Originally Posted by
rankin116
You rang?
I was thinking more about Eric.
Originally Posted by
aaronmcd
It was mentioned that it takes lots of hours and hard training to be mediocre, or dropped, or whatever. But that doesn't make sense to me. I actually settled on cycling over running, tri, spartan race, because it's easier to do well, at least at the lower levels (well also it turned out to be super fun). Even in cat 3 I have a shot at the win. With running I know ahead of time where I stack up, and I aint gonna be top 10. Ever. It's all fitness, genetics. Cycling is at least a bit more balanced. At least there are multiple energy systems and skills involved.
You're the exception. Most people don't experience the same level of early success that you did.
Originally Posted by
Hermes
IMO, social media, the loss of an entire generation of pro cyclists to PEDs and sanctions and the lack of an emerging winning USA pro cyclist or group of pros are the reasons.
The drugs dried up the sponsorship money and Lance turned out to be not just a doper but a bad guy. Without a promotion machine and star power, many prospective new entrants have little to fantasize about. Most know they do not want to be like Lance and his entire gang....
If you look at British cycling and the lottery money spent in conjunction with the success of Sir Chris Hoy and Sir Bradley Wiggins, cycling is exploding in the UK. The queen knighted those guys. USADA destroyed our guys. Hell, Wiggins and Cav just won the UCI World Track Madison again in London and it was amazing to watch. I can visualize a lot of young men (and women) wanting to race at the track and be like Wiggins and Cav.
I think there is a lot of truth to this, coupled with the fact that most of the revelations came out as the economy was tanking, resulting in people with less disposable income and companies cutting back sponsorships overall.