TV Sport 7: Le Mod
I love the Tour de France. I've loved it since 1987 when Stephen Roche of Ireland won it, and there were half hour shows on Channel 4 at 6.30 with Phil Liggett, Paul Sherwen and Gary Imlach. I've loved it pretty much every year since then, through the LeMond years and the Indurain years, the Armstrong years and the Contador years. I loved tough men like Sean Kelly, climbers and time trialists like Miguel Indurain, sprinters like Djamolodine Abdoujaparov, The Tashkent Terror.
It's the most spectated sporting event in the world and, for me, is the most taxing, most glorious, most storied. So, they all took drugs. When I say all, I don't mean all, because that's not true and I really don't know - but, it's relatively safe to estimate that for the first 20 years that I was watching it, it was probably, at any one time, somewhere between 50 and 98% of the top cyclists who were using illegal methods to sustain their extraordinary performances.
But still I love the Tour de France, even though for those 20 years there was very little in the way of British interest - to start with there were the great Irishmen Roche and Sean Kelly, who now provides the most wonderfully deadpan informed commentary with his Limerick-via-years in France accent. There was a Scot, Robert Millar, then various decent Brits like Sean Yates and Chris Boardman when he had a brief go at it, then another unrelated Scot David Millar, who got caught blood doping and rather blew the lid on the whole gaff. But apart from Roche that one time, none of them were ever GC contenders or even close to it. The idea of a Brit winning the Tour was outlandish - you needed to grow up going up and down mountains, the theory went, you needed a whole different kind of lungs.
So, here's the thing. Now, two British men have won the Tour de France, one born in Belgium, the other in Kenya. Sadly, there's a rift, a public rift where everyone's taking sides. I side with the first one to win it (in 2012), Bradley Wiggins, and here's why.
Cos I love him and he's cool.
No, I'll do a lot better than that. He's clearly cussed and selfish and ... is such a forced mod look really that cool in 2014? That's not why I side with Bradley Wiggins.
I have always liked him, though, since the 2004 Olympics, where I enjoyed his sarcasm and his offbeat responses and his appearance on the TV show Superstars where, despite being one of the finest cyclists in the world, his legs seemed literally incapable of running, which was funny.
Then came the 2008 Olympics, where Britain were now the dominant kings of world track cycling, and Chris Hoy became Sir Chris Hoy and Sports Personality for 3 gold medals. Wiggins got 2 golds, but he was rude and not as statesmanlike as Hoy and still made little dent on the public consciousness.
And so far, little dent on the Tour de France. He'd had a couple of gos in the intervening years but with no great hooplah. Wiggins is essentially a time trialist - he can ride and ride a tempo remorselessly. His background is not in the mountains, and it is almost unheard of for a track cyclist to go on to success in the Tour. It's like an 800m becoming a great marathon runner, or maybe even a 400m runner is a closer comparison.
He went along to the 2009 tour as a support rider for the Garmin-Sharp team, with the now morally redeemed David Millar amongst his team mates. That was the Tour of Lance Armstrong's grand return (how wonderful that if he hadn't arrogantly made that comeback he might never have been caught), Contador and Andy Schleck. Cycling was beginning to emerge from its dark ages of essentially licensed doping - there was finally a general impetus to begin to sort it out, or the sport really might die (beginning is the operative word ...).
My British interest was primarily in the new sprint sensation, Mark Cavendish, and he did not disappoint that year, with an astonishing 6 stage wins. But as the stages progressed, Wiggins was riding rather well. He was meant to be the main support to his Garmin team mate Christian Vande Velde, but he was generally sticking to the top. No doubt he'd fall away when the tougher mountain stages came about ...
But, astonishingly, Vande Velde faded, but Wiggins didn't. He managed to hang on to the backwheel of Contador, Schleck and Armstrong better than anyone. He finished 4th, the joint highest a British cyclist had ever finished in the Tour.
This performance is extremely important, as I shall get to. Wiggins was not riding for the Sky "machine", nor was he favoured or supported. It is also the case that of the three men who finished above him that year, only Andy Schleck has avoided any direct link with doping, though his brother and team mate Frank has failed a test and there are suspicions.
Wiggins then moved to Sky and great things were expected, but the next couple of years were a pair of let downs in terms of the Tour de France. The 2011 Vuelta a Espana, however, saw a significant development. Wiggins was able to compete at the top, but so was his Sky team mate, the Brit via Kenya and South Africa, Chris Froome. In the end, Wiggins was 3rd overall, Froome 2nd by just a few seconds, and it's believed Froome was frustrated at losing out on the chance to win by supporting Wiggins.
Anyway, 2012 came about, and Wiggins was clearly on great form - he won pretty much every race he was in with his combination of solid climbing and exceptional time trialling. The tour course was perfect for him, with a lot of time trialling and not too much in the way of fearsome mountains.
He was to be Sky's leader, Froome his Number 2. Was this really going to be it? No Contador (doping ban, no Andy Schleck (injured) - Wiggins was favourite! I'd always thought to myself that if a Brit managed to win the Tour de France it would be the singular greatest, most unlikely achievement in the history of British sport, and yet, here it was, a genuine possibility.
I watched avidly that year. And, gradually, inexorably, it happened. In fact, the truth is, much as it was one of the best things I ever saw, it was a little anti-climactic. With Froome as a buffer and only one rival prepared or capable of having a real go, Vincenzo Nibali, Wiggins's eventual triumph was a procession. He stayed near the front and he won the time trials. Simple.
But there was drama. Internal and hinted-at drama. Twitter battles, odd glances, and, at one point, Froome making an attack which Wiggins couldn't go with, and then being called back in a panic. That's not the script, Froomey. It really wasn't. It was not cool. It made explicit the fact that Froome thought he was the better rider, that he could win it himself if he wanted, that he was being held up, a theme various folk enthusiastically took up, and which clearly took the gloss off the victory for Wiggins.
Which is all tremendously unfair. Because Wiggins won that race from Froome by over 3 minutes, time he made on the time trials and also from a split in the pack on an earlier stage. This was not time Froome voluntarily gave up to Wiggins. So, for Froome to have beaten Wiggins in a "straight fight" that year, he'd have had to be 3 mins 21 seconds faster in the mountains.
No one denies, least of all Wiggins himself, that Froome was then (and even more so is now) a more explosive, brilliant climber, capable of riding away from groups far more than Wiggins is. Wiggins' background in time trialler makes him a rhythm rider. He's a great climber because he maintains a tempo and doesn't break. At his best, people might burst away from him, but given time, he'll reel them back in. It's a disingenouus red herring of the highest order to suggest that Froome should have won the 2012 Tour de France. If he'd have been given his head, sure, he'd have got some seconds off Wiggins, maybe up to a minute. But 3 minutes. No way. What Froome did there was disloyal, disrespectful and also misleading. There have been many times, clearly, in this saga, where both men have tried to gain the upper hand and not necessarily acted the best, but Froome's attempt to imply that he deserved that year's tour, both with words and actions, is the one great unacceptable act. Sly bugger.
Anyway, clearly any relationship they had has been damaged irreparably. Wiggins had a terrible 2013, Froome's was glorious, and the initiative and the power is all his, to the extent that Wiggins, despite his expressed desire to ride support for Froome, is unlikely to be selected even as team member for the 2014 Tour. How can this be anything other than personal by Froome. For all that he may have his favourite grinding support riders, they let him down at several points in 2013's and he had ride on his own several times. Of course a fit strong Wiggins would be a boon for the team. I mean, of course he would. Froome will probably win this year's tour without Wiggins, but should he suddenly be exposed, left alone, against a resurgent Contador, and lose the Tour by a few seconds, I think I'll be secretly pleased.
Froome's rather taken the fun out of the unspeakable glory of a Brit winning the Tour de France. It's not that he's not a fabulous, exciting sportsman with an extraordinary story, it's not even that I think he's not a nice guy - people generally say that he is. It is also tremendous that they are both clean cyclists leading the tour out of years of darkness - yes, I truly believe both are clean.
But he was not prepared to wait his turn, as he should have done, and he made a big show of it in a sly and slightly dishonest way. He took the glory away from his team mate, who deserved that glory, who was the right man to win the Tour de France that year, who had shown three years earlier, that his style of relentless climbing was capable of winning the Tour where few had thought it possible. I shall always hold Wiggins' win in higher esteem, will always think it a more remarkable achievement. But each to their own.
It's the most spectated sporting event in the world and, for me, is the most taxing, most glorious, most storied. So, they all took drugs. When I say all, I don't mean all, because that's not true and I really don't know - but, it's relatively safe to estimate that for the first 20 years that I was watching it, it was probably, at any one time, somewhere between 50 and 98% of the top cyclists who were using illegal methods to sustain their extraordinary performances.
But still I love the Tour de France, even though for those 20 years there was very little in the way of British interest - to start with there were the great Irishmen Roche and Sean Kelly, who now provides the most wonderfully deadpan informed commentary with his Limerick-via-years in France accent. There was a Scot, Robert Millar, then various decent Brits like Sean Yates and Chris Boardman when he had a brief go at it, then another unrelated Scot David Millar, who got caught blood doping and rather blew the lid on the whole gaff. But apart from Roche that one time, none of them were ever GC contenders or even close to it. The idea of a Brit winning the Tour was outlandish - you needed to grow up going up and down mountains, the theory went, you needed a whole different kind of lungs.
So, here's the thing. Now, two British men have won the Tour de France, one born in Belgium, the other in Kenya. Sadly, there's a rift, a public rift where everyone's taking sides. I side with the first one to win it (in 2012), Bradley Wiggins, and here's why.
Cos I love him and he's cool.
No, I'll do a lot better than that. He's clearly cussed and selfish and ... is such a forced mod look really that cool in 2014? That's not why I side with Bradley Wiggins.
I have always liked him, though, since the 2004 Olympics, where I enjoyed his sarcasm and his offbeat responses and his appearance on the TV show Superstars where, despite being one of the finest cyclists in the world, his legs seemed literally incapable of running, which was funny.
Then came the 2008 Olympics, where Britain were now the dominant kings of world track cycling, and Chris Hoy became Sir Chris Hoy and Sports Personality for 3 gold medals. Wiggins got 2 golds, but he was rude and not as statesmanlike as Hoy and still made little dent on the public consciousness.
And so far, little dent on the Tour de France. He'd had a couple of gos in the intervening years but with no great hooplah. Wiggins is essentially a time trialist - he can ride and ride a tempo remorselessly. His background is not in the mountains, and it is almost unheard of for a track cyclist to go on to success in the Tour. It's like an 800m becoming a great marathon runner, or maybe even a 400m runner is a closer comparison.
He went along to the 2009 tour as a support rider for the Garmin-Sharp team, with the now morally redeemed David Millar amongst his team mates. That was the Tour of Lance Armstrong's grand return (how wonderful that if he hadn't arrogantly made that comeback he might never have been caught), Contador and Andy Schleck. Cycling was beginning to emerge from its dark ages of essentially licensed doping - there was finally a general impetus to begin to sort it out, or the sport really might die (beginning is the operative word ...).
My British interest was primarily in the new sprint sensation, Mark Cavendish, and he did not disappoint that year, with an astonishing 6 stage wins. But as the stages progressed, Wiggins was riding rather well. He was meant to be the main support to his Garmin team mate Christian Vande Velde, but he was generally sticking to the top. No doubt he'd fall away when the tougher mountain stages came about ...
But, astonishingly, Vande Velde faded, but Wiggins didn't. He managed to hang on to the backwheel of Contador, Schleck and Armstrong better than anyone. He finished 4th, the joint highest a British cyclist had ever finished in the Tour.
This performance is extremely important, as I shall get to. Wiggins was not riding for the Sky "machine", nor was he favoured or supported. It is also the case that of the three men who finished above him that year, only Andy Schleck has avoided any direct link with doping, though his brother and team mate Frank has failed a test and there are suspicions.
Wiggins then moved to Sky and great things were expected, but the next couple of years were a pair of let downs in terms of the Tour de France. The 2011 Vuelta a Espana, however, saw a significant development. Wiggins was able to compete at the top, but so was his Sky team mate, the Brit via Kenya and South Africa, Chris Froome. In the end, Wiggins was 3rd overall, Froome 2nd by just a few seconds, and it's believed Froome was frustrated at losing out on the chance to win by supporting Wiggins.
Anyway, 2012 came about, and Wiggins was clearly on great form - he won pretty much every race he was in with his combination of solid climbing and exceptional time trialling. The tour course was perfect for him, with a lot of time trialling and not too much in the way of fearsome mountains.
He was to be Sky's leader, Froome his Number 2. Was this really going to be it? No Contador (doping ban, no Andy Schleck (injured) - Wiggins was favourite! I'd always thought to myself that if a Brit managed to win the Tour de France it would be the singular greatest, most unlikely achievement in the history of British sport, and yet, here it was, a genuine possibility.
I watched avidly that year. And, gradually, inexorably, it happened. In fact, the truth is, much as it was one of the best things I ever saw, it was a little anti-climactic. With Froome as a buffer and only one rival prepared or capable of having a real go, Vincenzo Nibali, Wiggins's eventual triumph was a procession. He stayed near the front and he won the time trials. Simple.
But there was drama. Internal and hinted-at drama. Twitter battles, odd glances, and, at one point, Froome making an attack which Wiggins couldn't go with, and then being called back in a panic. That's not the script, Froomey. It really wasn't. It was not cool. It made explicit the fact that Froome thought he was the better rider, that he could win it himself if he wanted, that he was being held up, a theme various folk enthusiastically took up, and which clearly took the gloss off the victory for Wiggins.
Which is all tremendously unfair. Because Wiggins won that race from Froome by over 3 minutes, time he made on the time trials and also from a split in the pack on an earlier stage. This was not time Froome voluntarily gave up to Wiggins. So, for Froome to have beaten Wiggins in a "straight fight" that year, he'd have had to be 3 mins 21 seconds faster in the mountains.
No one denies, least of all Wiggins himself, that Froome was then (and even more so is now) a more explosive, brilliant climber, capable of riding away from groups far more than Wiggins is. Wiggins' background in time trialler makes him a rhythm rider. He's a great climber because he maintains a tempo and doesn't break. At his best, people might burst away from him, but given time, he'll reel them back in. It's a disingenouus red herring of the highest order to suggest that Froome should have won the 2012 Tour de France. If he'd have been given his head, sure, he'd have got some seconds off Wiggins, maybe up to a minute. But 3 minutes. No way. What Froome did there was disloyal, disrespectful and also misleading. There have been many times, clearly, in this saga, where both men have tried to gain the upper hand and not necessarily acted the best, but Froome's attempt to imply that he deserved that year's tour, both with words and actions, is the one great unacceptable act. Sly bugger.
Anyway, clearly any relationship they had has been damaged irreparably. Wiggins had a terrible 2013, Froome's was glorious, and the initiative and the power is all his, to the extent that Wiggins, despite his expressed desire to ride support for Froome, is unlikely to be selected even as team member for the 2014 Tour. How can this be anything other than personal by Froome. For all that he may have his favourite grinding support riders, they let him down at several points in 2013's and he had ride on his own several times. Of course a fit strong Wiggins would be a boon for the team. I mean, of course he would. Froome will probably win this year's tour without Wiggins, but should he suddenly be exposed, left alone, against a resurgent Contador, and lose the Tour by a few seconds, I think I'll be secretly pleased.
Froome's rather taken the fun out of the unspeakable glory of a Brit winning the Tour de France. It's not that he's not a fabulous, exciting sportsman with an extraordinary story, it's not even that I think he's not a nice guy - people generally say that he is. It is also tremendous that they are both clean cyclists leading the tour out of years of darkness - yes, I truly believe both are clean.
But he was not prepared to wait his turn, as he should have done, and he made a big show of it in a sly and slightly dishonest way. He took the glory away from his team mate, who deserved that glory, who was the right man to win the Tour de France that year, who had shown three years earlier, that his style of relentless climbing was capable of winning the Tour where few had thought it possible. I shall always hold Wiggins' win in higher esteem, will always think it a more remarkable achievement. But each to their own.
Comments
Post a Comment