The title of this post implies that there is a rivalry between cyclists and triathletes, and while I wish I could pretend that there isn't, a lot of people would say that there definitely is one. Similar equipment, but very different sports. Some road cyclists don't make triathletes feel welcome on group rides, because triathletes generally do not act as if they understand the social etiquette behind group rides. I see people using aerobars in the peleton, which is just plain dangerous and unacceptable. Only time it's ok to use them is when you are the lead rider. Also, at times I see riders on tri bikes who don't seem to understand how to maximize efficiently by drafting. They tend to disrupt the paceline by leaving big gaps between riders or pulling off on a downhill slope and using their aerodynamic advantage to coast ahead of the pack.

I think that pack riding can be good training for a triathlete. However, a triathlete cannot expect to be able to ride at a consistent pace and utilize the aero advantage of his/her bike in a group ride. Having social etiquette and exercising proper safety measures trumps everything else. If that is found to be a problem, then a triathlete should train alone.

In a recent USA Triathlon Life magazine, I read an article about a triathlete who creates a daily syndicated comic strip. I have added it to my Bloglines syndicator. The author of this article, Lynne Fonda, takes a lovely shot at cyclists:

"As any USCF bicyclist will attest, finishing outside the top six delivers the harsh empirical reality that one might have slept in, instead, that day. A triathlete, however, will work it like a time trial, actualizing this specific level of training."

The author has apparently never ridden a bike race in her life. I'd like to find any USCF bicyclist who would agree with this author's statement. If she thinks that race results in cycling are empirical, she is smoking the big crack pipe in the sky. In triathlon, the numbers are very scientific. You ran 10K in 47 minutes, therefore your time states your exact performance for that race. In cycling, the winner is not necessarily the strongest person in the race. It's all about strategy. Cycling is also a team sport, and if you did not finish in the top six, you most likely helped someone else on your team finish in the top six, and teams who race together split their winnings at the end. And let's say that nobody on your team finished in the top six in a crit. It's not a loss in which the time was completely wasted. Crits are the best training opportunities for cyclists who race. Nowhere else do you push yourself as hard as you can than in a criterium.

That sort of attitude indicates exactly what is wrong with the sport of triathlon. While winning is nice, winning isn't everything. If Lance Armstrong had decided that his first criterium was a waste of time (and he most certainly should have slept in), then he would have quit instead of going on to win seven Tour de France races. An all-or-nothing attitude would prevent most of us from ever racing more than once.

Sometimes I am totally amazed at the things people write that pass through an editor's filter.