Awesome!

This used to be my favorite cycling podcast. Not anymore. The attorney’s offhand comments ruin the show.

What happened?! Haven’t heard you guys in a month! Are you coming back? 😔

I started by listening to episode 180 and quickly learned that everything is offensive to the young lady being interviewed, including anyone that voted differently than her or addresses a mixed group of people as “guys”. FYI English is largely a Latin based language and all groups (unless speaking specifically to women) are addressed in the Masculine as matter of linguistic mechanics. I will not be listening again.

Always interesting especially when they start to ramble.. perfect listening for long rides.

Good content from knowledgeable folks, but I *wish* they would tighten it up a bit- the shows consistently run over 2 hours and who has the time to listen to that much of any one podcast every two weeks? The participants are obviously having fun and comfortable with each other, but maybe they’re a little too comfortable? Lot’s of “humorous” interjection (Comedy: leave it to the professionals.) drag out the conversations. How about a 1 hour episode? I’m sure their subscription numbers would improve as would the quality of the discussion. Updated: listened to the podcast again after a long haitus: no improvemeent! 10 minutes to introduce each other and get on to the first topic.. sigh.

Knowledgeable panel, but negative on so many issues. They talk about not getting political, but then they do. The attorney usually just rants. Lacks structure and focus. The last thing I want to do when done listening is ride my bike, so I unsubscribe.

I've listened to every episode until recently. The attorney's comments about deceased Justice A. Scalia made me ill. I'm done.

I have listened to these guys for years, but the podcasts have become very infrequent and their normal panel of contributors have seemingly moved away from being integral members of the industry (insiders) to mostly working in marketing or seemingly often as consultants, though recently it seems more often than not they seem to be “between jobs” or working in freelance journalism. I wish these guys would get some new blood, people that are inside the current state of the bicycle industry or some with fresh perspectives on cycling. I do enjoy the attorney’s take on things and his opinions are often pointed and succinct, but others like former administrators of InterBike or former bicycle magazine editors or freelance journalists are just old hat. Name dropping gets you know where and whats funny is brining up many pf these guys with pro racers or brand owners shows how little they are know and often just a blank stare when asked if they have heard of these guys. Other podcasts formats have long bypassed this style and old school viewpoints (Cycling 360 or Mountain Bike Radio as examples). This podcasts needs new voices or formats, it's wallowing now and hard to listen to. Its also rare recorded and seems to be simply fading away.

love this podcast. get insight and opinions and stuff about all things bike. great that they cover racing, commuting, touring, community, fast riders, slower riders...basically anything bike. no snobby bike racing tech dodads. bunch of freds. i like conversation and this provides a terrific one. humor in there too. on my podcast tops along with radio lab, this american life, Invisibilia, partially examined life, and plant money just so you get a feel of what my positive review of spokesman is coming from....another thing PLEASE MAKE MORE EPISODES i know yall put in a lot of time and work into the few but i would love to hear more as a demanding needy consumer :)

I've enjoyed some of the podcasts. This recent one on the Tour became too painful to listen to, specifically the guy going on about not blaming the French press for its constant speculations and innuendo about Froome and doping. There are many other much better cycling podcasts that feature expert analysis and entertaining discussion.

This used to be a pretty good podcast with a mix of perspectives about various aspects of the sport. But over the last year or so it's become a drone of negative attitudes about cycling with too much emphasis on criticism and complaining - especially doping. It's become a whine-fest. It's also produced less often and less regularly. I guess with the tone it's taken that is a good thing. But I keep subscribed hoping that it will improve.

Its a fun podcast to listen to for some decent industry news and insight... but a couple of the guys on this podcast seem to be way too cynical about most topics. It could be because: 1) They have been in the cycling industry for a long time... or 2) That they are just grumpy older dudes that try to act cooler than they really are... I'm not sure so take a listen and make your own conclusion. Its a fun listen generally so its worth a listen.

I've been listening to the Spokesmen for several years because I like the topics and most of the presenters, but I'm giving up because the pace of the conversation has gotten too painful. There are much better cycling podcasts these days that cover more topics with deeper insight. It takes 5-10 minutes just for the gang to get through the intros. C'mon folks... if we listen to you a lot, we know who you are. If we don't listen to you a lot, the intros won't help convince us. Every topic seems to drag on forever. Everyone has opinions, often the same as what others have already said. The most recent cast spent 15 minutes on a video of a car hitting some cyclists. Tragic, relevant, a big issue. We got the point and the interesting assessments in the first 30 seconds of the conversation... after that, it just went on, and on. I spend half the time on this podcast holding down the "fast forward" button trying to get to the next topic. You guys all know a lot, see so much going on, but your tendency to prattle on forever and repeat yourselves means that the amount of actual content and entertainment I get from an hour of investment of listening to you is minimal... and seemingly a lot less than it used to be in the earlier days of the show.

The concept sounds great- get a bunch of cycling journalists, bloggers and other nerds together and discuss the latest issues of the cycling world. But boy does this crash and burn upon execution. Most (or all it seems) of the panelists are not in the same room, they are on a conference call. Actually, frequently one the panelists isn't even on the call: "Joe, are you there still? Oh, it seems Joe is gone." One guest speaker was at the DMV during the call (getting his license renewed or something, seriously?) and this speaker couldn't resist blabbing even though DMV kept calling out numbers for the next customer. The panelists thought it was funny, but it wasn't. It was annoying. Those on the call fail to have a meaningful dialogue, its usually one guy who monopolizes the time and goes on a 15 minute rant. Nobody seems to effectively moderate the discussion. The sad part is the speakers probably could put together a cool podcast if they cleaned up their act, get most (if not all) of the speakers in the same room, and put together a decent production. If one or two speakers are not present, have one moderator interview him with specific questions (and cut them off when they go on too long). There is a reason they do this format in other media (on cable news, etc.) Unfortunately this thing is unbearable in its present state, it reminds me of some pointless work meeting or something.

Excellent pod cast for cyclist. Better than most I have heard. This along with the Fredcast are the two best out there.

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"?

I look forward to this podcast. It's very interesting and timely. If you like cycling it's a great podcast.

The Spokesmen give a great look into the bicycle industry, with a unique focus on behind-the-scenes of races, bike marketing and manufacturing, and riders. A good mix of spokesmen provide entertaining insight into a number topics. A few quibbles: It's water under the bridge, but getting Floyd Landis was a great get; too bad the spokesmen decided Floyd (who clearly was disinterested) need to get lengthy, formal introductions to the 5 people interviewing him...and too bad the spokesmen then decided to go off on a tangent that had nothing to do with Floyd. Also -- like so many cycling podcasts -- the releases are infrequent. It would be great if the spokesmen picked a steady release schedule, and stuck to it. I guess that should be taken as a complement, in that I'd rather hear them as often as possible!

Pros: Well-organized roundtable discussion with some very informed and insightful guests. Excellent discussion of trade issues, such as frame builders. Cons: A little too much legal discussion and low interest cycling issues. Sometimes the conversation meanders and gets boring. Extraneous noises (baby crying in background throughout the podcast) are not "homey", they are unprofessional and irritating. Suggestion: Have the Two Johns on as guest spokesmen once in a while. It might spice things up and cross fertilize.

The Spokensmen is a podcast for anyone that cares about cycling. It has discussions that deal with everything from bike racing to what is going on in the cycling industry. The hosts have great chemistry and this leads to discussions that are lively and engaging to listen to.

I really enjoy it, well organized show with interesting subjects... But is been almost 3 months Now with out a new episode and there's been a lot to talk about.....keep it up

Very entertaining. Copied the same format of TWIT but still very good. I wish they could diversify the guests a bit more. Nothing has been done in August or September so I hope they haven't abandoned this show. I look foward to the Fredcast and hope this show continues.

I really enjoy this podcast. Good stuff.

I've only listened to one episode and I really liked the format and the information provided by the Spokesmen. I'm downloading the rest of the shows now to catch up!