As a pro cycling fan, I consider Internet cycling news sources to be invaluable. Cyclingnews.com, Velonews.com, Pez Cycling News. Those are the sites I click to first, after checking my e-mail and a quick flick through Twitter. I'd like to say that they feed this addiction of mine, but that wouldn't be accurate; without these news sources, I'd be mostly lost. They transcribe the drama of the races I can't watch live, for whatever reason, and translate the utterings of the pros. If I'm dead beat or just have to get up extra early to squeeze in a longer, pre-work ride, I feel a little less guilty going to bed. I know that I'll be able to read up on all the races the next morning.
Reading about pro cycling while sipping that first cup of coffee is one of the best ways to start a day. As a fan, I tolerate the typos and occasional mistakes; the gist of the race is there, the action encapsuled. As a writer, I often question how - and why - we've let our standards for sports journalism fall so low. For a sport that's not based solely on team names and numerical scores, the drama for which we stay up until the odd hours of the night all over the world, how did sub-par writing become the norm?
Friends who have been doing this longer tend to shrug it off. "That's why smart people read Pez Cycling," a friend once said. Others have suggested alternate news sources with the qualifier, "still not good, but better."
That last phrase? That's honestly embarrassing.
If you love cycling, and are lucky enough to get paid to attend the best races in the world to write about them, the least you can do is run an eye over your article once it's done. Check to make sure your verb tenses are correct. Fix the obvious typos. Break up the paragraph-length, run-on sentences, or at least throw in a few commas. Edit what you write, so you can be proud of what you publish. If you can't meet that threshold - one I've managed to satisfy, most of the time, for a blog that I pay to maintain - then journalism is not your calling. Laziness and sloppiness don't just reflect poorly on you; they also hint at what exactly you think of your readers.
While the Internet places a premium on speedy publication, its existence doesn't mean deadlines can be used as an umbrella excuse for consistently poor writing. With subscriptions declining sharply since the rise of the web, higher standards can't be limited to print publications. Unless, of course, you really want to go out of business.
I believe that sports journalists are more than capable of respecting the basic rules of grammar. Particularly if they're getting paid to write. I also know that the fans - the same individuals who are paying those journalists' salaries [through clicks, page views, whatever] - deserve at least that much.
I know I certainly do, which is why I've emailed an editor of a popular cycling news site. And I'll keep emailing him if that's what it takes. Because we aren't idiots, and we shouldn't be paying people [however indirectly] to treat us like idiots, either. If the poor quality of an article pisses you off enough, I'd like to ask you to do the same. It's the least we can do for our sport.
Thanks, everyone!
Sincerely, K S

There's been way too much to keep track of this month [yeah, yeah, in like that lion that was Milan-San Remo], but here are some personal favorites for the past month...
- Gokiso has engineered some amazing-looking hubs. Too bad they're also prohibitively expensive... [via Josh via Bike Rumor] - The sprint of the month. Points to Demare for being able to smack Sagan on the ass while sprinting him.