Monday 6 June 2011

Slaying the Badger in the Dark

In Richard Moore's excellent account of the 1986 Tour de France, Paul Kochli - the cycling coach is quoted as saying that cycling isnt an endurance sport - its a game. According to Kochli, we need to "play cycling". Arguably (and perhaps ironically for Kochli) professional cyclists have forgotten about that amongst its increasing specialisation and rationalisation. For a sports scientist to say that cycling is all about tactics and intuition, and being 'ahead' of the race (the analogy he uses is of a surfer anticipating the break of the wave) seems incongruous. Its not something you'd have heard Peter Keen or Dave Brailsford saying.



Yet it seems to make perfect sense, expoing LeMond's shortcomings and Hinault's brilliance. The implication is that LeMond is a bit of a wheelsucker, which is hard to argue against in the portrayal of the race. The other disconcerting fact about LeMond was that he always sleeps with a pillow between his legs - Moore never asks why, and perhaps its left best unasked! But I dont want to run down LeMond. He was my hero: I rode around the north Devon countryside in full Z kit and yellow Giroin the early 90s.

Really its Paul Kochli who's the star of the book, along with Andy Hampsten who provides some incredible insights and anecdotes. The best of these is when he attacks at the foot of a climb to set up LeMond. What Kochli shouts to Hampsten as he drives alongside him is incredible but ultimately unsurprising for Hampsten is surfing the wave. Hampsten looks like a rich but untapped mine of cycling anecdotes - his story should be told in more depth.

The book raises some other issues relating to current debates on race radios. Despite Kochli's insistence on learning to feel the race and be impulsive, in the mountains he seems to be constantly alongside his riders in his car giving instructions - just like Guimard and the other DS's. Why this seems to be OK in the mountains, but race radios are not OK for controlling flat stages is an interesting question. But that's not what the book is about - its about reliving the drama of the '86 Tour and it does that in style.

David Millar's autobiography on the other hand is much darker and complex. It raises so many questions that go answered, but in retelling his story to a wider audience I'm sure he'll be rewarded at sportswriters awards - that sort of masochistic writing seems to go down well. The book is not out until June 16th, but they were selling copies at the Hay Festival so I bought one and read it other the weekend. For those familiar with cycling there's probably not much new here: the account of a young pro getting on a plane to a race 'allume' - lit up by amphetimines is startling though.

In a systemic doping culture, Millar seems to have the emotional characteristics that will inevitably drag him under - thats not a criticism of him, but the reasons why he succumbs and others don't could be explored more fully. Millar, with the help of Steve Peters - the British Cycling psychologist, who curiously also has a new book out - explains it all in relation to his family background. The moment he describes taking EPO appears incredibly straightforward, there's even little sense of decision making other than to say it seemed easier to take it than not to take it.

My main criticism though is in the anonymity he gives Massimiliano Lelli - known as "l'equipier". It was quite easy to work this out with a quick Google search, but who "le Boss" is remains a mystery. Its perplexing because Lelli's identity is already known, whilst Jesus Losa the sports Doctor who supplies Millar with much more EPO is named without hesitation. Its also perplexing given that the book is an attack on omerta. Maybe there was a reason for this, but for me the effect was to almost conjure up a mystical but stereotypical dark side - an underworld complete with the usual shadowy characters ("Le Boss"). In fact, the systemic doping problem Millar describes seems far from that, far from secretive in which those that are 'prepared' apologise to those that werent when they beat them. Everybody knows whats going on, even the anti-doping officers.

There were some other things I was a little disatisfed with - there is no real account of why his tax problems emerged. Others will criticise his attitude towards Lance Armstrong and lack of discussion about the doping issues surrouding Contador. But there are interesting issues here: the simple fact that anti-doping officers had never even spoken to a doper before is an eye-opener for example.

Millar seems still to divide opinion in the cycling world, which seems strange if you accept doping is a systemic cultural problem. The wider public may appreciate the wider message of the book. But there is an important message here for all cyclists, an important reminder about a terrible era in cycling, one that must not be forgotten: as Millar reminds us, its only be realising what the past held, that its possible to move forward. Putting personality before substance is the wrong approach: we ignore the message at our peril.

No comments:

Post a Comment