Doping in cycling...groundhog day

What an exciting 24 months of endless revelations, heartfelt tears, apologies, denials, accusations and...more doping. The sport of professional cycling is an irredeemable basket case. Lance Armstrong stands at the top of the pile but it is a very big pile made up of a very large number of similar, though less successful cheats.

When The Tour rolled around in July of 2013, I didn't watch a minute of it, didn't read about it, couldn't have cared less. I used to follow it like a religion but last year was the straw that broke this camel's back. Doping has always been in the peleton (Tom Simpson '66 etc etc) but it was just so confrontingly, pathetically and awfully, detailed that it simply put me off the whole sport. Chris Froom - supreme athlete, shining example of the new guard...or another in a long line of chronic cheats. Who knows, who cares?

 

The latest addition to the steaming pile of deception and denial, Michael Rogers has been caught doping and blamed...contaminated food. Sure it is a tried and tested theory but it didn't work for his colleague Alberto Contador. Why would he think that he'd have shot at making that lame duck fly?

While I am at it, am I the only person who thinks that it is completely bonkers that the 'Amgen Tour of California' is sponsored by the maker of EPO? Do any of the organisers appreciate the irony?

For the record, I still love riding my bike. Opposable thumbs and the bicycle - that about sums up the advantages of the human species for me. Art, science, putting a man on the moon etc - all nice, but bikes...and those thumbs...  

It's just a shame that the professional version of the sport that is meant to leverage off all that is possible on a bike is such a joke.

Rapha - Part IV

Somewhere in London, deep in the marketing department at Rapha, a product designer is in conversation with the marketing manager...

PD: Mate, I'm really sorry but I'm in big trouble. I've got a Cat 5 crit this weekend and I've been doping like a bastard and not eating nuffin'. I went down the pub last night to score some EPO and ended up having a few. I don't know what happened. One minute I was good, the next I was completely fucked up. EPO and lager don't mix. Apparently I 'bought' a truckload of parachute fabric that fell off the back of an 'aeroplane' and landed in the garage of a very large man who dropped me home this morning in a gimp suit. He said that I owe him 10Gs payable, in cash, tomorrow. Otherwise, he's sending Biff and Rocko around to have a word about my kneecaps. What am I going to do? He knows where I live.

MM: You stupid fuckwit. How many times have I told you not to drink and dope. Do you expect me to give you ten large?!

PD: Mate, I don't have any cash. I've blown it all on dope and bike shit. You have to help me. I designed all that shit we are flogging to the Freds. They can't get enough of it.

MM: Listen dickhead, I don't have to do shit. This is the last time I bail you out. I'll give you the money but you have to do something with your 'parachute fabric' and pay me back or you'll wish you took the beating from your boyfriends.

PD:  Thanks Mate, you're the best, done in a week, no worries. You wouldn't have to have a tenner would ya? I have to get something for my bum. Doesn't feel quite right after last night.

...a few days later...

MM: OK numb nuts, what's happening with the parachute caper?

PD: Mate, you'll love it. I've created a jacket to use up as much as possible...

Rapha press release - Attention all Freds. You thought you looked ridiculous, er...we mean 'cool' in those awesome team replica kits from Astana, Discovery, Phonak?!. Well have we got something for you! Announcing the release of new Fredwear - an amazing Windproof (nb not waterproof) Jacket made from incredible, awesome, 'repurposed' random shit. And it's yours for only $450! Don't delay!!!!

er...haven't we seen something like this before?...ah yes...

Here is the jacket being sported by a young Leonard Nimoy before he got the Star Trek gig.

"I hope I get the Spock job so I can ditch modelling fucked up Fred jackets

made out of random shit that some idiot bought at a pub".

Good one Rapha. $450 - giddyup!

Bike seats - Part Deux

Apologies, it's been a while since my last post. Not sure how bloggers maintain their dedication. It's been a long Winter in New York with some chilly riding conditions although the best part of braving NY Winter temparatures is that there are hardly any other cyclists on the roads and far less on the BPOD. All of that has changed now that Spring is upon us with the usual stream of stupid, reckless, dangerous riding by the usual assortment of Rapha/Capo/pro-team logo'd bunch of wankers riding like idiots and coalescing public opinion against cyclists in the greater New York area. Ah, Springtime and after a long absence - back to bike seat analysis.

To recap, my current seat is Fizik Aliante, which is grist for the mill of another post; but not now. Prior to the Fizik, I had tried for extended periods (read, years) a Brooks Ti Swift which was love-hate relationship (unrequited love?) ending in a divorce that was a relief to both of us. In between, I used an SMP Stratos made in Italy. This seat was recommended to me by a buddy in Australia who does lots of crits but has also ridden brevets up to 600ks. The only rationale conclusion is that he must also have one of the hardest arses know to mankind and no nerves in his scranus.

The shtick with the SMP is that it has a channel all the way from the nose to the tail which is only joined at the tip of the nose and held by a bridge under the seat at the rear which supports the rails. It has a droopy nose which is meant to avoid a problem that some riders suffer with their (in the case of men) erectile function but ironically, mimics the issue that the shape of the seat is designed to prevent.

Anyway, with an open-mind and wallet, I invested in the Stratos after dutifully following the on-line instructions and measuring the distance between my 'sit bones' with some difficulty and then having the results fact-checked by the long suffering chairperson of the domestic budget committee (my wife). The seat looked promising and I'm sure presents a compelling argument if you have suffered from drooping pecker issues given there is nothing to squash the squashy bits.

There is however, one small downside. The bits on either side of the 'channel' are HARD. The intent is to ensure sexual function but at what cost? Amputation of the legs? Depends on the order of one's priorities I suppose. I am not a fan. I gave this a go for 2000+ kms - daily commuting and longer rides up to 5 hour. Not happening for me.

Summary - too hard, not along distance saddle, the droopy nose is a cry for help.

Doping in cycling - the real crime

2012 was a tough year for fans of cycling. I'm one of them. What do I mean when I call myself a 'fan'? First and foremost, I love to ride a bike and did it long before I knew about professional cycling or the Grand Tours. Secondly, I genuinely respect the history and efforts of those who legitimately push the boundaries of what is possible in any undertaking, science, literature, sporting or otherwise and professional cyclists are certainly able to do more than I ever could on a bike. At its best, professional cycling has moments where someone does something unexpected and succeeds against the odds, or in spite of them. I love the tension, tactics and suffering of road racing and especially the Grand tours like the Tour de France.

Though it was a tough year for fans, it was not a surprising one. The biggest disappointment for me was not about the scale and sophistication of doping that was revealed. Anyone with a pulse would concede that the doping epidemic is the worst kept secret in sport. My disappointment, perhaps naive, was the crystallisation of just how little regard so many of the peloton have for the sport and the people that follow it - ie the 'fans'. Sure, some may think that the 'pros' don't owe the fans, or anyone for that matter, anything. I think that is bullshit. 

My view - no fans; no sponsors; no prize money; no adulation; no World Tour; no 'profession' -  they all revert to being weekend warriors racing during the spare time available between their real working hours. A point that appears to be lost on professional sportspeople, including pro cyclists, is that they aren't saving starving kids in Africa and their collective efforts do little to generate any universal good. That they get paid to pursue what they love doing is one of life's great mysteries and something that each of them should be grateful for, and humble about, everyday of their  lives. That's rarely the case of course.

So if I was aware of the doping epidemic, why am I disappointed? Simple - the current deluge of admissions, some with heartfelt tears or remorse, some with heartfelt tears of shame crystallised just how little the dopers in the peleton cared for themselves or the sport (let alone the fans). Maybe I hoped for too much but I don't think so.

Some may think that they were simply pursuing their respective dreams by whatever measures were required but just because a sport is professional doesn't mean that all participants are entitled to be morally bankrupt and actively take action which is the opposite of the clearly stated rules. If I don't pay my taxes I get a fine and if my subterfuge is bad enough, I go to jail. Tax avoidance is an apt analogy to doping - it's a victimless crime in that no individual is exclusively affected but the losers are every person who meets their social contract and contributes to the pool available to pay for the basic needs of society. For professional cycling and the fans, we were collectively, not individually robbed. I'm not suggesting that dopers go to jail - the last thing overburdened prisons need is the addition of a bunch of skinny-arsed cyclists becoming 'prison wives'  - but simply; wrong is wrong.

Presumably the dopers would say that a disillusioned fan can go and wallow in their self pity. Some might say that dopers are only hurting themselves, but that's bullshit. If they want to play a game with an illegal advantage; play a different game. The expectation of the fans is that they will see a clean game and not have to endure endless, annual let downs from the latest winner who didn't win by the rules. Presumably the professional peleton thought that they owned the sport and that they were entitled to re-write the rules. Well, fuck them. 

But back to my original point. Even though professional cycling has had a stink for decades, the dam burst of shit that followed the 2012 USADA action, and accompanying confessions of professional riders, seems to have been focused on Lance Armstrong. But a point that has been lost during and after his public disintegration is that although he is accused of being the most successful and organised doper in the history of sports (which is wrong, there are worse), he didn't start the practice, he just took it new heights in a particular sport. He's no different to decades of US baseball players, American football players, the East German Olympic program (esp. swimming), Marion Jones, Ben Johnson, Barry Bonds or, more relevantly, many, many professional cyclists over many, many decades.

Full disclosure, I have never been a fan of Lance Armstrong. Though he can certainly handle a bike as shown during the famous off road excursion during the 2003 Tour. I prefer my champions to have a little humility. Even worse, if they cannot be honest, I prefer that they skulk in the shadows rather than take the scorched earth denial/attack option. The Simeoni incident when Armstrong publicly bullied a rider for speaking out about doping was disgraceful. Particularly given Armstrong's explanation at the time - 

"The story of Simeoni is not a fair story... Simeoni, there's a long history there. All (journalists) want to write about his part of the story. It's a long history... A guy like (Simeoni), all he wants to do is to destroy cycling...and for me, that's not correct. He's the kind of rider who attacks the peloton and cycling in general.". 

Not to mention others that truly have reason to feel wronged by a bully - Emma O'Reilly, Betsy and Frankie Andreu etc etc.

Wanker.  

But back to the point. Doping has been integral and rampant in cycling. Tom Simpson died on Mt Ventoux during the 1967 Tour de France with amphetamines in his blood. Eddie Merkx was equally involved in doping allegations that were conveniently and awkwardly dismissed. Fancesco Moser admitted to blood doping (not illegal at the time...but Francesco, come on...) prior to breaking the hour record in 1984. 

Lance Armstrong is certainly a doper but he didn't create the problem. The self serving disingenuous confessions of the current crop of cyclists seeking, and receiving, a reduced penalty (Tyler Hamilton, Levi Leipheimer...and friends) is just wrong. Their crime isn't any less and their pleas that they were bullied and pressured into doping and were unable to resist the pressure is bullshit. There wasn't a gun to their heads. They could have easily said no, they just decided that they didn't want to. Are they any better off now than if they had rejected doping and run the risk of never joining the professional peleton? Actually, no. They all have zero credibility and that will follow them for the rest of their lives...a nice one to have to explain to their kids.

As to what punishment is appropriate for Lance Armstrong, I don't think it should be any worse than any other doper. Strip him of his victories but ban him for 2 years - or ban all of them forever. Why is he any different to Alberto Contador who was found guilty of doping, never admitted or confessed to doping, and was allowed back into the sport after a lame 6 months with a bizarre credit given for time served because he was stripped of some results during the previous 18 months of his 2 year sentence...during which he continued to ride, race and be paid a salary to race. The outrage at Armstrong's 'crime' was that he tweaked the heart strings and squeezed a bunch of cash from fans to fight a disease. A very, very worthy objective but one built on the completely false premise that he did it all without drugs.

Though I'll never be a fan of Lance Armstrong, I'm equally not a fan of unbalanced retribution built on a foundation of disappointment because he was a fraud. So is every other doper (Contador, tainted beef...give me a break). Either, every doper is outlawed for life or Armstrong gets a 2 year ban - my preference is life bans for all of them but that will just drive current and past dopers further underground because then they really will have nothing to lose. Much as I dislike the way he won and his clear disrespect for the sport, his peers or the fans, he's no different, better or worse, than any other doper, just better organised. Treat them all the same. Time off for confessing after being cornered - no thanks - but hypocrisy and arbitrary inconsistency makes the whole thing worse.

As for the future of professional cycling? There has been a suggestion of a Truth and Reconciliation commission - invite all of them to attend and 'fess up. If they don't and are shown to have doped, they get a lifetime ban. Maybe. I'm still trying to dredge up some interest in the sport after the last year. After years of bad news and returning for more, I'm thinking it is time to give up this abusive relationship and ignore all of them and ignore the sport....then again, maybe Evans and Wiggins are finally two clean winners. Maybe I'll see how I feel in early July.

As to the 'real crime' in doping, it's the destruction of a sport by the people who participated in it. Who was robbed? The fans - the owners of the sport.

Rapha - Parte Tres

Note the title - not 'Part 3' but 'Parte Tres' - impressive, no? Everything Rapha does is pretentious, so any discussion about them has to be as well. 

Anyway, I have on occasion taken pot shots at their unintentionally funny daily email but today's - 'New Coffee Cups and Rapha Gifts' was noteworthy for one reason - Rapha has teamed up with Chris King (he of the famous headsets etc, of which I am a fan, actually) to produce their latest Fred accessory - a Rapha coffee tamper assembled with Chis King parts...

Full marks to Chris King for squeezing every dollar from his parts business but the thing I love is that he already produces a coffee tamper and charges the princely sum of $85 for it. Sure it will last a life time and if you like the look, go nuts, it's your money. His selection....

However, Rapha's costs $120, is identical except that it is black and has their 'R' symbol on it - all for another 35 bucks! Let me repeat the sales proposition. Exactly the same product for $35 more (that's 41%), except that it comes in black and has an 'R' on it. Bargain!

Full marks to the Rapha marketing department for their continuing shamelessness in seeing just how much they can take the piss.

Nice one chaps.

what happened?!

There I was, minding my own business in the East Village and Hurricane Sandy blows in and destroys the place. Like most of lower Manhattan the East Village got a bit of a dunking but life is pretty much back to normal.

The power was out for 5 days of subtly increasing sketchiness in Alphabet City and suddenly the lights came back on...but still no Verizon internet coverage (and limited blogging) because the Verizon cables were drowned and it seems, weren't very well wrapped up. Time Warner (usually as hopeless as Verizon) came back up in the last week because they mostly use fibre optics and their cables coped better with the swim. My neighbour was good enough to let me slime onto his network - finally, something good comes from Time Warner.

Anyway, even a month later, the insurance companies are still slowly extracting cars that went under and will never work again. Piles of sodden rubbish erupted from cellars that the owners/occupiers/lessees finally got around to emptying. Painful (and expensive) as it was, at least we don't have wholesale condemned notices like parts of the West Side, Staten Island, NJ and the Rockaways. Good luck to all of them and hopefully they won't be forgotten.

Onwards and upwards, or at least sideways.

Rapha Part Deux

Continuing my rant against pretentious, overpriced Fredwear from Rapha, I'm happy to share some photos from their latest moody hipster offering - "City Riding Rogues Part II". If you have some lazy cash to waste and need a 'look', check out their latest offering - instant cool! (not).





where the fuck did I leave my keys?



...you are a proctologist, right?

...those drugs you gave me to get my keys out of my...
...was I asleep for long?
...why am I half dressed?
...who's the guy in the gimp suit smiling at?

 Scallywags.

Doping - Phil what's the story?

Granted, there is way too much commentary on doping in cycling but let me add mine to the steaming pile. I feel personally slighted after so many years of commitment watching the Tour De France and its fantastic cheats from the comfort of my lounge chair. The highs, the lows, the drama, the excitement, the disappointments - it's stressful being a fan.

Two points.

First, the 'Voice of Cycling' - Phil Liggett - continues to be an apologist for Armstrong and the cycling establishment. Full disclosure, watching the Tour without Phil (and Paul Sherwin to a lesser extent) is like listening to an audiobook narrated by a supermodel. OK, bad analogy, I don't listen to audiobooks. It's like...anyway, not the same without Phil as it is with him.

Which brings me to my point. For years Phil has studiously defended Lance Armstrong and whenever doping allegations about the Tour are brought up, he is quick to say he hopes they have gone away or, like this year's Tour, dismiss them as publicity seeking by disgruntled has-beens and assorted hangers-on. Well, sorry Phil, I'll still listen to your dulcet tones during the Tour but get your head out of your 70 year old ass/arse (he's English). If anyone has been around for long enough to know exactly what's going on - it's you.

Note to Phil - as the guy that is half the fun of watching the Tour and such a well respected commentator on all things cycling, you have a responsibility to stop the charade. Sure you are under contract and cannot walk away as a result but maybe start with not dismissing doping allegations and work up to questioning Armstrong, the UCI, the Tour organisers, the corporate sponsors etc. Small steps Phil but your failure to acknowledge the truth makes you look a fool. If you retire, I'll be stuck with Bob Roll, Craig Hummer and the other hopeless US commentators talking endlessly about the 36th placed US rider's win in the US Pro Tour de Whogivesafuck. Save both of us further pain and get back on the right path.

Second, the flow-on effect to the amateurs who delude themselves that it's OK to make fucked up moral choices because the 'pros' do it. Amateurs adopting the same immoral attitude is pathetic. See David Anthony, the amateur cyclist whose ambition to move up the ranks of the amateur categories ended with being busted at the ultimate nothing ride - the Grandfondo NYC. However, there is now news that doping has a long history of infecting low level semi-professional/amateur running with an article in the NY Times outlining the banning of Christian Hesch.

Hesch apparently won around $40k a year in prize money at small time events where his chances of not being caught, and of winning some money, were greatest though it is not clear whether that is net of the cost of his drugs and transport costs to Mexico to collect them. Either way, a tough way to earn a living - no glory and earns the same as a NY cop. At least they get a gun, licence to run every red light and endless free donuts. Hesch gets a two year ban and early onset arthritis - what a dick. I like his comment that he did it to recover from an injury - what an injury to the oxygen carrying capacity of his blood? Give me a break - just another hopeless cheat. Get a real job and run in your spare time. No one gives a shit about who won the 10k at Buttfuck, CA except the other runners you beat that weren't doping. Dickhead.

Another disappointing week with presumably many more to follow.

Lance Armstrong is a doper - shock horror!

So, Big George Hincapie publicly confirmed both that he'd spoken to USADA and that he was a habitual doper for a prolonged period of time that coincided with his association with Lance Armstrong. Knock me over with a feather, who would have thought that Armstrong was full of shit? Only everyone who follows cycling and is currently breathing. To the true believers in his innocence, again, well done - I'm having a beer with the Easter Bunny later on and you're all welcome to drop around.

But back to the 'news'. Given I live in the US of A, it's not over for Lance. Couple of nice articles in NY times today.

First a story on Emma O'Reilly, the former soigneur to US Postal who spoke out when collaborating with David Walsh on L.A. Confidentiel: Les Secrets de Lance Armstrong. She was vilified and pursued by Armstrong and his cronies as he did to anyone that suggested he was a doper. Typical bully - he pursued someone with intimate knowledge of his doping but who barely had the money to defend herself when she spoke the truth. Armstrong, a bully and a pathetic coward.

However, his fellow team members also bear responsibility for his poor behavior - not only did they dope, but they knew he did and that he was pursuing and bullying anyone that accused him of doing so...but they did nothing. Sorry  Hincapie, but confessing after you have retired doesn't absolve you from your sins. You should apologise to anyone that Armstrong persued because not speaking out made you part of the Armstrong problem. Same for Frankie Andreu, Michael Barry, Tom Danielson, Tyler Hamilton, George Hincapie, Floyd Landis, Levi Leipheimer, Stephen Swart, Christian Vande Velde, Jonathan Vaughters, David Zabriskie, Matt White and anyone else on that team involved in the doping program.

The culpability that these riders bear is that they knew about the doping AND the persecution by Armstrong of anyone that accused him. Fucked up moral choices that should haunt them forever. Along with Lance Armstrong, just another bunch of 'c-bombs' as Americans say (for the rest of the World vernacular, see Brad Wiggins* ha ha).

The second article, relates to a spat between Armstrong and an insurance company that underwrote a performance payment to him for success fees during his Tour wins. Problem No. 1 is that Armstrong  prevailed and was awarded $7.5M during an arbitration but also has been shown to have consistently lied under oath. Looks like he will be getting a visit from the lawyers for SCA to send the cash back plus interest (they should also send around the goons to have a word about his kneecaps). Problem No. 2 is that he lied under oath and that will affect any future statements he makes in Court - ie in legal jargon, he will be assumed to be an unreliable witness, in common terms he will be assumed to be complete liar about anything and everything and not just cycling issues. Doh!

Sadly plenty more news to run on the entire pro peleton during this period (call that the  20 years prior to 2011) and there will be a long list of respected riders who will be revealed to be dopers - all of whom will legitimately say that they had no choice because it was so endemic in the peleton and that to compete, they had to be on the juice. All up a massive fucking disappointment but not a surprise to true cycling fans. We know it has always been going on, just not the depth or the degree of organisation. Lance Armstrong will be remembered as the greatest doper ever. The Barry Bonds of cycling. He might have some redemption in the eyes of cancer survivors and their families because of Livestrong but everything he did in cycling will be irrelevant. Even his apologist, unethical sponsors have dropped him. Nike, Trek, Anheuser-Busch, Sram you are a collective disgrace and only dropped him when your continued unethical support for a clear and known doper started to threaten sales - don't pretend it had anything to do a policy of supporting only drug-free sportspeople.

* Thanks BikesnobNYC for the a far more reasoned analysis of Bradley Wiggin's vernacular. More interesting and funnier than the bullshit moral highground from Bicycling.com.

Gears - electronic or mechanical?

Let me to distill the debate. There are two simple rules.

Rule 1 - Most riders don't give a shit about the debate.

Rule 2 - If you want it and it makes you happy, well done - life's short.

I am not an early adopter or a fan of changes that make equipment dated or redundant for no reason other than fashion or incremental gains; especially those that cost lots of bucks - eg the bottom bracket debate. If you are sprinting for a stage win and your livelihood depends on the result, for sure you should have the 0.0005% gain from a stiffer BB. If not, save your money. Then again, see Rule 2.

Anyway, to gears. I have been riding for long enough to remember when indexed down tube shifters were the latest break-through. My most recent road bike lasted 14 years and then terminally* cracked inside the seat tube. I ride road bikes and mountain bikes rain, hail, shine, snow, ice etc because I like it and I am apparently less obnoxious when I ride some. 

I weighed up the options and considered the debates-

• Carbon is stiff/fragile/plastic/a joke/essential
• 'Steel is real'
• Bamboo = smugness  
• Aluminium is passe
• Titanium is for middle aged men buying artisinal frames (true, but see rule 2)
• etc

For context, my riding is urban commuting and randonneuring. I don't club race, do triathlons or do training rides with more than 1 or 2 companions, if any. I don't mind if people club race, triathlons or ride in packs to the local coffee shop - it's just not my thing. I ride to be out in the weather and preferably, away from traffic, pedestrians and other cyclists who pose a danger to themselves and, more importantly, me - hard to avoid in NYC. I'm generally heading home when most recreational cyclists are heading out which means nothing more than my preference for bikes and equipment is less fashion, incremental improvement and more about fit, resilience and ease of repair given the miles I ride and the type of riding I do.

So to the bike. Based on my history of choosing carefully (or at least very, very slowly) and making bikes last a long time, the house budget committee approved me to spend some cash on the condition that whatever I chose, it had to last with minimal additional expense other than my endless quest for the perfect seat. After considerable (excessive) deliberation, I opted for a titanium frame (see rule 2), hand built wheels (DT rims/Chris King hubs) and a groupset that I'll get to.

The frame was a no-brainer given I have struggled to get the 'perfect' fit from stock frames and the best way is to get one that is made for me. There are plenty of decent options but I opted for titanium because (at least in the USA) you can get an awesome, custom fitted frame for a reasonable cost that has an excellent ride quality and avoids my two problems with carbon frames - try fixing them and the cost. Plus I think modern butted Titanium frames provide a superior ride to steel alloys - sure steel aficionados disagree but I sort of don't give a shit.

The wheels were easy as well. Until my recent (14 years old) Mavic Classics Pro wheelset, every wheelset I had was handmade because that's how wheels used to be made. There are endless options with fewer and fewer spokes, carbon rims/spokes/hubs etc etc but I live in an urban environment that is third world in terms of potholes and the kind of riding I do requires an ability to repair that which breaks - thus the DT rims and 28 spokes/wheel. They still weigh not much more than light weight wheelsets but can take more punishment and are more comfortable.

To the groupset. Despite my attitude to frames and wheelsets, I opted for Ultegra Di2. I am still not sure that this is the best choice or that, despite my scorn for fashion and incremental change, I haven't been sucker punched. However, the rationale is more complex. I have always wanted a Campy Record (not Super Record) groupset for the history and design but have always ended up with Japanese components because the quality, value and robust engineering suits my riding and budget. Simple things matter - eg it is easier, and much cheaper, to replace a broken Shimano chain than a Campy chain (ie if the LBS actually stocks them). The move to 11 speed rear cassettes just exacerbates the problem.

Which brings me to my dilemma. I opted for a groupset that has motors and relies on battery power to work. What was I thinking? I was thinking that the Dura Ace Di2 had some minor issues but was tested to death and has been improved to the point that it functions perfectly and any improvements are likely to be incremental in future generations. The Ultegra Di2 is still a similar cost to mechanical DuraAce, doesn't look quite as flash, is heavier than mechanical Ultegra but incorporates all of the improvements made to DuraAce Di2. If I was ever going to opt in, now is a reasonable time (actually in about 5 generations would be the time but I need a solution now).

But, all of this is weighing up incremental differences. Hopefully the incremental risk that won't be my undoing is the advantage of mechanical gears, namely, the thing that changes gears is a rider pushing a lever that pulls or releases a cable while Di2 relies on a motor to respond every time. Time will tell. If my objective was weekend rides of a few hours and some commuting, then the risk with electronic gears is negligible. If something goes wrong, you can generally limp home even in the wrong gear but being hundreds of kilometres from home, potentially in the middle of the night might change my mind. 

Regardless, the question remains - is there a need to opt into electronic shifting? Fundamentally, randonneuring is about resilience, self repair (usually in the middle of the night) and redundancy built into everything. Electronic shifting is the opposite of that. If something goes wrong with a servo, that's it...This might sound like buyer regret but it is not. For sure it is a leap of faith that I may regret but that is for the future. For now, the groupset is excellent - ie better than mechanical shifting and, on balance, I think I am on the right side of Rule 2. If it turns out to be a cluster, then I'll apply to the budget committee to undo the experiment, go for mechanical something and put it down to experience though to be honest, I really like Di2. Maybe it's the first blush of a new relationship but hopefully, it will grow into a 10 year relationship which, in bike technology terms, is married for life.

Interested in the opinions of others.

* Note - cyclists talking about their bikes bores the shit out of me but for the sake of completeness (and at the risk of showing my eccentricities), it was a Kestrel 200sci (they were such a forward thinking company in a non-bike way before they ran out of cash, got bought by Fuji and produced their current crop of truly ugly bikes - Kestrel, wtf happened?). I used Dura-Ace (mechanical of course) and had Mavic Classics Pro wheels. All awesome and took a complete flogging but when time is up, time is up. I put on a compact 105 crank last year for a 1200k event but everything, other than the frame, lasted very well despite 150,000km+ on the bike. Only swapped out pedals, seats(!) and bars (for a narrower fit).