My latest column for ROAD came out at Interbike and talks about the recent reshuffling of teams and bike sponsors. Also, Neil has embedded a couple videos from my Interbike lifestream on his blog, here and here.

I’ve added another of my columns for ROAD Magazine to the archive. This one discusses the choice that a sponsor faces when their team is involved in a doping scandal, based on what SRAM went through with the Riccardo Ricco mess.

Also, here’s an excerpt from the column that will be out at Interbike:

So, getting back to the original question, how will people interpret the current sponsorship shuffle? Of course, lots of fans will say that it’s just about money, and there’s plenty of truth to that. It’s no secret that teams want to maximize revenue and sponsors have an incentive to sign whomever will help them move the most bikes. But this principle extends far beyond cycling and fans of all sports seem willing enough to accept it, albeit cynically at times.

But there are some cycling-specific implications as well. On the one hand, the realignment of teams and bikes suggests that all the bikes are good enough to win races at the highest levels of the sport. On the other hand, this undercuts each company’s ability to argue that their products are superior. That’s a mixed result for most of the brands involved, but it seems to me like one stands to benefit.

My column in the current issue of ROAD is now posted. It talks about the long term implications - some of them potentially negative - of the sponsorship deals for Garmin, Columbia, and Saxo Bank.

Here’s an excerpt from the next column, which will hit newsstands around September 1.

The sponsor’s choice is to stick with or walk away from the team as a whole. There is no middle ground, which makes a case like Ricco’s – where there’s no indication of systematic doping within the team – all the more difficult. Dropping the sponsorship is a clear statement against the cheater, but you can’t avoid some people interpreting it as a lack of confidence in the movement towards a clean sport. Continuing with the team avoids that portrayal, but it will always look to some like a gesture of leniency.

While the first is a debate of incentives, this one is more emotional. At its heart, it’s a question of loyalty to the community of people who love cycling. When a sponsor cuts ties with a team, is that a statement against individuals who violated the basic tenets of the community? Or is it a statement against the community itself? It’s difficult to separate the two.

Just sent in my column for the September issue of ROAD. The piece talks about the recent sponsorship deals with Garmin, Columbia, and Saxo Bank for the teams formerly known as Slipstream, High Road, and CSC, respectively. Here’s an excerpt:

On the surface, the trio of deals seems like an unquestionably auspicious sign for cycling. But ESPN’s Bonnie D. Ford, a veteran chronicler of the sport and of Slipstream in particular, speculated that the team’s deal with GPS device maker Garmin and High Road’s deal with Columbia sportswear aren’t sufficient to run a Tour de France team. A statement from High Road owner Bob Stapleton seemed to confirm her hypothesis.

If it’s true, it could put smaller teams in a difficult position by setting a precedent that the title sponsorship of a competitive Tour de France team can be had for less than what it currently costs to run one. For a program without the backing of a billionaire like Stapleton or Slipstream’s Doug Ellis, the only choice would be to cut costs, with reduced salaries for riders being a likely result.

The issue hits newsstands on August 14. My past columns are archived here.

BRAIN had a quick story last week about how the Olympics aren’t really on the radar for the bike industry, except for the debut of BMX. The hypothesis seems to be that road racing revolves around the Tour de France even in Olympic years, while mountain biking has moved away from racing altogether, at least for the US market.

I couldn’t agree more. That’s why I suggested in the latest of my ROAD columns that, “instead of the gatekeeper to the Olympics being in charge of professional cycling, the people that run the Tour de France would be in charge of professional cycling.”