Something I've thought a lot about, and observed quasi evidence over many years, is the following question...How much success in bike racing is due to genetics, and how much is due to hard work?
Phrasing it as above is pretty abstract, so let me ask it this way, using a more concrete example...
There are 25 John Smiths registered with USA Cycling. More than half of them are geezers over age 40... let's throw them out and pick a younger one. How about John Smith from Elko, Nevada, racing age 28 and a relatively novice bike racer. (If by far-out chance, John Smith reads this, I hope he knows "relative novice" is not a slam...) So let me pose the question this way:
If John Smith had unrestricted time to train, as much rest as he required, had access to whatever bike equipment he needed, received expert coaching, and was able to race as often as he wanted... how many years until John reaches a plateau, and what category (or Pro level) do you think he could be?
Surely you're smart enough to realize John Smith is just an embodiment of the more abstract "average under-30 male cyclist" that I'm asking about, but feel free to rework the question any way you like to address the issue! Same question applies for a typical female cyclist, but there were no Jane Smiths.
Also, it should be obvious but I guess needs to be stated anyway given the current climate and people's thoughts about doping in the amateur peloton... John Smith is completely clean and doesn't even employ borderline practices like using an altitude tent.
I really, really want your opinions. Please click on the comment option at the bottom of this post and share. Anonymously or not ...either is fine.
I'll go first.
I think John can become at least a USCF Category 1, more likely a Pro on a lower-level Tier III US domestic team. I think it would take him four-to-six years to get there. He'd train 20-30 hours a week and race every single weekend from Feb through September.
By his second or third year John would have figured out clearly which genetic hand he was dealt. If he leans in the Michael Rasmussen direction, then he would have started focusing heavily on his climbing and endurance. Alternatively, if John is a bigger fellow like Karl Menzies then he would fully develop his time-trialing/rolleur abilities, and he'd do a lot of stage races. Finally, if John finds he has an abundance of fast-twitch fibers, then he works hard on his anaerobics and sprinting skills, and of course he becomes an adept bike handler because he races 60-70 crits a year. (hey look, he's at Super Week right now!!! just kiddin') You get the point I'm making ...everybody has some genetic predisposition in some direction or another--John figures his out and takes maximum advantage.For any Cat 1 or D-III pros that read this, please don't think I'm trivializing your own accomplishment by suggesting that the typical John Smith could reach that level. It's quite the opposite really. Although you perhaps have good genetics, more than likely you've succeeded through extreme dedication and hard work. When many racers opt for the easy "training" rides, you go punish yourself a few extra hours. You (and your team) race every weekend, maximizing your opportunities for good results and upgrade points. You stuck with it and saw year-over-year improvements. You lived the bike-racer life!
Those of us that haven't or didn't reach that level, should be honest with ourselves as to the reason(s). I'll cite two biggies in my case... I never could put together an entire year of racing frequently, much less four or five years in a row. And second, I still can't seem to train beyond about the 15-hour-per-week level, despite having the time and desire to do so! Although my laziness is the dominant factor in both the above, I also wouldn't choose to sacrifice so much time with my family. Most of us don't. We balance our bike-racing hobby with a lot of other stuff in life. But that's back to my point ...it's a choice, and not a predetermined genetic limit.
So again, I solicit your opinions. There's no right or wrong (obviously) and I seriously doubt anyone can reference a study to prove this one way or another. It's just fun to think about in the abstract, as well as applied to any individual's own situation.
