I have to admit, until BigRingRiding bestowed upon us the honor of gracing their site with our humble image, I had never heard the term “Inhaling a Wasp” being used as a climbing tactic. My Great Aunt once swallowed a wasp; she was rather portly and since I think the wasp might have been in her cocktail I'm reasonably certain she wasn't riding a bike at the time – to say nothing of climbing. I believe my Great Uncle poured a pint of motor oil down her throat to treat the situation and I'm assuming that he did this as an erstwhile remedy and not out of vindictiveness. I can't imagine it was “pleasant” in the traditional sense of the term, although the family story doesn't detail how it all worked out for her, the oil, or my Great Uncle.
But back to cycling. I think what all of us here at the Velominati like most is The V being dished out using a Big Gulp or bigger container. At the end of the day, there is little less interesting than watching a herd of robots pedal their bikes up a steep hill without the least bit of emotion or effort showing on their faces, but with loads of speed in their legs. Common competitive wisdom is to never let your rivals know you're suffering, but bollocks to that. Whether I'm on the bike or watching a race, nothing beats seeing it all left on the road, with the pain of each magnificent stroke showing on the faces of those doing the dishing.
Inhaling a Wasp is the look a rider has on their face when they've dropped their jaw down like the shovel on a front-loader, scooping up mouthfuls of air in an effort not to quench, but to fuel the fire burning hot in their lungs and legs. Jan Ullrich was the master of this look, and any time I'm engaging in a long climb, steeled against the suffering I know is to come farther up the road, I channel my best Ullrich look and take solace in the notion that despite the squares I'm pedaling, perhaps I might at least look a the slightest bit like Der Kaiser.
[dmalbum path=”/velominati.com/content/Photo Galleries/frank@velominati.com/Ullrich/”/]
I know as well as any of you that I've been checked out lately, kind…
Peter Sagan has undergone quite the transformation over the years; starting as a brash and…
The Women's road race has to be my favorite one-day road race after Paris-Roubaix and…
Holy fuckballs. I've never been this late ever on a VSP. I mean, I've missed…
This week we are currently in is the most boring week of the year. After…
I have memories of my life before Cycling, but as the years wear slowly on…
View Comments
I can't help but wonder at the odd juxtaposition of your lionising riders like Ullrich and Virenque while constantly demonising Armstrong - the attitudes seem strangely incongruous and quite hypocritical. Is there a reason for this? Cheers, Oli
@Oli Brooke-White
Leaving alone the obvious factors for now, I imagine it is largely because Armstrong is an arrogant cunt.
The rest are seen as more lovable rogues as their personality flaws aren't ones that make you think, "oh, what a cunt"
As for the obvious factors, well he's a cunt, isn't he.
I, unlike others, dislike pretty much anyone from the EPO years other than those who have been widely considered to be clean, so: Lemond, Delion, Boardman and Bassons
I prefer the idea of my jaw having dropped like the shovel of a front-loader, or perhaps likening myself to a Basking Shark
Gesink did a pretty good wasp inhalation this afternoon in holding off the pack in Montreal.
@Oli Brooke-White While Armstrong is undoubtedly an amazing athlete, he essentially epitomizes the "robot" mentality. Hyper-specialization, every calorie counted and analyzed, ruthless focus, and of course, apparently, the best pharma money can buy. It lacks any reference to what has made cycling great during many periods. It's like taking a corporate approach to cycling on some level: successful, yes, but lacking in spirit.
When I contrast that to how Merckx, Hinault, Kelly, Fignon, raced, there is nothing similar. They were not Tour de France specialists, but complete cyclists. When I contrast it to more modern riders like Pantani and Ullrich, I see more humanity in them. Ullrich struggled in a number of off seasons; Pantani - well, we know that story. Armstrong - like any number of people who are the subject of hero worship - lacks an integrated shadow, and that always gives me cause for concern and distrust.
@Steampunk
Seriously, one of my favorite riders, and what a win!
I love that about cycling; you're suffering so bad you are contemplating a DNF, and when just give it the berries and win the fucking race.
Massive Respect.
@frank
Absolutely. Was sorry Hesjedal couldn't pull it out on home turf, but it was a good weekend in Montreal and Quebec City. Lots of good buzz and a number of folks hinting that the Montreal course would make an excellent worlds course. That would be fun and well worth the weekend trip.
First up, let me just tell you all about Oli. He is a denizen of cycling here in Wellington, and in NZ. He is a mechanic par excellence, has wrenched on pro teams here and allover the world, and has a knowledge and passion for cycling that few of us could hold a candle to. Plus he's one of the nicest guys you'll ever meet. Read his blog here for an insight.
I can only speak for myself Oli, and my reasons why I don't like or respect Armstrong. We all know that cycling is a dirty sport, but a beautiful one. Riders like Ullrich presented themselves in a manner that befitted a champion. He never abused, bullied, or belittled other riders like LA did. He never controlled those around him and used them like pawns in a quest for fame and dominance, like LA did. He never tried to silence other riders who spoke out against doping, like LA did. He never bribed the UCI to cover up positive tests. He never defrauded the government to fund his own program of systematic doping. He left the sport when he was caught, and didn't seek to stay in the spotlight like an egotistical sociopath, like LA.
The thing that really grates me about LA is the fact that he used cancer as a way to cheat his way to 7 Tours that should never have been his. We all know that pre-cancer, LA was not a Tour threat, but a one-day specialist. He used his 'cancer shield' to hide behind so he could transform himself from a decent rider into something he never was, a dominant Tour rider. And it's that he duped millions of people into believing that he was the only clean rider in the peloton, beating a hoard of dopers, that I can't understand.
There have been so many great champions who have won with class, style, dignity, and LA is not one of them. People say "oh, you have to be arrogant and self-centered to be a champion" in defence of LA, but riders like Lemond, Indurain, Ullrich, Fignon et al prove that that's not the case.
@Oli Brooke-White
You ask a really valid question, mate, and you're not the first one to do so. @Jarvis and @KitCarson both go a long way to describing the essence of why we might dislike Pharmstrong but love someone like Ullrich. Not all of us feel this way, I might add, and those discussions fuel many a great discussion here - Cavendouche, Pharstrong, those are just some of the riders we argue over in these pages.
I think "doping" is really just a dimension in why we do or don't like a rider. I think I speak for the entire community when I say that we hope and wish for a clean sport, and that that is the really something worth striving for and to fight for. That said, it is absolutely undeniable that doping has been (and is) - to varying degrees - a part of our sport's history. To say we should cast all riders who are dopers or suspected dopers into the same box would eliminate virtually every rider we've loved and followed in the past 20 years of this sport. If not more.
There are many factors that go into why we do or don't support any particular rider. The magnificence of their stroke, how many months from peaking they perpetually seem to be, their personality on and off the bike. But this is a sport and we are fans. The choices to support one rider over an other is not the result of an algorithm that stoically processes each variable, applies various weights to them and produces a result that rationally and objectively tells us which athletes are worthy of supporting and which are not. No, these are subjective decisions based more on emotion than fact.
We make the same subjective decisions in supporting riders that we do in every day life. There are several very good people I know with whom I cannot imagine becoming friends. On the other hand, some of my closest friends have personalities with strengths and weaknesses. My choice whether to be friends with someone probably has more to do with a subjective process than it does with a logical one.
So then we come back to cycling and, in this case, Armstrong and Ullrich. I don't love Ullrich or Pantani because the used drugs. Neither do I love them in spite of it. (I remind you that in spite of the circumstantial evidence and stories, neither tested positive and neither personally admitted to doing so - the same goes for Armstrong.)
What it comes down to is a subjective process of weighing the good against the bad. Part of it is arrogance and condescension. Armstrong was a bully who punished anyone who didn't play along. Remember Simeoni? Filippo may have been a doper, but he was targeted and punished by Armstrong for speaking out against him. That behavior is what we talk about when we say call someone a COTHO.
He was also a robot, as @KitCarson says. There was no emotion or excitement to his style of racing. Sure, it was admirable in it's precision, but it didn't give us much excitement as fans. (I also wasn't a fan of Indurain, by the way, and wouldn't have been a fan of Master Jacques for the same reason.)
Ullrich, Pantani, Les Freres Grimpeur, Boonen, Gilbert - these are riders who have emotion in their riding. These are guys who are amazing when they're great, and crap when they're not. You never know which one you're going to get. It's exciting, and I love them for it, despite the heartbreak they give me when they're bad.
But how can I a blind eye to doping, when I've said that I prefer a clean sport? You can't dope for Rule 5. Doped or not, the riders who offer the most exciting racing are the ones willing to take chances at the front, to risk everything on a full-out effort.
I was a big fan of Pre-Cancer Armstrong. He was a young fucking prick like Cav, but I was a youngster, too, and admired his brashness. There was emotion to the whole lot, and I loved it. He took chances, and he lost. But he also won when he was on.
Cav is a little prick, and I hate his attitude and lack of respect for the sport. Maybe if I was less old, I'd like him, but I think he's a massive tool. Besides, I find sprints the least exciting finishes of any race, except when my hometown hero Farrar takes the win.
Well, I suppose that's enough of a screenful to start explaining why I support Ulli but not Pharmstrong. To sum it up, it's subjective, like everything else in life. It has less to do with doping and more with the personalities and humanism the riders display.
There are paradoxes and conflicts in all of it, but that's the beauty of life. Even The Rules are full of paradox and conflict; it's up to each of us to reconcile them and come up with our way of making a balance out of it.
After all, we're doing this because we love it. After that, the reasons why are less important, aren't they?
@Brett
Well put, my friend - always good at boiling it down.
@Oli Brooke-White
Brett has mentioned you in the past; it's great to have you here. Keep the comments coming.