Wiggins on Armstrong:
Legend has it that Henri Desgrange, the ‘Father of the Tour’, envisaged a ‘perfect winner’. He was of the idea that the ideal Tour de France would have one finisher, a type of super-athlete who would not only defeat his opponents, but also whatever nature might throw at him.
It was an extreme version of cycling, and a very French one. It also explains why Tour de France winners tended to be masochistic, obsessive and, on occasion, borderline sociopathic.
In the same way Wiggins has in interviews since the book launch said that Armstrong is not an icon, but is iconic (despite his inclusion in a book called 'Icons') some want to get all Jesuitical on this and argue that Wiggins doesn't say that Armstrong was that 'perfect winner' his version of the myth Desgrange is supposed to have believed in says he is.
What Wiggns actually says of Armstrong is this:
He was the archetypal Tour de France cyclist, and he was precisely the sort of winner Desgrange had in mind 120 years ago.
Is that opinion valid? Not, Peter Cossins would say, if you rely on the myth of the ideal Tour:
But looking at Desgrange in reality, not with myths, I think you could support the opinion that he would have approved of Armstrong, when he was winning. Desgrange was nothing if not a pragmatist. But, once Armstrong fell from grace and disgraced the Tour, Desgrange would not have approved of the Texan. And Desgrange's history with riders who brought disgrace on the Tour supports that opinion.
Does this invalidate Armstrong's inclusion in Wiggins's book? No. He was and is an icon, a representative symbol both of the sport in general and Gen-EPO in particular.
So what is the problem? It is that Wiggins wants to claim 'Icons' is written from the perspective of a 13-year-old kid from Kilburn and that kid knew naught of the dark side of the sport. That 13-year-old kid from Kilburn is not the man who denounced dopers whenever the British media invited a comment, nor is that 13-year-old kid from Kilburn now besties with the cream of Gen-EPO.
Read 'Icons' though and you will see Wiggins happily letting other parts of that 13-year-old kid from Kilburn's future intrude on the story. But not the evolution of his views on doping. And that disingenious gambit is what makes Wiggins a hypocritcal little ***. But, having read his six other volumes of autobiography, we didn't need this seventh volume to know that.