Transformation of a Fanboy

[B_Ugli]

Having followed Pro Cycling since the Lemond days, I grew up racing in the UK with some of they guys who are now Pro's. At the time a lot of them were U23 I became well aware of what went on in Europe at some of the amateur teams. I remember Gert Jan Theunisse being a high profile case and their were numerous sprinters caught on stimulants such as Ephedrine.

Armstrong was a breath of fresh air when he first hit the Pro ranks, going from Lantern Rouge in Classica San Sebastian one week to being in the break at Zurich the next. Then the Worlds and the rest we know all to well. I think that people at the time gave Motorola the benefit of the doubt. They were English speaking, seemed like nice guys and lacked the hard edge of Conti pro teams. It wasnt until later on in his career shortly before the cancer that I began to think what an arrogant little ****** he was. This is probably why the illusion has gone on for so long for so many.

Since then we have seen scandal after scandal and although I still watch Pro Cycling I just take the results with a pinch of salt. I enjoy watching wins like the FDJ lone win in the tour and the one yesterday on the Vuelta from yesterday. However in any grand tour now I am making the ongoing assessment of what the g.c riders are on. Never more so than this Vuelta where the first 4 riders look to be doing "business as usual".

My position as of today is that I think the UCI and others have created an impression of the sport being cleaner which it is not. This is more damaging than portraying the actual state of affairs in my opinion. Evidence in the LA & Contador cases suggests that a rider or riders may be given "protected" status by the federation for commercial or other reasons and that certain countries i.e. Spain are more leniant than others. I also wonder how long this possible protected list has gone on and suspect it dates back to the T Mobile, ONCE and Banesto days. Hence why ex ONCE & T Mobile riders now in management remain seemingly protected. Against this backdrop the sport is doomed to continue in this vein unless a major shake up happens and fundamental reform at UCI level.

 

[Robert21]

I'm not so sure things have changed that much in the minds of European spectators. They all grew up knowing bikers doped, this generation and the generation before and the generation before.

Actually, there has been a massive change in attitudes to doping in the minds of European spectators, and it relates to the effect doping has.

Back in the 'old days' the use of stimulants was seen as being similar to the way the working man used a few Pastis and half a bottle of wine to help him get through the working day. After all, cyclists were the ultimate 'workers' and who could begrudge a rider using something to help him get to the finish, especially if he was a 'domestique' simply doing his job? It was recognised that the use of stimulants could not turn a 'donkey into a racehorse', and did nothing to change the actual physical capacities of the rider. As such the results were 'authentic' and meaningful.

Then Epo and scientifically managed blood doping came along and these really did have the power to 'make new men', to use Willy Voet's phrase. As such the results lacked any authenticity, with the winner most likely been the person who responded best to the new doping methods or who was willing to push the doping envelope the furthest.

On top of the understanding that the results were as meaningless as in WWF wrestling ('le syndrome du catch'), the rider's performances became unconnected with those of average guy on his bike or working in the field or factory. The 'suffering and survival' that had been the key icons of the Tour were diminished, with much larger percentages of the field finishing (in 1976 less than 52 riders would have made Paris if the organisers had not allowed a group that came in way down on the leaders on the mountain stage to Pla-d'Adet to continue). As Willy Voet said of the Epo era "It's a dream for a cyclist to be able to ride up a hill in a high gear, to breath comfortably and have no pain in his legs. That's what they're addicted to - to making cycling easy."

These changes also made the racing less spectacular and instead of the spontaneous and courageous all-day breakaways of the mountain specialists (as with Merckx's 140km solo effort over the Tourmalet and Aspin in 1969, finishing almost eight minutes up on the next rider) the racing became mechanistic, with the real action of the race being confined to the final 5km sections of the summit finishes.

The importance of this final point is perhaps harder to understand from an American / 'Anglo Saxon' perspective. To a rider like Armstrong and his followers all that matters is winning, naturally following the American ethos that 'winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. To the Continental fan, and especially perhaps the French, what matters more is how you win, showing courage, style and panache. This reflects the de Coubertin ethic "The important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle, the essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well". Even Armstrong acknowledged this, saying that he did not capture the hearts of the French (as many other 'foreign' riders had done) because:

"I think the way that I raced the Tour; the methodical robotic approach to racing; not showing emotion; not showing pain, suffering or ease. It's not a popular style of racing in France. To them, panache is the guy who suffers swinging all over his bike looking like he is about to fall off. I never found that to be an effective way to try and win.”

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2008/lance_armstrong_nov08

In fact it could be argued that the biggest illustration of the way you win being more important to 'The French' than winning itself is the fact that the most popular French rider by far was, and is, Raymond Poulidor, largely because he never won the Tour or wore the yellow jersey. However, people could see his struggles and disappointments as being a reflection of their own lives, and he was a true 'man of the people' known for giving striking workers protesting along the road side at the Tour a friendly wave and communist salute.

Relatedly, the French are much less 'tribal' in their affiliations when it comes to sport, being ready to take to their hearts a courageous rider whatever their nationality. It's the same with football, as noted in this extract from an article in the British newspaper The Guardian discussing French attitudes to the World Cup;

As Michel Platini once remarked to an English journalist: "You have fans. We have supporters."

Even that isn't strictly true. French supporters are only prepared to rise above the role of mere spectators when their side is playing à la française , producing du beau jeu - which is to say playing with style, wit, talent and imagination.

"The French are too cold; they don't get behind their teams," says Patrick Mignon, an academic and author of La Passion du Football. "They are more ironic spectators than supporters. If they're playing well, they'll cheer them. If not, it's scorn and derision if you're lucky - and if you're not, complete indifference."

... Tellingly, French football supporters talk about their national or even their home-side using the third person plural. It is always "They were wonderful" or "They were pathetic", never "We".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/jun/12/football.euro2004

How different to the Americans and the Brits!

All in all modern doping has done much to undermine the traditional meaning and relevance of the Tour, especially for the French.

 

[LauraLyn]

. . . .

My position as of today is that I think the UCI and others have created an impression of the sport being cleaner which it is not. This is more damaging than portraying the actual state of affairs in my opinion. Evidence in the LA & Contador cases suggests that a rider or riders may be given "protected" status by the federation for commercial or other reasons and that certain countries i.e. Spain are more leniant than others. I also wonder how long this possible protected list has gone on and suspect it dates back to the T Mobile, ONCE and Banesto days. Hence why ex ONCE & T Mobile riders now in management remain seemingly protected. Against this backdrop the sport is doomed to continue in this vein unless a major shake up happens and fundamental reform at UCI level.

Great post. Fully agree. I think US Postal was kid's stuff compared to what is happening today in the teams, particularly Team Sky. No evidence. But the very lack of evidence, the cleaner than clean you describe, and all the secrecy and amerti - personally it is hard to watch even a local race and not wonder, hard to sit on your bike and wonder what the guy/gal next to you is using besides overpriced gels.

Seems like the UCI will get out of this without even needing to throw Pat overboard. It is amazing (and disheartening).

I still believe only the athletes can save themselves, but that is so **** hard for us.

 

[LauraLyn]

Actually, there has been a massive change in attitudes to doping in the minds of European spectators, and it relates to the effect doping has.

. . . .

How different to the Americans and the Brits!

All in all modern doping has done much to undermine the traditional meaning and relevance of the Tour, especially for the French.

Robert: Great stuff. You know the Europeans better than me.

You have a good point for me: not all doping is equal. EPO brought in a new era, and I think you are right that it is on a different playing field than coffee, cognac, and stimulants.

And I am thinking you are right: the TdF was always more about suffering and survival on the Continent than it was about winning. I think it is also true in US and British sports, but you could be right about the emphasis.

And, yes, with Armstrong and now Sky the TdF has a different feeling. And perhaps it is this feeling that so many people find difficult to relate to on the Continent.

In any event, there is no really good way to translate "supporteur" into English. Indeed, to understand that word is to understand a different culture.