Admittedly, it is easier to edit than create. So, my regards to David for his successful podcasts. This is a POSITIVE review.
That said, the podcast has some quirks that wear on a (this) listener after a few episodes.
- The topics are repetitive after listening to five or ten episodes. There is only so much to say about Lance, Floyd, etc. until there is real NEW news to share.
- David speaks in a manner to give himself time to think about what he will say. What could be said in 10 words requires 30. David, Carlton has a nice balance of "meat" and grace to his moderation.
- There are a couple of guests that continue to rant against the UCI. There are many arguments to suggest that the UCI is of benefit to the industry (e.g., team sponsorship requirements). How about a format where guests are invited that represent two sides of an issue, i.e., BALANCED discussions? On most issues, the guests become fanboys of whatever is at hand, so there is little balance, and hence, little value from listening over the long haul.
- The interests of the guests (i.e., bias) is ever-present. The regular defense attorney guest provides interesting content, but the podcasts do not provide a plaintiff's perspective. The ex-Colnago-now-Masi rep has little to offer, particularly as whatever he knows about the industry he cannot share.
- Lastly, and as a technical note, the low budget approach to connecting with guests around the World is appreciated and acknowledged, but, can the Skype, iChat, and other noises, be suppressed? And, can the guest broadcasting from his kitchen (with blender, dog, child, and all of the wonderful sounds of home) find a better "studio"?