On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 12:36:36 GMT, "Callistus Valerius" <
[email protected]>
wrote:
> Since Tyler is out of cycling, there isn't much discussion about him.
>But I was always curious, or if anyone knows, why he crashed so often? Was
>he a poor descender, poor bicycling skills? If so, why? Did he start late,
>in cycling? Had to take more risks, to be competitive? That was always a
>mystery for me.
He lacks the upper body strength to throw the bike and himself around in a
critical moment and lacks the strength and bone mass to avoid injury when that
critical moment turns into a crash. You can knock him off the bike with a well
flung ping pong ball.
He belongs to a style, a class of extremely emaciated, somewhat malnourished
riders that has always sort of puzzled me.
Obviously, excess body mass is a detriment. But it is not the stick figures like
Rasmussen and Hamilton winning big races is it, not the big tours and certainly
not the classics. Hamilton could TT on dope, but we know that's not his normal
mode and we know how many other people didn't show up that day. Guys like
Ullrich and Armstrong are freeking linebackers by comparison and beat them in
every discipline.
Anyway, I'm not an expert, but a lot of the starvation approach seems highly
counterproductive. Ya gotta be relatively healthy and uninjured on raceday to
win. If an extra 3 kilos of muscle make that possible you just have to make
that trade-off - it slows you less than broken bones will.
Now maybe Hamilton truly sucks if he picks up a few pounds, I don't believe it.
Or, maybe he and others indulging in some anorexic tendencies. Either way, I
just don't get it.
Ron