In the (Feed)Zone
w/Mark Swartzendruber

FALLOUT

My two previous forays into the (Feed)Zone precipitated quite a bit of fallout. I'm flattered quite frankly that you people read my drivel.

In the past week, I have been approached independently by two separate individuals on a certain cycling team sponsored by an International Airline offering unsolicited defenses of them selves and their team against accusations of cheating at indoor time computrainer time trials. I find this fascinating.

I wrote a column on the concept that some cyclists take themselves so seriously that they are willing to knowingly circumnavigate competitive rules - even at quite insignificant events - in order to gain an advantage. The point being that such a posture of seeking self value through sport to the point of skirting the rules of engagement simply leads ultimately to further self loathing. For some reason a certain team took it personally and is in an uproar. They're downright angry. I have heard that one team rider has gone so far as to state that he "is looking for me". Go figure.

I once had a baseball manager who used to say that the guilty will often protest the loudest when accused. I have found this to be in the most part true. When my children were growing up, I found it quite easy to ferret out which child for example used their mother's lipstick to create art on the walls of the staircase. It went something like this.

"Say, ex wife, did you notice the lipstick drawings all over the staircase walls? Have you been drawing on the walls with your lipstick again?"

"No I have not. I suppose it was one of the children."

"So, one of you kids drew with lipstick on the wall. Which one of you did that?"

"IT WASN'T ME!!" The guilty child would immediately pipe up.

However, the denials of cheating from the men on the team sponsored by the International Airline have me a bit puzzled. The axiom that my old baseball manager provided, doesn't really fit here since there was no direct accusation of impropriety toward them in particular or toward their team in general. In other words, I never said "Such and Such, a rider on the So and So team deliberately cheated at the event last week." I simply relayed a story of a friend of mine suggesting that there was a LOT of cheating at the indoor time trial by certain guys attempting to skirt the weigh in requirement. I did not make an accusation. I did not say the alleged chicanery was successfully pulled off. I relayed a story and then parlayed that story into the bigger issue of why competitive cyclists are so willing to cheat, in general.

One thing that I forgot to include in the Hillsboro report was this. As the Cat three (3) field re passed Paul Swinard and me, a number of Cat three (3) riders were being spewed out of the back of the pack. A number of those guys latched on to the wheel of either Swinard or me as we were working together past them after they were shelled. Reminded that mixing of fields and working with riders from another group was against the rules, per the pre race instruction, most of the riders dropped off with a comment like "Oh, I thought you guys were threes (3's)" or some such. However, one rider from the Mesa Cycling team (I mention this to shame him) resolutely refused to back off of our pace making as we were catching up to the back of the Cat Three (3) race. This slug sat stone faced and in fact a wicked smirk curled across dried spittle crusted lips during our admonitions that he was in fact cheating by using us as his personal wind break. At that time I told Swinard that I've never been involved in a sport in which the participants will so willingly cheat without conscience. Swinard agreed. We had to attack to get rid of the weasel that was using us to get back into the race from which he'd been shelled.

So hey - International Airline guys. I never said you cheated. I reported that a friend of mine, one of your peers, said certain guys were attempting to skirt a weigh in a non consequential event. Don't bring your denials to me. I can't do anything about it, nor do I care.

Jeezuz. Next thing you know, some guy is going to come up to me out of the blue and deny that he's ever convinced his doctor to prescribe him Viagra or Human Growth Hormone under false pretense of impotence because he thought it might improve his cycling performance in 50+ races.

I often rag on HeadsMACK for any number of things, but to his credit, he never makes it a point to confront me about what I write. He either doesn't read my stuff (inconceivable) or he simply knows that most of what I write is either exaggeration or complete crap and he doesn't get defensive. I honor that.

While on the topic of cheating, I personally tend to go in the opposite direction of most cyclists. I want to avoid the appearance cheating so profoundly that I'll actually take PERFORMANCE DIMINISHING measures to evade accusations of being a cheat. I show up at races hung over, my body still trying to process half a bottle of gin or over weight for example.

At the Hillsboro race, the early break and subsequent hard effort was NOT an attempt to win the race. Oh no kids, quite the contrary. This tactic was an attempt to induce cramping and fatigue in order NOT to win the race only to be accused of cheating. It worked.

The same weekend of the Hillsboro race, I did some time trials. The first ten (10) mile time trial was in the Pro, 1,2 division. I was roughly 15 seconds behind Reid Mumford of the Kelly Benefits pro team for the series of 3 cumulative times, two indoor on a computrainer and one outdoor on real pavement and a bike that moves forward when the pedals are pressed. I knew that if I beat Reid, I'd be accused of being "on the juice". As MKA noted in his Floyd defense fund piece, Dick Pound has stated the official position of WADA to be that if you turn in a great performance, you've quite likely cheated. If I, at race age 45 did a faster TT than a pro, it would surely be construed as a "great performance" and be subject to accusations of cheating.

Rather than beat Reid, which I'm fully capable but not in the practice of doing (to avoid being accused of cheating, of course), I opted to not sufficiently tighten the skewer on my disc wheel so that when I sprinted out of the starting gate, the disc would twist under the torque. I rode the entire 10 mile TT with the disc rubbing the left stay. Though this burned all the paint off the inside of the stay, it had to be done in order to avoid the appearance of cheating. Honor is more important than winning. Reid beat me by 4:20 in the 10 mile TT. My strategy was such a smashing success that not only did Reid beat me, I was beaten by 5 additional riders, one who despite having never posted a faster TT time than me passed me little more than 3 miles into the event with such ferocity that I didn't recognize him. I honestly thought ABD had acquired a new rider who was a time trial stud.

For the other two time trials of the day, I had checked the hourly forecast on accuweather.com and requested start times that would likely coincide with when the forecasted weather was to be the worst. Raining and with wind gusts up to 40 mph. My plan worked flawlessly. I was beaten by more riders than in any time trial I've ever done, including a 58 year old sprinter on a team sponsored by an International Airline. No one accused me of cheating or using performance enhancing pharmaceuticals.

Further fallout came after the Hillsboro report. My brother, the fuzzy headed liberal, sent me an email reading the report. He said the only thing lacking from the race report was whether or not the coffee Hillsboro was any good. By stating this, he situated my writing in the same league as Tom Danielson's former cyclingnews.com diary. I'm mortified.

Additionally, I caught grief from people who, clearly JEALOUS, called me a "shill for the man" and a "sellout" because I'm reviewing sponsor products. One guy asked if I was going to do a review on water bottles. He needed a new bottle and wasn't going to buy one until I made a recommendation. I told him to shut his pie hole and see if he could find some empty discards from the VMG or Nerac Outdoor Lighting teams in the feed zone at Sea Otter. Chuckleheads.

If a cycling product manufacturer opts to provide product or deep discounts to a cycling team, to market his product - especially to a predominantly MASTERS cycling team - I'm going to do a positive review - IF TH E PRODUCT IS WORTHY. I appreciate the support and will do what I can to accurately promote their product. They've elected to market their products on a grass roots level as opposed to BRIBING Velo Fluff or Bike Hubbard magazine to get into the "NEW HOT PRODUCTS FOR 2007" issue.

Cyclists are - as anyone who has had a managerial role on a team knows - NOTORIOUS INGRATES. Rev Billy calls them SWAG WHORES. GIMMEE, GIMMEE. I want a bike, and wheels and 5 of everything from helmet to shoes and I'll not say thank you or betray thoughts other than I think I DESERVE all of this stuff because I WON THE KOM ON THE F&$*ING SUNDAY WORLDS FAST RIDE. I've NEVER produced an actual race result, but I shave my legs and go fast on the Thursday a.m. group ride so for this…GIMMEE A BIKE.

Well, I'm cut from a different cloth. I realize that masters' racing is the very root level of grass roots perhaps Cat four (4) is subterranean root level - and if a product manufacturer is willing to provide his product to a team at a grass roots level, I don't take that for granted. I'll promote a sponsors product if it's quality. If not, I don't mention it.

That said, the race report itself was a piece of shit. In the future I'll strive for better.

Next week…Rev. Billy defends himself against allegations that he sniffed rubber cement to pass the bar exam though no one accused him of such. AND, EXCLUSIVE to the (FEED)ZONE…The only reason Jan Ulrich had more than two gallons of blood in Dr. Fuentes' office was because he wanted to race Le Tour de France with LESS blood and oxygen in his body in order to AVOID BEING ACCUSED OF CHEATING. Stay tuned.