.jpg)
(3).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.gif)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=small}
Australian. Argentinean. Canadian. Italian: By Cody Stevenson
By Cody Stevenson
Australian. Argentinean. Canadian. Italian.
Australian. Argentinean. Canadian. Italian.
What on earth do these countries have in common? Riders from these 4 nations have won every stage and the overall GC, in the past three stage races in California, USA. Murrieta, San Dimas and Redlands. Day, Menzies, Sutherland, Cantwell, Clarke, Routley, Borrajo, Bazzana. Why are foreign riders dominating the early season? Is it because some have spent the Winter, in Summer, in the other hemisphere? This can't be true for all. Are they hungrier for victory because they have given up seeing family and friends for the next 8 months? Is it because they have no option? Win, or go home and get a 9-5? I'm sure it is different for each and every rider. And every rider, no matter what nationality, wants to win. So why the success from foreigners in 2010? Is it that the backgrounds and culture of riders have more to do with their success than originally thought?
From an Australian perspective, as I can't comment on the perspective of those from other countries such as the ones mentioned above, I am led to believe it could be a few things. (These are just assumptions, ideas and musings.) There is a lot of the basics that cross over from culture to culture, training methods, equipment etc, etc but some are a little different. For example, some of the differences in the US are, cycling is generally more of an upper middle class sport. It is something that many athletes pick up in their college years, more so than from having a relative who was a rider back in the "good 'ole days", or transitioning from BMX or Track racing as a young tike, as is more common in Australia. It is not uncommon for a US rider to have only started racing at the age of 22, moving into cycling due to injury rehab from another sport, such as athletics, is a common occurrence. Because they are starting later, do they not have that absolute desire, that first passion, or is it simply that they have only begun endurance training in their mid-twenties, so others have an advantage of a few more years base training? A lot of US riders are also college educated, most have something else to fall back on if cycling doesn't pan out for them. Does this create a sense that they could "take it, or leave it"? An option that some Aussie riders do not have? And certainly something that in the past ('80's and '90's) was not really an option. Either you go overseas and succeed or you stay home, get an education or get a job. (Due in part to timing, as an Aussie who wants to "have a go" in Europe or America needs to do it in their early twenties, a time when most of their peers are still at University.) Also, could it be that some US riders get caught up in the "Lance Factor", by which I mean, young guys who need all the equipment, carbon this, titanium that, and are told by all and sundry that they can win Le Tour, even if they have never left their state, let alone country? Is it that the work ethic is different?
Aussie's have a reputation for being tough. Mentally and physically. It doesn't matter what wheels you have, what colour your socks are, because really... who gives a shit? You still have to pedal the bloody thing! Is that it? Is it as simple as that? That we need not think about all the rest of the "accountability factors"? That it's simple, you go out, train hard, race hard, get the job done and have a barbie and a beer afterwards?
Aussie's have a reputation for being tough. Mentally and physically. It doesn't matter what wheels you have, what colour your socks are, because really... who gives a shit? You still have to pedal the bloody thing! Is that it? Is it as simple as that? That we need not think about all the rest of the "accountability factors"? That it's simple, you go out, train hard, race hard, get the job done and have a barbie and a beer afterwards?
Leave a Comment