a few computers in the store and let the customers order CRC stuff on their shop account. Charge a handling fee and fit the parts where appropriate. Sell them a nice cup of coffee while they're doing it. Offer advice on what to buy. Order placed? Collect at the shop and save on delivery. The customer must now visit you again - more feet through the front door. Use specialised product lines, put on local events, sponsor them, sell training and maintenance clinics - anything that focuses upon building a relationship with local riders - use this stuff to distinguish yourself from the CRC experience. It really is a no-brainer. After all, for me at least, the point of going to an LBS, in most cases, is to talk to a friendly face you can trust, who can keep you up to date on what's happening in the local cycling scene, who might already know your bike etc etc. If this type of thinking is too far out of the LBS comfort zone - unfortunately the commercial landscape has already changed - it's adapt or die. No amount of cry-baby letters is going to change the basic economics of the situation. Don't hate the playa hate the game as they say.

Pat McQuaid will soon attempt re-election for a 3rd term of office as UCI president. To do this he will solicit nomination from Cycling Ireland - http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/mcquaid-wants-third-term-at-uci-seeks-election-nomination-from-cycling-ireland/ There is a poll running here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056787543 where the public can vote yay or nay as to whether Pat should continue as UCI president. The VP of Cycling Ireland is a member of the forum and is active on the thread - his handle is Morana http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/member.php?u=29449 If you're at all interested in effecting change in cycling, and agree that getting rid of McQuaid is an excellent first step to this end, sign up for the forum and cast your vote. This is one small way us cyclists scratching around in the dirt at the bottom of Africa can try to do something good for our sport at an international level. Takes 5 minutes and I reckon it's worth a try.

Seems to me the author is nailing his colours to the mast with his 'open letter' for the benefit of the local stores, who are no doubt his main source of ad revenue. At CRC hq it was probably despatched to the spam folder in a matter of nanoseconds.

The author's big point seems to be that he will not give CRC an ad platform in his mag, lest his readers see said ads and discover they can buy some stuff at a good price? Is this guy a complete tool or am I missing something? If the local scene is so tight, then presumably any the local bmx store owners with half a brain would figure out a way, as part of this community, to add value in a way that CRC could never do. Having CRC is a positive for any cycling community because through cheap prices, they lower the barrier to entry into the sport. When I was a kid riding bmx aged 9 to 13, my main point of anguish was that I couldn't afford to buy the kit or upgrade my bike.

Maybe the farmworker savages will field a team and show the fat arse white okes on their cinderellos how it's done.

I support the farmworkers, they have more staying power than this year's DC. No tea breaks until they get what they came for!

I wonder if they are using LA's patented high cadence to back pedal over the mountain of poo?

Livestrong are running scared now - chairmanship, board membership and now the name as well http://thestar.com.m...RONG&sec=sports

A cycling grand tour is the ultimate endurance use-case for EPO and / or blood doping of one type or another. Cycling could be setting an example for the rest of the sporting world by imposing zero tolerance. The simple truth is most people - the people who really finance the sport and keep the sponsors in money are the fans - don't give enough of a **** or understand the underside of the sport well enough to demand it, and the industry people that are involved enough to push it through are making too much cash from the status quo.

doable on a road bike?

Maybe you need to calorie-count for a bit so that you get an idea of how many you need to take in vs. how many you burn. 4300 calories a day is a crapload of food.

Good point Eddy, I thought of mentioning him but most don't know much about him. There are many excellent questions around Weisel's involvement. His history with EPO goes back to day dot. Weisel's Montgomery Securities financed Amgen's early EPO research, the successful sales of which led to their later IPO. http://www.cyclismas.com/2011/11/the-trifecta-that-shaped-u-s-cycling-in-the-armstrong-era/

This is where I was going

1. What time do you train and do you eat first. 2. What type of training are you doing? Cycling / gym / low / high intensity? 3. Do you drink alcohol, if so how much? 4. What is your sugar / starch / high GI carb intake like?

work o' clock

Yep, unless Bruyneel is holding out for a pay-off. Hard to imagine him going into court and spilling his guts... we can only hope

I reckon there were very very few riders who did not dope at all on principle, or perhaps because of lack of funds or fears around their health. The culture of the sport has been such that it legitimised, required and even respected doping. When Graeme Obree joined a road team after breaking the hour record, one of the riders asked him what he did it on, and then called him an amateur for not doping. Obree left the team after less than an hour. The Lausanne lab claims to have very accurate data on how many riders rode grand tours with some form of blood vector doping - bags, epo, haemoglobin or whatever. Read about that here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1076503#post1076503 The numbers vary in accordance with the risk/reward ratios. This is why I would argue it is not impossible to almost stamp out doping in cycling. All you have to do is dial up that risk/reward ratio. Not sure, but also not convinced, given his privileged position and resources, that he stuck to the 50 limit. If so his starting point is less of an issue. My opinion: Armstrong and JB. If I had to guess, the UCI, Pat, Hein, Martial Saugy played their part, but didn't drive it. The UCI, under Pat and Hein, have acted in an opportunistic role. Ignore the doping until it suits you, which gives you the power to control the riders and the teams. JB and Armstrong knew this, and upped the stakes by buying themselves a stake in this abuse of power. For sure, the Armstrong story is just one particularly extreme case that illustrates how messed up things can get. To me his personality was more of a factor in all this than his athletic talents, impressive enough as they no doubt are. In a way Armstrong's silence ensures the longevity of his story. There's an element of mystery around the guy for as long as he clams up about what really went on. No doubt he realises this on some level.

Bruyneel's case is still up for arbitration as far as I know.

Sure, it was mentioned a few times some pages back, I didn't mean to point the finger at you.

Absolutely, your natural starting point affects how much of a gain you get by boosting to 50. Then, lets consider maintaining that level during a grand tour. Boosting with EPO became microdosing after 2000, and at that point blood doping was the main strategy for boosting the red blood cell count. This dramatically increases the personal health risk for a rider who does not have the budget to pay for a highly competent medical team. At this point there are new logistics - lots of them. How much fresh blood can you bank? Does it stay fresh until you need it? Will your team manager give you early warnings about tests? Is there a doctor on hand with saline solution to lower your hct? How willing are you to risk being caught? Can you call in favours should you test positive?.. all this stuff starts to define your program. There is nothing impressive to learn here in regard to 'strategy' and 'scientific innovation'.

Call me what you like but when you have immunity from positive tests this seems to me like it would affect the profile of this 'playing field' others keep bringing up. For me when there's organised big budget doping there is no playing field. Seems obvious really but there you go. As for mentions of 'strategy' earlier, I have to call BS on this too. Postal went from grade A losers at the Tour to the strongest team in one year. The strategy only changed when they had the firepower to back it up. Easy to say 'guys, lets smash it at the front all day and the climbers can sprint up Alpe d'Huez' when you have the legs to do it.

Lance beat the okes fair and square by outbidding them in the UCI donations stakes as well. He also out-squealed them when it came to calling in some positive tests for the competition. Obviously the rest of the contenders just didn't have what it took to be a true champion.

Here's a fun game inspired by LA threads everywhere