• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Lack of Cycling Podcasts

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 19, 2017
4
0
510
Visit site
TommyTormato said:
benzwire said:
I listen to the Velocast. It's behind a paywall, but it's well worth it. This Week in Cycling History with Cilian Kelly (irishpeloton.com) is worth the price alone (it's included with Velocast podcast subscription). Good stuff!

Long time lurker, first time poster. I came on to ask about cycling podcasts but found this post so will just add my two cents here.

I also used to listen to the Velocast before it went behind a paywall and I subscribed for a while afterward too. It wasn't so much the price of admission that made me think twice about continuing my subscription, but more to do with the editorial tone of the thing.

It seems to me a couple of years ago, they began an attempt to move into a more mainstream position with their content. The started 'The Interview' where if memory serves they had people like Brian Cookson and Fabian Cancellara on. But it went downhill after that. It's like they gave up and settled for what they were comfortable with instead of evolving.

Now all they seem to do is just watch TV and talk about what they saw on TV. Which is fine, but at the price they are charging? Not so fine.

I noticed too that they have purposely and pointedly taken a step back from Twitter because they think it's a cesspit. They're far from alone in that thought. But it appears to me that they have completely forgotten what made them a success in the first place. And now they have alienated themselves behind a paywall and have little or no interaction with listeners.

How do they expect to get new listeners? They're obviously happy with their position and don't feel the need to seek newbies. I think it also suits their tone of 'us' and 'them'. 'Us' being independent etc., and 'them' being 'the cycling media' establishment and other cycling podcasts. This is the main reason I went off them.

When you listen to a podcast, is it particularly the 'content' you are looking for (I know I hate that word too), or does the tone of the presenters trump everything else for you?


This 'tone' I mention from John Galloway and Scott O'Raw of the Velocast has never been more apparent than in the last couple of weeks. It has actually been quite amusing to watch. They are like children.

"Simply can’t deal with the level of stupid on here and I refuse to resort to blocking everybody except that bubble of bias confirmation that supports my own preferences. Other than show publication/ merch sale notifications I’m off until the Tour Down Under. It’s not good for me."
https://twitter.com/VelocastJohn/status/938105298820239360

That was Dec 5th, but, the next day:

"Im moving away from Twitter but @PWCycling stepping back from podcasting requires comment. We wouldn't be sponsoring a junior women's team if it wasn't for Sarah. Hell, I wouldn't have my passion for the women's sport without Sarah. MUCH love."
https://twitter.com/VelocastJohn/status/938516425765015552

John 'quits' Twitter about twice a year. But within a day he's back. What a laugh. He's tweeted over 100 times since, including this yesterday:

"No idea how this Froome *** will play out. Dirty? Clean? Who the *** knows? I do feel for any clean rider caught up in anything similar in the future though. Career ruined, reputation in tatters even if vindicated. Social media don’t need no due process."
https://twitter.com/VelocastJohn/status/941092801001021441

But this is a big reason why people would subscribe to a podcast. To interact with the presenters and to listen to what they have to say on Twitter. John has said here that he's got nothing interesting to say - so why should people bother subscribing to his podcast?

Scott is even better. From yesterday (the day the Froome test news broke):

"I've made three direct comments today:

1. The case, at face value, made little sense
2. An investigation is correct procedure as Salbutemol is "specified"
3. The press were right to publish

For this I'm naive, hypocritical, foolish, and a lot worse.

Sorry Twitter, I'm done."
https://twitter.com/velocast/status/941078690095599616

His final Tweet yesterday:

"This account is now dormant."

Childish, pathetic behaviour. There are plenty of actual journalists (who also make podcasts) providing reasoned, well-informed commentary throughout the day about the breaking news on Froome's test. But these two can't keep it together without throwing their whole podcast out of the pram. It's no wonder they always end up squabbling with the lowest common denominator on Twitter, because to me it seems that is all they are themselves.

I really don't understand why anyone pays money to listen to these two.