Halfway done reading Tyler Hamilton's book "The Secret Race." Here are some great tidbits I thought I'd share.

daytripper wrote:

very few cyclists peak or are still competitive in their late 30s; most cyclists' best years are usually age 25-30 or maybe low 30s

I guess the exception to that will be Alejandro Valverde.

It's probably the best cycling book I've read. Hamilton gives a great description of the inner workings of the tour and teams. I don't think there was fabrication. When he came clean, he came clean. I read George's book too. Also good, but not quite as good as this one. Not as honest.

The Millar book (Scottish time-trialer who grew up in Hong Kong) has more details on his contract & side effects of various drugs like sleep aids.

You can find equal numbers of top cyclists still excelling in their late thirties and others who fizzle out by early thirties.

Zoetemelk won the Road WC at 38.

nathancat wrote:

It's probably the best cycling book I've read. Hamilton gives a great description of the inner workings of the tour and teams. I don't think there was fabrication. When he came clean, he came clean. I read George's book too. Also good, but not quite as good as this one. Not as honest.

Honest? It doesn't bother you that...?:

- he claims that he sold wristbands to get $25,000 for his defence fund but forgets to mention that he collected directly more money from his supporters, and his Phonak boss Andy Rihs (RIP) paid $800,000 for his defence.

- he neglects to mention having used also IGF, HMG-lepori and growth hormone under his Fuentes - program.

- he neglects to mention that he complained USPS team members that Lance was hitting on his wife and Lance dated a few times Haven after they brought up, which gives him even more motives to be not-too friendly towards the Texan

- Is presumably completely clueless about using someone else's blood blood doping purposes whereas the method was in use by his former and 2004 teammates when he tested positive for it.

- claims with no evidence that DHEA - the drug he tested positive in 2009 - isn't performance-enhancing.

It is also interesting that Hamilton claimed earlier in an interview around 2003 being more educated than his fellow cyclists because he finished his education and had a good degree.

True, except that he never graduated.

Tin Whistle wrote:

Lance = Trump

Some comments are too stupid to deserve a well thought out reply.

But, I just gave you one.

These videos are thrilling. What beasts.

Do you know why Lance let Pantani win the Ventoux stage? Lance doesn't really explain it in that interview, he just says that he couldn't communicate well in Italian.

https://www.cyclingnews.com/features/armstrong-if-i-was-the-carpenter-pantani-was-the-artist/

nope wrote:

Glass of vino wrote:

Huh?

At that time, riders could take off helmets on the final climb to the finish.

It was a halfway step before the instituted mandatory helmet usage for the entire stage. Prior to that, riders could choose whether or not they wore a helmet.

Cyclist obsess over weight especially on climbs. But a fall even a low speeds can still crack your skull without a helmet.

Heck NHL players weren't wearing helmets into the 80s.

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

Runner10287 wrote:

- The irony is that with how much time these spend on the bike non-weight bearing exercise to the extreme. Some light walking would be good for there bone density and skeletal health. I believe Michael Woods has commented on this as riders at the end of Grand Tours show signs of osteoporosis.

This sounds like the classic example of one alpha guy having strange habits and every one imitating him. Heck I wouldn't be. shocked if going for a 30 min walk with the wife would be good for the legs (i.e. recovery run where you flush a bit more blood through the muscle.).

Probably a good mental/stress relief too during the grind of a stage race.

Aragon- you know your stuff in cycling. I'm guess I'm just a casual fan. Were you involved with the sport?

My only "inside" involvement with the sport is knowing (not closely) a few cycling journalists, but all the material I use is available in published sources.

I actually like Hamilton's book, but it appeared just around the time of the USADA decision, and likely even people who found portions of it dubious didn't like to critisize it because in the fall of 2012 if you were anti-anti-Lance, it was almost pro-Lance.

About Hamilton's positive, it is also strange that only two cyclists out of a few hundred pros tested positive for homologous blood transfusion in the fall 2004, and Daniel Coyle and Tyler Hamilton maintain that they didn't receive accidentally each other's bag (different blood types), so it was two separate errors by Fuentes and his aid Nick Batres in marking blood bags.

If the "wrong blood bag" - theory is sound explaining Hamilton's and Perez's positive, the statistical odds that both positives were from the same team of a few dozen teams is negligible.

not a cyclist wrote:

I recently finished this book. Couldn’t put it down. Made me realize all the bad press about lance wasn’t just haters, he was legitimately a psychopath.

Yes. Yes, he was.