Don't even bother

Every thought we have and every action we make trigger a neurochemical and biochemical cascade in our bodies. Our brain works to achieve an optimal balance through homeostasis. However, when faced with chronic stressors, the brain cannot maintain this static balance and shifts into the dynamic process of allostasis. This means that a body with a chronically dysregulated HPA axis compensates by establishing a new, elevated physiological baseline—an allostatic state—which, while it allows for internal stability, pushes the body out of its healthy homeostatic range.

When in allostasis, it is difficult for the brain to recognize what is ultimately wearing us down. What I suspect is that a brain that selects those biochemical pathways it deems necessary to achieve allostasis does so without any sense of innate moral, which means that what the brain seeks to produce (or better, to induce our organs to produce) may not always be what is best for us. What happens is that we humans, as social animals, have the ability to bond and create relationships that also trigger these biochemical responses in our bodies. My assumption is that sometimes relationships can grow on these chemical interactions, so two individuals' allostatic states may temporarily compensate their 'wrong' equilibrium with the neurochemicals induced by the partner, creating a shared, mutually reliant allostatic loop.

To believe that humans are biochemical organic matter, where thoughts are formed by chemical reactions happening inside our brains, makes me realize that we cannot identify with every process occurring within us. We evolved as a species, and our cerebral cortex, thalamus, and brainstem arousal systems together created a sense of self-awareness, forming our personalities. This self-awareness reflects a mode of being that must inevitably privilege some behaviors over others, which chemically means our brains are constantly either activating or dampening biochemical processes.

My belief is that no chemical process is truly and entirely shut down in us; it is simply dampened. When a conflict between our chemicals happens, the ACC (Anterior Cingulate Cortex) is activated and flags the conflict. When this happens, the dlPFC (dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex) steps in to exert control. But here is what is truly interesting to me: it acts to modulate the chemicals that form the thoughts conflicting with our morals, but it can only downregulate them, not entirely suppress them. The Amygdala then signals the emotional intensity of what has just happened, but it is the Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex (vmPFC) that attributes a sense of morality and justifies the action taken by the brain. The question is: What happens to the chemicals that have been dampened? They're still present, so what stops us from perceiving them?

Personality disorders can be (briefly and quite inaccurately) described as impaired ACC activation and subsequent ineffective dlPFC activity, meaning chemical processes conflicting with our sense of morality are free to circulate in the brain. But treating cases like those is of no relevance to me. It's actually more pertinent to understand what happens in the mind of a person that suffers from other forms of mental disorders, like Depression or Anxiety, which are generally considered treatable in a non-medical context before a therapist.

I’ve come to terms with the fact a dysregulated HPA axis creates an allostatic state that brings the subject to accept an inherently unbalanced situation and unconsciously treat it like a balanced one. But what about the whole ACC activation discussed before? We are dealing with individuals who struggle in suppressing intrusive thoughts in their minds, which chemically speaking, would transpose into either the ACC being incapable of finding a set of proper values to compare to the chemical reactions occurring (which, to me, is the remotest of the options here, but still viable) or the dlPFC system not dampening enough the chemical reactions occurring that the ACC would want to see regulated. Therapy would aid in making the ACC stronger, probably building a greater sense of self-awareness that may compensate for the hypoactivity, or partial activity, of the dlPFC system. That’s why an intrusive thought cannot be suffocated—because we can’t suppress a chemical reaction, but only diminish it.

I’ve always thought it was utterly nonsensical how people try to label things they can't actually accomplish as "stupid," "irrelevant," or some other dismissive adjective. It’s the ultimate ego-preserving shortcut: if you fail at it, just declare it meaningless and the failure never happened! Genius, right?

When I first rolled into the Swatt Club, I felt like I needed a glossary just to keep up. I was genuinely drowning in the sheer number of labels these guys had for every little thing in cycling. It got so hard to figure out if there was any actual merit behind their pompous slogans.

And, fine, I'll say it: we Italians are definitely a different breed. We claim to hate stereotypes, yet we do everything in our power to reinforce them. We love to wax poetic about the glories of the Roman Empire, but the most recent thing we seem to be truly world-class at is... perfecting the meaning of organized crime. I'm sorry, did I say that out loud? 

Swatt Club started small but immediately aimed for the cosmos. The funny thing is, their ideals have grown slower than the actual club. Remember those bikes they trashed early on? They eventually got their honor back. And the races that were initially deemed "good races"? They slowly, ironically, became the "pointless races" the second the club started chasing bigger banners and dreaming even crazier dreams.

This is where the toxic mentality really crystallized: if it's not top-tier, it's automatically trash. No middle ground, no shades of gray. Just garbage.

The most regrettable part is that as this "movement" sucked in more and more cyclists, this raw, entitled concept of the "pointless race" became a catchphrase—even among people who shouldn't be allowed to use such a term without a signed waiver from a successful pro.

Look, competing with the strongest is an essential lesson in cycling (at any level!), but here's the undeniable truth: If a cyclist can't even win less notable events, they should absolutely glue their mouth shut about labeling them. Period.

The issue I have is that Swatt Club seems to have perfected the art of injecting a bunch of entitled, underachieving cyclists into the starting pens of major races purely so they can brag, "I was there!" It's bragging rights over battle scars.

And what's the punchline? The riders who actually compete and succeed at the higher levels are also the ones you still see winning these so-called "pointless races," they're not ditching them. That just hammers home the only motto that matters: Racing is Racing. That's what Swatt Club should have tattooed on its collective forehead, but it sadly got lost in the meander of their expansionism and self-importance.

Cycling is, first and foremost, a mirror: it pushes you to measure your worth by comparison—not just against others, but against yourself. The real heart of the sport is racing. The true motto, "Life is racing, racing is life," should embody the courage to put yourself on the line, to get in the mix, and compete for something, even if that something is just a cheap medal or a box of pasta.

Instead, we ended up with a mere "Life is Class A racing," where anything less is apparently an insult to their time. That toxic thinking feeds the idea that it’s smarter to skip the smaller events (where you might actually perform) and instead sign up for massive races where bombing out is considered "normal and unavoidable."

Honestly, the club’s actual new motto, though nobody asked for it, seems to be: "Life is racing poorly where I can totally justify how little I prepared."

So, here's the question they need to answer: Is that the kind of intellectually dishonest, entitlement-fueled cyclist you truly wish to become?