Monday, November 26, 2007

Should I be base training?


Two reasons:

1) No time. Lately things have heated up at work. I've been working 10 hours a day (at least), and there are only 10 hours of light. And my religious beliefs forbid riding a trainer for longer than 21 minutes.

2) No fun. I sold my main road ride on ebay several weeks ago. I still have my first road bike, a 2004 Giant TCR, that will get me through the winter. But as much as I like that bike, I have to admit that the thought of going on a long road ride isn't that thrilling. The thought pinning it at a cross race and frothing at the mouth for 1 hr, however, is quite thrilling. Likewise, the MTBing this fall has been grand. Case in point: yesterday I found myself eating the dust of the likes of Sager, BZ, E. Jones, Jon, and the Bartman -- that was waaay thrilling. I didn't see those guys base training.

Life's just too short to base train. And I like to think I get some fitness benefit by CXing and MTBing.

Maybe I'll pay for it next year. In fact, just a few months ago around July, I swore to myself that I was going to get more structure in my training plan and build a good base this winter. Now that it's winter, I remember the problem with my plan: no time, no fun.

Those of you that know me know that I am deeply committed to training and therefore know that I wouldn't nonchalantly shrug off an important component of training. Inference? I'm not personally convinced that winter base training is essential. . . yet anyway. I'm not saying that it isn't useful. I'm just saying that it's not essential.

My theory on why base training is a ritual amongst serious cyclists: base training is so absolutely miserable that once you base train for 6 months in the dark and cold, you can endure anything that that regular season presents.

Am I wayward? Can anyone convince me why I should be base training?

And you base trainers out there, what kind of miles/time are you putting in?

Thursday, November 1, 2007


Dick, the French, USADA, WADA, UCI, CAS, etc. now have an airtight argument against Lance.

All people who do this are irresponsible lame-os (plural for "lame-o")
All dopers are irresponsible Lame-Os.
Lance is an irresponsible Lame-O.
Therefore, Lance must have doped.

(I'll give someone a special prize if they can identify the fallacy in this argument.)