bike racing in perspective, RLT max

this is a little bit of introspection, and a little bit of frustration rolled into one.

i know to be a top level cyclist, a rider has to put in an enormous amount of time on the bike. what's enormous? i don't know, really. i've heard tell of 20+ hours and even 30+ hours. needless to say, i have NEVER, EVER put in more than 15 hours in MY LIFE.

perspective: i'm not sure i ever had any more talent than a good regional cyclist would have, so hours invested per week/per month/per year may not have had much more effect. but maybe it would have?

so, it should come as no surprise that i don't really ride at a level that i am pleased with now. i mean, lots of weeks i get in five hours. sometimes i get in eight. in the height of my glorious (ahem) 2008 season, i hit 13 hours one week. alas, there have been many zero hour weeks due to recurring illnesses. i'm sort of a sickly guy at 41 going on 42.

i'm displeased.

this whole post is brought on by a conversation i was having with a coworker about my displeasure with my time investment in cycling and my declining performances. i was saying how hard it was to juggle my life and not let too many balls drop while i play lance armstrong/ned overend on my bike(s). he (and others, many others) have pointed out that not many people can do it successfully.

right. most can't do it successfully. but, then, there are those people that can. there is always that guy (or gal) that brings home the bacon, fries it up in a pan, and eats everyone else's lunch at the races. full time job, busy family life, hobbies, friends, and a successful training/racing regime...how in the world?

to heck with a killer vo2 max. i would rather have a super high RLT max....real life tolerance.