Latest Rouleur magazine

vinnymarsden

Has anyone read the latest edition...with the feature about Floyd Landis, and his marijuana business?
I used to quite respect this magazine..always well written, insightful pieces about good topics..however, this latest piece is just utter bull sh it!! It comes across as something written by a totally off his face Leary type character from the West Coast of the USA who just talks utter rubbish, whilst imbibing mind addling substances!!!
I never really liked him, but to be honest, once he dropped off the radar he disappeared from my thought process, until recently when the Landis?US Postal?US Govmt thing cropped up again..and then lo and behold..this pile of utter bollo cks appears..It makes Landis look like some kind of Sideshow Bob character, who has even managed to drag in Dave Zabriskie too!! Truthfully..I think my days of buying Rouleur may well be gone!!!

homers_double

I bought it in the airport but it stayed in my bag, unread bar a few pages.

ugo.santalucia

Try Arrivee, the AUK magazine. Full of photos of 60+ on steel frames... A real mudguard extravaganza... Inspiring articles on
sleeping rough at bus shelters during a 400 km ride in Nothingshire... What's not to like?

sloppyschleckonds

Well written and thought out.

Maybe you just don't like Landis.

rajMAN

VinnyMarsden, you last sentence..my thoughts too. Bought it from edition 1 and now wondering why I bother. pages and pages wasted on this dickhead Flandis.

vinnymarsden

Shloppy,
Whilst I would concur that sometimes its maybe just personal taste that makes thing crap to different people..I don't know how you can say its well written, its disjointed,rambling, incoherent "drug addled" mumbo jumbo , to me anyway.
As I stated I have bought the magazine regularly, but I think that's it for me, if FL is the cover feature, and best story they can find, then it would suggest there is nothing new to report anymore.
If we re meant to get the impression that FL is edgy, out there, still being a "rebel" then yes, I get it, he still appears to be a very odd character, just like he was before. I just wonder how his credibility will come across when unwittingly he represents the US Govmt against Armstrong.
I'm guessing it might be a few jolts of very strong coffee and that "wake the f...k up" pep talk from the Govmt legal team or else he might just make the entire thing a bit of a carnival!! Hopefully he will, and the entire fiasco will end, and the "devil" Armstrong would be allowed to compete in a few local races etc and Floyd will find his peace, whatever that may be.
The bottom line is..I don't want to pay a tenner for such sh ite, poor so called journalism, I bet they had a hoot of a time, and billed Rouleur for the pleasure!! Great gig if you can get it!!

Garry H

Cancelled my subscription over a year ago. Really not worth the money any more.

lakesluddite

VinnyMarsden wrote:

Shloppy,
Whilst I would concur that sometimes its maybe just personal taste that makes thing crap to different people..I don't know how you can say its well written, its disjointed,rambling, incoherent "drug addled" mumbo jumbo , to me anyway.
As I stated I have bought the magazine regularly, but I think that's it for me, if FL is the cover feature, and best story they can find, then it would suggest there is nothing new to report anymore.
If we re meant to get the impression that FL is edgy, out there, still being a "rebel" then yes, I get it, he still appears to be a very odd character, just like he was before. I just wonder how his credibility will come across when unwittingly he represents the US Govmt against Armstrong.
I'm guessing it might be a few jolts of very strong coffee and that "wake the f...k up" pep talk from the Govmt legal team or else he might just make the entire thing a bit of a carnival!! Hopefully he will, and the entire fiasco will end, and the "devil" Armstrong would be allowed to compete in a few local races etc and Floyd will find his peace, whatever that may be.
The bottom line is..I don't want to pay a tenner for such sh ite, poor so called journalism, I bet they had a hoot of a time, and billed Rouleur for the pleasure!! Great gig if you can get it!!

Vinny - I have read the Landis article from the latest issue, and I must admit I didn't really 'get on' with it that much, but found it interesting. To put it into context, this is one of their articles written by Morten Okbo (with his usual photographer Jakob Kristian Sørensen). I have seen recent articles written in the same style by Morten on Ullrich and Armstrong (3 parter!), and they all tend to be a bit 'stream of consciousness' ramblings - and of course they are obviously concentrating on the more 'controversial' subjects. They (the writer and the photographer) are always very much 'part of the story'.

I don't necessarily think they are that representative of the rest of the mag, and I suppose if you like the style of writing then you'd probably look forward to them - something a little different to the run-of-the-mill reportage and interviews.

The version you have is presumably the retail version, if Landis was on the cover? The subscriber edition was completely different (an x-ray of a broken bone!). They have made the retail edition smaller I think, and reduced the price to £7.50 (so you won't have wasted a tenner at least!). The subscriber edition is now even bigger (about 3cm taller) and for some bizarre reason they have decided to number them differently - going from Issue 67 to Issue 17.1, which I thought was a bit up its own Ariss - but then again it is Rouleur!!

meesterbond

I rather like the articles by that Danish pair - a bit Gonzo, Hunter S Thomson in style, or at least I think that seems to be where they're aiming. The Lance articles were really quite compelling.

As mentioned though, they're quite different to the rest of the magazine and I like the idea Rouleur are bold enough to try something different - makes a change from the majority of the rest of the cycling press. It's the only magazine I subscribe to or buy regularly now.

cookeeemonster

meesterbond wrote:

I rather like the articles by that Danish pair - a bit Gonzo, Hunter S Thomson in style, or at least I think that seems to be where they're aiming. The Lance articles were really quite compelling.

As mentioned though, they're quite different to the rest of the magazine and I like the idea Rouleur are bold enough to try something different - makes a change from the majority of the rest of the cycling press. It's the only magazine I subscribe to or buy regularly now.

This. Maybe the OP needs to try cycling weekly?

joe2008

Refreshingly well written article.

I suspect the OP would rather read about the weekly rides of Rowe and King.

vinnymarsden

So, because I found the entire thing infantile/childish i am ridiculed...I guess the people who found it insightful/edgy/well written are the same people who ride "fixies" round London, in their Rapha jeans with no socks/handlebar moustache and no doubt a "retro" steel bike!!!
See what I did there.....I stereotyped..just like some posters have done to me because I don't like something..i stand by my initial appraisal of the article....it was SH IT!!!

pblakeney

VinnyMarsden wrote:

..i stand by my initial appraisal of the article....it was SH IT!!!

I hate to break it to you, but that is opinion, not fact.
Regardless of the use of CAPS or exclamation marks.

kingstongraham

Does saying you might like Cycling Weekly count as ridicule?

cookeeemonster

VinnyMarsden wrote:

So, because I found the entire thing infantile/childish i am ridiculed...I guess the people who found it insightful/edgy/well written are the same people who ride "fixies" round London, in their Rapha jeans with no socks/handlebar moustache and no doubt a "retro" steel bike!!!
See what I did there.....I stereotyped..just like some posters have done to me because I don't like something..i stand by my initial appraisal of the article....it was SH IT!!!

So the point is your original post is really, really over the top and ranty. The magazine has loads of other articles in a different style you can read if you don't like the Morton one.

I was introduced to the magazine a year back when I got a couple of copies cheap at the london bike show. They recommended the Jan Ullrich articles - written by the same guys and basically, I loved it - totally different to the normal cycle stuff I was reading...though I understand it's not everyones cup of tea and i suppose it could grate after a while. But they appear once or twice a year? Not a big deal with all the other stuff in the mag.

So chill..try some other magazines and see what you like

Secteur

Interesting to read this thread, as I thought exactly the same thing, and genuinely wondered how / why this got past editorial.

I dont mind Landis at all as a character, but I thought the article was really surprising - the writing and seeming glorification of marijuana smoking really didnt chime with me.

I only read it as it comes "free" as part of my Readly subscription - I have always thought Rouleur was very difficult to get into with hard to read articles and terrible "arty" photography.

vinnymarsden

I admit I did go on a rant a bit!!! I just don't understand how, when drugs in sport/cycling in particular is a real downside to mainstream popularity that a magazine would almost make a fun feature, glorifying an ex pro's venture even deeper into the drug culture. I know pro sport is simply not squeaky clean, and probably never has been, but articles like this only fuel the beliefs from casual readers etc that cycling is awash with it, and when a magazine chronicles an ex pro starting a business venture built around drugs then it does seem somewhat shortsighted in my opinion, and i take on board the opinion comment..lol but the article was in my opinion still SH IT!!!!

cookeeemonster

fair enough

To be fair to landis and rouleur though his latest drugs venture is 100% legal

sloppyschleckonds

"if I ever cross paths with Wiggins I’m gonna punch him so hard, he wouldn’t know what the fcuk happened.”

joe2008

CookeeeMonster wrote:

fair enough

To be fair to landis and rouleur though his latest drugs venture is 100% legal

Yep, as legal as opening a pub selling other legal drugs

shortfall

Hmmmm. We're straying off bikes here a bit but it's interesting nonetheless. It's worth remembering that whilst there are lots of things that are legal in foreign countries it doesn't necessarily make them desirable or something we should celebrate. As for the argument about nicotine and alcohol being legal so why not pot? Well cigarettes and alcohol have been legal for centuries and whilst they are undoubtedly extremely harmful to millions of people, simply banning them would be impossible because they're so well engrained in society. Illicit drugs on the other hand are far less widely used and there's still (just) a social taboo amongst most people about using them. A determined effort to actually enforce the existing laws might prevent their use accelerating and becoming as widespread as cigs and booze with the resultant harm to the nation's health and breakdown in society. It strikes me that we already have two legal poisons that are catastrophic to some people's health and adding another one just because it's difficult to control is bordering on madness.

I'll now don my tin hat! I expect this could run to several pages.

joe2008

Shortfall wrote:

Hmmmm. We're straying off bikes here a bit but it's interesting nonetheless. It's worth remembering that whilst there are lots of things that are legal in foreign countries it doesn't necessarily make them desirable or something we should celebrate. As for the argument about nicotine and alcohol being legal so why not pot? Well cigarettes and alcohol have been legal for centuries and whilst they are undoubtedly extremely harmful to millions of people, simply banning them would be impossible because they're so well engrained in society. Illicit drugs on the other hand are far less widely used and there's still (just) a social taboo amongst most people about using them. A determined effort to actually enforce the existing laws might prevent their use accelerating and becoming as widespread as cigs and booze with the resultant harm to the nation's health and breakdown in society. It strikes me that we already have two legal poisons that are catastrophic to some people's health and adding another one just because it's difficult to control is bordering on madness.

I'll now don my tin hat! I expect this could run to several pages.

I totally agree, I don't take any drugs, legal or illegal, and I wouldn't like to see pot legalised in the UK. But, of course, some US states have taken that step, so to criticise someone for legally selling pot is akin to criticising your local landlord for selling booze and fags.

vinnymarsden

I agree, maybe we are straying off the bike theme, however... Landis is straying so far away from why he is even of interest to a bike magazine that its almost farcical!
I am no prude, far from it...but the...and I will choose the word carefully..."glorification" of his venture, and the almost Hangover esque trip to report it just seems at odds with a BIKE magazine...but there will no doubt be some who find the article interesting...I just found it tedious.

debeli

I picked up a copy once and flicked through it.... it didn't seem to speak of cycling as I saw it, enjoyed it or imagined it.

It seemed - in its articles, presentation, add and appearance to be going for a look and a feel that was more about how one appears to others than about how the tarmac feels to ride on.

If you like these things, do enjoy them.... but it is just a magazine and a bicycle is just a bicycle.

gimpl

Shortfall wrote:

Hmmmm. We're straying off bikes here a bit but it's interesting nonetheless. It's worth remembering that whilst there are lots of things that are legal in foreign countries it doesn't necessarily make them desirable or something we should celebrate. As for the argument about nicotine and alcohol being legal so why not pot? Well cigarettes and alcohol have been legal for centuries and whilst they are undoubtedly extremely harmful to millions of people, simply banning them would be impossible because they're so well engrained in society. Illicit drugs on the other hand are far less widely used and there's still (just) a social taboo amongst most people about using them. A determined effort to actually enforce the existing laws might prevent their use accelerating and becoming as widespread as cigs and booze with the resultant harm to the nation's health and breakdown in society. It strikes me that we already have two legal poisons that are catastrophic to some people's health and adding another one just because it's difficult to control is bordering on madness.

I'll now don my tin hat! I expect this could run to several pages.

Please forgive me but that is the sort of response one sees in the DM, quite one eyed.

A better comparison is the sale and use of alcohol in the prohibition era, there are a lot of parallels. You possibly also underestimate just how widespread usage is and how little harm is actually done and the myriad of potential medical uses as well. I will admit to being an occasional vaper of the stuff and it is so much cleaner and nicer than getting drunk. Been on a long ride? Legs killing you? Have a quick toke and all is well

As it stands right now if I wanted to buy some I'd have to make contact with a criminal gang, not something I am able or want to do. I really hope that the UK government sees sense and legalises this as quickly as possible. If the examples in Holland and the US are to go by it improves the situation not make it worse so comments like 'resultant harm to the nation's health and breakdown in society' are the typical media bullsh1t that we are being fed on (and swallowing!).

shortfall

Gimpl wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Hmmmm. We're straying off bikes here a bit but it's interesting nonetheless. It's worth remembering that whilst there are lots of things that are legal in foreign countries it doesn't necessarily make them desirable or something we should celebrate. As for the argument about nicotine and alcohol being legal so why not pot? Well cigarettes and alcohol have been legal for centuries and whilst they are undoubtedly extremely harmful to millions of people, simply banning them would be impossible because they're so well engrained in society. Illicit drugs on the other hand are far less widely used and there's still (just) a social taboo amongst most people about using them. A determined effort to actually enforce the existing laws might prevent their use accelerating and becoming as widespread as cigs and booze with the resultant harm to the nation's health and breakdown in society. It strikes me that we already have two legal poisons that are catastrophic to some people's health and adding another one just because it's difficult to control is bordering on madness.

I'll now don my tin hat! I expect this could run to several pages.

Please forgive me but that is the sort of response one sees in the DM, quite one eyed.

A better comparison is the sale and use of alcohol in the prohibition era, there are a lot of parallels. You possibly also underestimate just how widespread usage is and how little harm is actually done and the myriad of potential medical uses as well. I will admit to being an occasional vaper of the stuff and it is so much cleaner and nicer than getting drunk. Been on a long ride? Legs killing you? Have a quick toke and all is well

As it stands right now if I wanted to buy some I'd have to make contact with a criminal gang, not something I am able or want to do. I really hope that the UK government sees sense and legalises this as quickly as possible. If the examples in Holland and the US are to go by it improves the situation not make it worse so comments like 'resultant harm to the nation's health and breakdown in society' are the typical media bullsh1t that we are being fed on (and swallowing!).

Cannabis has been effectively decriminalised in the UK already. The police have given up arresting people for simple possession and the courts long ceased to send people to prison for the same. I will declare an interest here that several young people close to me have had their lives ruined by cannabis. Had the police and legal system done their job and actually enforced the law of the land then they may have escaped the temptation to take this supposedly "soft" drug. Knowing you might go to prison is a powerful reason not to give in to peer pressure, and conversely, knowing the authorities don't care if you smoke weed or not is a good enough reason to ignore your parents if you're young. You mention your own harmless experience of cannabis but there are plenty of families out there who could tell you of the terrible mental illness their children have suffered following cannabis use and the resulting devastation caused to both their own and their families lives. I don't regard this as bullsh1t. Sorry.

gimpl

Shortfall wrote:

Gimpl wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Hmmmm. We're straying off bikes here a bit but it's interesting nonetheless. It's worth remembering that whilst there are lots of things that are legal in foreign countries it doesn't necessarily make them desirable or something we should celebrate. As for the argument about nicotine and alcohol being legal so why not pot? Well cigarettes and alcohol have been legal for centuries and whilst they are undoubtedly extremely harmful to millions of people, simply banning them would be impossible because they're so well engrained in society. Illicit drugs on the other hand are far less widely used and there's still (just) a social taboo amongst most people about using them. A determined effort to actually enforce the existing laws might prevent their use accelerating and becoming as widespread as cigs and booze with the resultant harm to the nation's health and breakdown in society. It strikes me that we already have two legal poisons that are catastrophic to some people's health and adding another one just because it's difficult to control is bordering on madness.

I'll now don my tin hat! I expect this could run to several pages.

Please forgive me but that is the sort of response one sees in the DM, quite one eyed.

A better comparison is the sale and use of alcohol in the prohibition era, there are a lot of parallels. You possibly also underestimate just how widespread usage is and how little harm is actually done and the myriad of potential medical uses as well. I will admit to being an occasional vaper of the stuff and it is so much cleaner and nicer than getting drunk. Been on a long ride? Legs killing you? Have a quick toke and all is well

As it stands right now if I wanted to buy some I'd have to make contact with a criminal gang, not something I am able or want to do. I really hope that the UK government sees sense and legalises this as quickly as possible. If the examples in Holland and the US are to go by it improves the situation not make it worse so comments like 'resultant harm to the nation's health and breakdown in society' are the typical media bullsh1t that we are being fed on (and swallowing!).

Cannabis has been effectively decriminalised in the UK already. The police have given up arresting people for simple possession and the courts long ceased to send people to prison for the same. I will declare an interest here that several young people close to me have had their lives ruined by cannabis. Had the police and legal system done their job and actually enforced the law of the land then they may have escaped the temptation to take this supposedly "soft" drug. Knowing you might go to prison is a powerful reason not to give in to peer pressure, and conversely, knowing the authorities don't care if you smoke weed or not is a good enough reason to ignore your parents if you're young. You mention your own harmless experience of cannabis but there are plenty of families out there who could tell you of the terrible mental illness their children have suffered following cannabis use and the resulting devastation caused to both their own and their families lives. I don't regard this as bullsh1t. Sorry.

Whilst I'm very sorry to hear about those close to you it is most definitely bullsh1t and your story, to me actually reinforces that this should be legalised as soon as possible.

Firstly there may be some families who have their lives turned upside down but not plenty. There have been many studies done (even by the Government's own advisor on the subject!) that show the drug is not anything like as dangerous as you would have us believe. There are some people who have a disposition to mental illness for whom smoking weed is very, very bad as it exacerbates any problems but for the majority that isn't the case.

Secondly, it is unfortunate that the majority of weed produced by the gangs and sold in this country is very strong. Mostly skunk. This only makes it even worse on those adversely affected. Try going to Amsterdam or Colorado where there is control over the sale and production and you can buy different strains to achieve different 'highs'. Pretty sure you don't see skunk on the menu anywhere.

Maybe - just maybe, had those close to you had access to that kind of infrastructure you wouldn't have had the experience you have had.

shortfall

Gimpi, if pot is legalised (or when, cos let's be honest you're going to get your way) the crimminals aren't going to go away. The country is awash with illegally smuggled tobacco and booze despite it already being legal. Drug gangs will just subvert the market and peddle their own filth cheaper than officially available stuff which will be heavily taxed. They will also target the sort of people who won't be able to buy over the counter stuff ie:. kids. We will then end up with the worst of all worlds, an increase in drug use amongst the population which will funnel money into the pockets of the big business currently behind efforts to legalise it (George Soros and Richard Branson to name two) whilst the poor and vulnerable will still be at the mercy of the sort of immoral crimminal gangs that are currently being funded by people with a drug habit.

shortfall

Post above edited for content.

cgfw201

Don't read Rouleur regularly, but was passing through the airport the other day and picked up the latest edition, as it's usually good for a few long reads on planes & trains, and usually covers stuff you don't get elsewhere.

The feature on the Belgian surgeon who fixes all the riders collarbones - really good.
The feature on Roubaix 2002 - really good
Landis drugs in Vegas - really interesting

All good stuff not covered by the more mainstream media. No complaints here.