Here is an unscientific, apples-to-oranges comparison of Google Trends search volume over the last 12 months for “fixed gear” in blue vs. “road cycling” in red:

There are lots of interesting things here, but two that jump out at me are how much of a bump “road cycling” gets during the Olympics around point C relative to volume during the Tour de France in July, and how quickly it falls off afterwards.

Like a can of peaches [cringe], the Tour de Georgia is on the shelf. It’s been the best in North America from a pure racing standpoint, although they have had financial trouble in the past. The dismal economy obviously isn’t helping their cause, but I don’t think that’s really the problem. It’s that bike races always cost a lot to put on, but the value for sponsors depends on where the event is held. Unfortunately, the Tour de Georgia is probably too big and expensive to stage in small towns like Dahlonega, Georgia (Pop. 3,638).

Without a significant TV or web audience, the best thing a bike race like the Tour de Georgia can monetize is feet on the ground. A lot of people would say media coverage too, but I think the value there is more about marketing the event itself than delivering direct benefits to the sponsors. In any case, small towns in Georgia can’t send a lot of foot traffic through the expo and have little value for corporate hospitality. Atlanta is a good location for the final stage, but apparently not lucrative enough to offset spending $150,000 a night on hotels in places like Tybee Island.

Sure, the Tour of California costs a lot more to organize and sponsor. But look at the large and bike-loving Nielsen DMA’s it will run through in 2009: #2 (LA), #6 (Bay Area, twice), #20 (Sacramento), #28 (San Diego). This year’s TdG, meanwhile had one day in #8 (Atlanta) but the next biggest market was #96 (Savannah).

I think the lesson is that you need to tailor your bike race to the to revenue potential of your local market. Or, if you have your heart set on running a UCI 2.HC stage race, you need to find a really big market.

(image: Ben Jacques-Maynes on Brasstown Bald, 2006 Tour de Georgia)

In 2006, the UCI commissioned two studies “to provide a better understanding of the different aspects of doping: the roots, methods, mechanisms and practices.” One was a qualitative study by a French consultancy, AlteRHego; the other was more quantitative (although the size of the data set is not disclosed) by Professor Xavier Sturbois of the University of Louvain.

Apparently there’s a more detailed report that will only be made available to national federations but the summaries that they’ve made available here consist of mainly of vagaries and truisms. To paraphrase both: “There are many causes of doping, so a multi-faceted strategy is needed.”

That said, the reports contain some interesting bits. Perhaps most importantly, both conclude that the current anti-doping strategy is focused too heavily on enforcement and not enough on prevention:

“A programme of governance to deal with the phenomenon of doping in the sport of cycling must be humanistic, deploying a combination of repression, education and training on an equal footing” - Sturbois study

“Any policy aimed at preventing doping therefore implies strengthening the key motivations of cyclists, which revolve around stimulation- enjoyment and mastery of the activity, whatever the discipline practised.” - AlteRHego study

In other words, we should start thinking a lot more about how to make pro cycling a rewarding personal experience for the 179 guys that don’t win the Tour. I suppose that means creating a culture that places less emphasis on winning. However, neither study shows much confidence that such an atmospheric change is possible and both take as a foregone conclusion that the fight against doping is ultimately not winnable.

“Doping is a social aberration and could only be defeated if all other social aberrations were to disappear –which is an illusory proposition” - Sturbois

“… a realignment is in fact necessary to emerge from what could become “a race without end”: this means accepting that a world without doping or cheating will never exist, but acknowledging that it is possible to limit these phenomena”- AlteRHego

Ultimately, what they’re saying is that the best we can hope for is that cycling’s stakeholders won’t be lying when they tell us that the sport is doing everything it can to fight doping. Seeing as the UCI paid for this study in the first place, what does that say about what we’ve been told up to this point? Personally, I’m willing to believe that the UCI, ASO, WADA, AFLD et al. are giving close to their best efforts at testing and suspending even if much of that effort is devoted to infighting. However, we’ve seen nothing yet like the prevention strategies that both studies recommend.

(here’s a column I wrote for ROAD in early 2007 with a similar thesis)

VeloNews.com is reporting that the folks at Barloworld have changed their minds about the decision to withdraw from their team sponsorship following a positive doping test during the Tour de France. As I wrote for ROAD, you can’t fault a sponsor for dropping or sticking with a team; both have their pros and cons. Here’s what I find really interesting about Barloworld:

“That decision [to drop the team] was made in the heat of the moment. Afterward, they had time to reflect and even before the Tour was over, they had intended to return,” team spokesman Claudio Masnata said Tuesday, according to The Associated Press.

I can’t think of another time that a company reversed such a visible decision that was neither causing a public outcry nor losing money. No one likes to admit that they made a mistake and companies are especially loathe to acknowledge a bad decision. But it happens and I hope that this decision by Barloworld is part of a larger trend (and I’m not just talking about bike racing sponsors).

Everyone has heard that to err is human, but the second part of the adage is less well known: “…to forgive is divine.” So I admire Barloworld for swallowing their pride, even if they were going to be writing the checks regardless.

My new bike. More photos and a sensible choice of bars coming soon.

Thanks to Cinelli, BTI, MASH, Zipp, SRAM, ROAD, and Craigslist.

In additional to its numerological significance, the number 22 is also the number of ways that brands can use social media. That’s according to a comprehensive piece on Mashable by Peter Kim. His list:

1. Blogs (Johnson & Johnson, Delta Air Lines)
2. Bookmarking/Tagging (Adobe, Kodak)
3. Brand monitoring (Dell, MINI)
4. Content aggregation (Alltop, EMC)
5. Crowdsourcing/Voting (Oracle, Starbucks)
6. Discussion boards and forums (IBM, Mountain Dew)
7. Events and meetups (Molson, Pampers)
8. Mashups (Fidelity Investments, Nike)
9. Microblogging (method, Whole Foods)
10. Online video (Eukanuba, Home Depot)
11. Organization and staffing (Ford, Pepsi)
12. Outreach programs (Nokia, Yum Brands)
13. Photosharing (Rubbermaid, UK Government)
14. Podcasting (Ericsson, McDonalds)
15. Presentation sharing (CapGemini, Daimler AG)
16. Public Relations - social media releases (Avon, Intel)
17. Ratings and reviews (Loblaws, TurboTax)
18. Social networks: applications, fan pages, groups, and personalities (British Airways, Saturn)
19. Sponsorships (Coca-Cola, Whirlpool)
20. Virtual worlds (National Geographic, Toyota)
21. Widgets (Southwest Airlines, Target)
22. Wikis (Second Life, T-Mobile Sidekick)

In bold/italics are tools used on The Road Diaries campaign for SRAM. All of these have their strengths, but I’ve found photosharing to be especially effective.

I’ll be writing more soon about the NorCal High School Mountain Bike League but here’s information about their upcoming benefit weekend in Marin:

• Friday evening cocktail party featuring Levi Leipheimer
• Saturday evening gala dinner and auction
• Sunday group ride with Levi

The league is a really amazing program - get out and support it!

1974 Modesto Criterium:

2008 Menlo Park Grand Prix:

Thanks to Casey Kerrigan for scanning and putting some old NCNCA stuff online here.