So... you want to be a Pro Cyclist?

[horse]

That's not the worst of it. But is an Army life.
Sunday morning club run is casual cycling.

[HurricaneShawn]

@devinci is totally right and it goes beyond that. i race at the elite level, and factors outside of what you experience during racing and training are just as brutal. social and personal life is limited, diet, missed family functions, etc. balancing work is tough as well. i'm on an elite team in texas and as i type this, i don't really know what my exact racing schedule is for next year (which starts in january here, 4 weeks from now). i know what some of my main targets are, but whether i'll race for myself or a teammate will be undecided until race day. it can be pretty stressful not knowing what's next, but that's just part of the game. i can imagine that the process used fits perfectly with what is experienced at the continental level, where you are likely to be expected to change your plans from day to day.

[CoachFergie]

Some Pros don't know what events they are riding on a week to week basis let alone a month or year.

[dolophonic]

There is a reason why Australia produces so many champions.

Yes there is...

[KWalker]

yah, raw physical talent, a large talent pool, and state-of-the art training facilities/resources have nothing to do with it.

I'm sure it can help, but more champions have been produced without it than with up to this point. I know former special forces officers that race locally and they've been through more hellish training than any of the AIS people and they still aren't that great at racing a bike.

[Tapeworm]

yah, raw physical talent, a large talent pool, and state-of-the art training facilities/resources have nothing to do with it.

Relatively a small population, 21 million. And in a country where cycling would rank as one of the least popular. So the "talent" pool is very small. The training resources and sports sciences are good however.

I'm sure it can help, but more champions have been produced without it than with up to this point. I know former special forces officers that race locally and they've been through more hellish training than any of the AIS people and they still aren't that great at racing a bike.

Why would a ex-special forces people automatically make good cyclists?? Specificity.

[KWalker]

Well the claim here is mental toughness right? I'd say that they rank up there in terms of toughness given the rigor of their basic training and duties.

Having a national agency dedicated to sport is a great start. The US has a 300 million+ talent pool, but does almost nothing to develop it.

[Squint]

Why would a ex-special forces people automatically make good cyclists?? Specificity.

Must be all the CrossFit they do.

[horse]

Having a national agency dedicated to sport is a great start. The US has a 300 million+ talent pool, but does almost nothing to develop it.

The world has 7bn+ talent pool.

[mattyb]

Well the claim here is mental toughness right? I'd say that they rank up there in terms of toughness given the rigor of their basic training and duties.

Having a national agency dedicated to sport is a great start. The US has a 300 million+ talent pool, but does almost nothing to develop it.

I don't think the claim is mental toughness - that removes the context. The claim is performance regardless of environmental factors. Mental toughness is definitely part of that but not all of it.
The other part of course is cycling talent - something that special force soldiers would not have (relative to those girls in the article).

You know how it goes ... to get in the arena, you need talent; to play the arena, you need the rest of the package.

Or something like that

[KWalker]

i'm just not convinced that its it the be all and end all of being a professional cyclist just yet. I'm sure graduates of the program have done well- lots of good track riders, good road riders, etc., but no reason to throw any other model out of the window just yet especially the ones that have worked in recent decades.

[worstshotever]

Really interesting read. No idea if this system makes more sense than a more traditional program, whatever that may be, without the Fear Factor/Survivor/Amazing Race interludes, but I like it nonetheless. Got the feeling though that the coaches imposing this masochistic torture were probably really enjoying themselves. The tire-change scene she describes certainly cracked me up.

[mattyb]

i'm just not convinced that its it the be all and end all of being a professional cyclist just yet. I'm sure graduates of the program have done well- lots of good track riders, good road riders, etc., but no reason to throw any other model out of the window just yet especially the ones that have worked in recent decades.

I don't disagree but one thing we need to remember about women's cycling is that there is no money in it. The top girls get squat and the investments in the teams is pathetic. They really need to perform under circumstances which are most unfavourable. When you have a large talent pool like Australia currently has, then you pick the ones that can perform no matter what else is going on.
I'd like to see it differently but I know some of these girls and know they do it with sacrifice. Liz Hatch is one that is happy to be honest about it all.
Anyway, just my view

[mrfish]

Isn't it pretty clear why they do this? It's just another test to weed out the weak so that the people they invest in stick the course and are successful.

Read any pro's bio - it's clear that becoming a top pro wasn't a bundle of laughs and took plenty of mental tenacity, e.g. Cavendish was told by the UK coaching team: "We decided we didn't want you on the team any more, go ride for this continental bunch in Germany you've never heard of and see how you get on. What, you don't speak German and don't like the food? Here's the ticket. Suck it up...". Imagine what would happen if your current employer did that to you? Brutal is how it is.

Again - if it wasn't helpful, then the coaches wouldn't do it. Their jobs are on the line each year and there is no place to hide if their riders don't perform so they need to try new things and keep re-inventing what they do to stay ahead of the Brits (or catch up depending on your PoV).

[horse]

Isn't it pretty clear why they do this? It's just another test to weed out the weak so that the people they invest in stick the course and are successful.

Read any pro's bio - it's clear that becoming a top pro wasn't a bundle of laughs and took plenty of mental tenacity, e.g. Cavendish was told by the UK coaching team: "We decided we didn't want you on the team any more, go ride for this continental bunch in Germany you've never heard of and see how you get on. What, you don't speak German and don't like the food? Here's the ticket. Suck it up...". Imagine what would happen if your current employer did that to you? Brutal is how it is.

Again - if it wasn't helpful, then the coaches wouldn't do it. Their jobs are on the line each year and there is no place to hide if their riders don't perform so they need to try new things and keep re-inventing what they do to stay ahead of the Brits (or catch up depending on your PoV).

Who didn't know about T-Mobile? Squad included likes of Jan Ullrich.