I didn't want this to get lost in another thread and perhaps others may want to jump in with examples of their own (if there are any).
I picked up Peloton (a fairly new cycling mag) and read the article this month on "The Greatest Tour" which -- for this particular writer -- was 1969. The writer produced a variety of new facts about that and other races that I was unfamiliar with -- despite following the sport for the last 40 years! He also talked about the 1990 Tour. In so doing he stated:
1. Lemond was probably the last clean winner of the Tour (at least for a long time thereafter)
2. Chiappucci surprised many in 1990 due to new found "chemistry (ahem...ahem)".
3. Lemond probably lost the 1991 Tour to epo.
None of this is necessarily groundbreaking news. It's just that rarely have cycling magazines waded into those waters so unapologetically. But here it was published with no equivocation or qualifying commentary. It was basically stated as if "this here is the history of the Tour".
Peloton -- my new favorite cycling mag.
I picked up Peloton (a fairly new cycling mag) and read the article this month on "The Greatest Tour" which -- for this particular writer -- was 1969. The writer produced a variety of new facts about that and other races that I was unfamiliar with -- despite following the sport for the last 40 years! He also talked about the 1990 Tour. In so doing he stated:
1. Lemond was probably the last clean winner of the Tour (at least for a long time thereafter)
2. Chiappucci surprised many in 1990 due to new found "chemistry (ahem...ahem)".
3. Lemond probably lost the 1991 Tour to epo.
None of this is necessarily groundbreaking news. It's just that rarely have cycling magazines waded into those waters so unapologetically. But here it was published with no equivocation or qualifying commentary. It was basically stated as if "this here is the history of the Tour".
Peloton -- my new favorite cycling mag.