Book Review "Magic Spanner" - Carlton Kirby, Bloomsbury 2023

Normally I'm quite on the ball when it comes to the release of new cycling books, so it was unlike me to not have noticed Carlton had written a sequel to "Magic Spanner". To be fair though it was probably the fact the covers and themes were so similar and I have found myself less active on social media, so it was only when I got an email from Bloomsbury regards their summer sale that I realised this had been released last year. 

This book differs very little from his first offering except this time around Sean Kelly as opposed to Daniel Lloyd should get a co-author credit since he is the source of so many of the anecdotes. There are other parallels in that Carlton is still never one to leave a national stereotype on the shelf- once again the only fully formed individuals are British folk or those from anglophone nations- everyone else is reduced to being a representative of the kind of stock national characteristics that formed so much of mainstream stand-up comedy of the 1970s and 80s. 

That isn't to say there isn't a lot of decent humour in the book- as well noted, Carlton is a good story-teller but occasionally there is the fear he will slip into full-on pub raconteur with opinions to match. Most females mentioned are described in terms of their attractiveness, although he does row back mostly, but it appears at times he is going after the golf-club bore audience. Also despite this only coming out last year, some of the content has aged horribly, though obviously this isn't a failing on his part. References to using GCN+ to watch races may rankle with those of us upset by how that excellent platform suddenly vanished and one chapter is basically an advert for Zwift, but lines like how Rohan Dennis is one of Carlton's favourite riders really jar when the tragic death of his wife is taken into consideration (again I emphasise that this happened after the book appeared). 

There are a few typos missed in the editing stage (a "heel" becomes "heal" and "break" in place of "brake") and I am also slightly mystified by the boxes after each chapter providing a glossary of cycling terms which anyone picking up the book would probably be more than au fait with (although these are alternated with some of the phrases Carlton regularly comes out with while commentating. 

 As in the first book, Carlton has fully embraced the "here I am, you can either like me or not, I don't care and I ain't changing" ethic. To be fair, he does attract a lot of opposing opinions when commentating and generally while I like him, I can see how he can be annoying at times ( but then again commentating on a 6 hour flat stage with so much air time to fill is going to throw up plenty of opportunities to get on people's nerves). This is ramped up to a higher level in this book, with Carlton not being too shy to blow his own trumpet ( I could say Cornet and make a link to the 1904 TdF but I think he did something similar in his last book). 

Overall the structure of the book is clever and introduces readers to some of the lesser-known races and there are a few laugh-out loud moments but this is all underpinned by the fear throughout that Carlton might go full Reform UK at any moment. While this generalisation is most probably unfair on the man, it does again leave the question as to who the book is targeted at- proper cycling fans who are generally a lot more internationalist in view or the type of person who certain tabloid newspapers want to appeal to by going for the lowest common denominator?

2022 Tour of Denmark

Results powered by FirstCycling.com

"Lapize- Now There Was an Ace... " by Jean Bobet (trans Adam Berry); 2010, Mousehold Press

I often rate Jean Bobet's "Tomorrow We Ride" as one of my favourite books so was interested to find this while randomly perusing a discounted books website. As a fan of Bobet's writing style and intrigued to be able to read about one of the early stars of our sport I was only too happy to purchase it. Before picking up this book I was only really aware that Lapize had been a Tour de France victor pre-World War One and like Faber had been killed during the conflict.

                                                               

 

Due to the shortness of his life and the paucity of reliable sources, it is no surprise that this is a reasonably short book but I still emerged with a much better understanding of Lapize. The book itself has the feel of a self-published work (I'm not saying it actually is, but layout and artwork give this impression ). However the actual style of the text was a bit disconcerting, almost as if a French edition had been run through Google Translate and printed. Anyone who knows Bobet (brother of Louison) will be aware that aside from his riding career, he taught at university in Edinburgh and was fluent in English, and this is still apparent when he pops up in interviews and articles today. I don't want to be doing this a disservice- perhaps Jean did choose a more "chatty" approach to this work, but at times it is almost like an oul fella at a bar trying to be a raconteur. Tone aside however, this is still a worthwhile read particularly if you want to find out more about Lapize without the fanciful elements of journalism that shaped the myths of the early roadmen more to sell papers than to provide fully accurate historical copy.

On Yer Bike for Soccer Aid

 "Don't watch this- it will only make you cross".

With these words my wife drew my attention to "On Yer Bike for Soccer Aid" last Sunday evening. It hadn't even started but, we have been together long enough now for her to know how I will react in most circumstances- so was she right on this ocassion?

The premise is simple enough- get a few famous people and break them into two teams - one "England", the other called "Rest of the World", despite it being two Irish folk, a Scot and someone from Wales. There is probably a lot of academic theses that could be written on that one element alone.

The teams then had to do a "stage" race against each other , one climb, one descent and one sprint stage, which all told add up to about 80kms. The overall purpose is to raise funds for UNICEF and not, of course, in any way whatsoever to allow the participants to promote themselves and their careers,not at all and you are a bad person for even considering that possibility...

The slebs all claim to have very little to none recent cycling experience, so along comes anti-establishment Knight of  the British Empire Bradders Wiggo to help them get used to road bikes they have never ridden before, using clipless pedals for the first time ever and STI gears which may as well have been beamed down from Mars. 

Basically the training appears to be Wiggins breaking them into their teams and taking each group for a ride up a slight incline, then down it again. And that seems it. Now the suspicion would normally be that the participants knew what they were getting into quite some time beforehand and had been preparing , and that there would have been more training off camera. However events on the ride seemed to convince me actually that was all they had. Even on the second stage, the descent, (so at least half-way through the challenge), one of the participants responded to being told to change up a gear by saying he still didn't know how. Now we all know from celebrity versions of quiz shows that large numbers of famous people are genuinely as thick as champ, but even so, following a climbing stage and still not knowing how the STIs work shows a severe lack of preparation, and wasn't simply a device to add "drama" and "conflict" because God forbid a TV show simply show what happened rather than manufacture scenarios. 

One of the participants ( a quick Google search revealed she was from Love Island) bailed on the first stage. Despite some encouragement from a team mate (a former boy band member and actor who seemed the most experienced of the lot when it came to cycling) she stopped and refused to go any further, before the road had even risen upwards properly. She then spent the rest of the show doing pieces to camera, without even the wit to look ashamed, and inevitably took a lot of flak on social media. To be honest I feel if she did go on the show to further her career, in a normal world her constant moaning and unwillingness to even try and see it through, and self-centred poor-me pieces to camera (which looked even worse when viewed alongside the UNICEF clips of children who really did draw the short straw in life) means she would never work again. However this isn't a normal world so I predict she will be UK PM or Irish Taoiseach within three years.

The first stage was cut short due to the rain, and some folk on Twitter seemed to think it should have been stopped as soon as the first drops fell, seemingly forgetting that if you don't ride your bike in the rain in Ireland or the UK. you aren't going to ride it very often. However if the riders were as inexperienced as they claimed to be, it can be easy for more seasoned cyclists to underplay the struggle this would have been, particularly for those folk not used to riding on 25mm tyres in the wet.

However as the show went on, it was clear my wife knows me very well as I got more and more annoyed by what I saw. It wasn't a great advert for cycling as, like some of those well-meaning-but-quite-annoyingly-twee GCN videos which are patronising to those who ride bikes, and not very inspiring for those who don't, making it look much harder and less fun than it really is. Also I can't see UNICEF/ Soccer Aid benefitting that much- donations were bound to have been negatively impacted by the ex-Love Islander on her own, never mind the fact that the Piers Moron-Morgan fanboys had it in for one of the other contestants due to his role in Trump's mate walking off a morning TV show (and I'm guessing the ex Mirror editor's fans also had an issue with Alex's skin colour too, if their Twitter posts were anything to go by). 

 

While it may be easy to blame the participants for the failings of the show, I tend to think this lets the producers off too easily. Surely the teams should have been given more than a few hours to get aquainted to the bikes, and maybe a week or two to find their climbing legs? It was clear looking at the logistics in place to run the rides ( proper start and finish lines, security outriders, police escorts etc) that the show wasn't thrown together in a couple of days, so why didn't the riders get more warning to help them prepare better? 

As I write, the whole Soccer Aid thing is still ongoing with other events, finishing with a soccer match involving more famous people so there is no figure as to how much this one show raised (or didn't raise). However I feel it was a good concept very badly executed and in the end the charity will be the one to suffer, and it won't have encouraged too many more out on bikes either.

 

Performative Helmet Wearing

 Yes, just what every cycling blog needs- the traditional helmet debate! 

Actually I am hoping to avoid going down the well-travelled route normally found on Road.cc and  other sites- where these types of posts are designed, like their "Close Miss of the Day" videos to keep visitors engaging even when there is no actual cycling happening. These simply result in the exact same people, making the exact same points and getting bent out of shape. Most sensible folks tend to stay well clear but there are always those folk who can't help themselves. I did jump in early to such a debate in 2015 on Road.cc where I tried to save everyone the time by predicting and summarising all the points that would be made, which was well received by those who were fed up with what is the cycling equivalent of Goodwin's Law, but due to the unique, world-beating tech used on that site, it has been next to impossible to simply search for my previous posts and re-share here. (Apologies for veering off into a critique of Road.cc- that will be a post for another day).

Anyway, what has prompted this dipping of a toe into the world of libertarian toddler tantrums versus those who think helmets have magical protection powers? Has the University of Bath Research which showed that wearing a helmet means drivers actually conduct more dangerous passes been updated? Has another pro been quoted either in or out of context when asked about skid lids? Has Chris Broadman caused controversy by riding a bike on TV without one, where he rightly states helmet-wearing isn't even in the Top Ten of things to keep cyclists safe? 

Actually it was the more performative approach to helmet use that inspired this article. What do I mean by this? Basically that helmet use has become so fetishised and taken on a symbology that, in my mind, over-estimates their effectiveness and in some cases this use actually makes them more dangerous. I will come back to that second part later but my thoughts around the first element really came to the fore a few days ago. I was walking near the local public park, which has well delinated cycle lanes and I saw an older couple on a tricycle built for two. It was lovely to see since they could make their way around the lakes at their own pace together. It was a robust machine and safer than a bike since they obviously won't fall off if they stop pedalling- and in fact as a stable platform it was safer even than walking since they didn't need any semblance of balance at all. However they were both wearing helmets which struck me as odd. They wouldn't wear them walking the same route yet they would be more likely to come a cropper by tripping and falling than coming off thier trike. What they were doing was probably the safest version of cycling possible, yet were better protected than someone descending Alpe d'Huez. 

So what is the problem with that you may ask? It is no skin off your nose what they chose to do- and I agree to a point. But what they were doing unconsciously was adding a perception of danger that didn't exist. And that leads to wider misconceptions among the general populace as to what bike helmets are for, and what they can do. Let's not forget- normally the first question a lot of people ask when they hear about a bike accident isn't how did the infrastructure or actions of the driver contribute to it? It is "Were they wearing a helmet?" as if that is all that is required to keep us safe, and if a helmet is not used then the cyclist was basically to blame, no matter the circumstances.

The second aspect of performative helmet wearing falls into the category of simply slapping it on your head- after all, as long as you are wearing one, right? But I lose count of the number of folk on bikes with their helmet sitting at a jaunty angle and too loose- in fact it looks like more of a balancing act to keep it on their head. Now Tao Geoghan Hart and Primoz Roglic may have rocked that look (to be fair to Primoz only once during that fateful 2020 Tour de France stage 20 TT; Tao seems to embrace it on a more regular basis) but an ill-fitting helmet isn't just reducing its effectiveness- in some cases it actually makes the situation more dangerous. A badly fitted or poorly-secured helmet can result in the head and neck being twisted or pulled in a direction that can add to injury in the result of a tumble- in some cases the rider would have been better off without anything at all. People who wear their helmets in this fashion clearly assume that they aren't going to come off, but still feel the need to wear one- whether this is societal pressure or they have bought into the "magic-plastic-Noddy-hat-that-staves-off-all-evil" mindset isn't always clear.

So this isn't an anti- or pro-helmet screed. Like most normal people my opinion is simple- while I don't agree with compulsory wearing and am very much aware of their limitations, I still wear one. It isn't going to stop an  unskilled rushing 4x4 , distracted tired HGV or plain ignorant taxi driver ending a ride prematurely and permanently but I may be thankful if I can't clip out when coming to a stop some time.  But rest assured I will sure as hell make sure the helmet fits and is securely fastened, and if there is a shared trike in my future then a retro casquette with sufficent luft will be atop my head instead!

How Long Can We Continue to Ignore the Trend of Problematic Sponsors?

Every fan knows cycling's funding model has always been dependent on sponsors- so much so that entire teams change their names depending on who is signing the cheques which can be confusing for those used to other sports. After all while Newton Heath became Manchester United in the 1900s, things have been pretty consistent for almost 120 years. Now explain how Reynolds is Banesto is Illes Balears is Caisse d'Eparge is Movistar, or how Lotto-Soudal become Lotto-Fixall for Paris-Nice and then revert back again. Net App? Don't you mean Bora Hansgrohe? And while Fignon did change the ownership model back with Systeme U, the pre-eminence of sponsors hasn't changed. 

There was some controversy in the past when Magni persuaded Nivea to sponsor his team, generally held to be the first time a funder from outside the sport was able to come on board, although something similar had happened at the Vuelta before this more famous example. That caused waves then and you can't help but give a wry smile when reading about how much of an issue that is, whereas today the general assumption seems to be that people simply don't care where the money is coming from. 

This really came into focus for me over the past few days. Out of the final GC podium in the 2021 Giro, the sponsors behind the teams of first and second place also pop up in the most recent issue of Private Eye. INEOS for their usual greenwashing in relation to their impact on the environment ( never mind the fact the addition of "Grenadiers" is to promote another un-needed addition to the list of items desired by selfish middle-class parents and those type of men who never got over the military fixation that most of us moved past by the time puberty had ended). And let's not forget the Murdoch connection with their previous sponsors.

 Bahrain made their regular appearance in the magazine due to their human rights abuses and Tory ex-ministers cosying up to them (in this case Alan Duncan).  The Bahrian Wikipedia entry includes this:

'The period between 1975 and 1999 known as the "State Security Law Era", saw wide range of human rights violations including arbitrary arrests, detention without trial, torture and forced exile.^[183][184] After the Emir Hamad Al Khalifa (now king) succeeded his father Isa Al Khalifa in 1999, he introduced wide reforms and human rights improved significantly.^[185] These moves were described by Amnesty International as representing a "historic period of human rights".^[107]

Human rights conditions started to decline by 2007 when torture began to be employed again.^[186] In 2011, Human Rights Watch described the country's human rights situation as "dismal".'

 

And of course bully-in-chief in the UK Home Office makes an appearance (Priti Patel's links to Bahrain Torturer) . 

Even third place in the Giro doesn't come with clean hands- while Bike Exchange may seem safe enough let's not forget that initially the team was Orica-Greenedge; while the latter part of the name was simply a placeholder, the headliner is an Australian mining company, again with the associated environmental impact.

Further down the peloton we also have Astana, Israel Start Up and UAE, again not without their political controversies.

The UCI , ASO and RCS in the process of "mondialisation" have also found themselves  willing facilitators in allowing the sport to find itself in an awkward position. The Jerusalem start of the Giro in 2018 and the pressure needed before the 2021 UEC European Track Championships were eventually taken away from Belarus were portrayed as using the sport as a unifier as opposed to validating certain actions. I'm not going to get into the rights or wrongs on this here but the issue always comes down to those who say sport isn't about politics, which is pure bullshit- everything is about politics, and those that use this argument are either extremely niave or, more likely,  are happy enough with the status quo and generally don't want to improve things for people who aren't them.

So yes the sport needs investment to stay alive- but then actual people need certain sponsors to take responsibilty to allow them to literally stay alive. In a world with so much information and high levels of awareness around how certain countries and international corporations are screwing over the most vulnerable, how much longer are cycling fans going to feel comfortable with our need to see the best men and women racing bikes overriding our basic human empathy and care? As more and more populist right wing regimes go from strength to strength and the Overton Window has been pushed so far that Boris Johnson can emerge from situations, that for  anyone with common decency should have resulted in the end of their political career,  with increased support my sad conclusion is that many people are just going to feel perfectly okay with this. So how long before BAE or other weapons manufacturers decide to fund a team? What about Team Oath Keepers or QAnon CC? As it stands really Qhubeka Assos are probably the most ethical team and prove that such a set up can exist (albeit with a struggle), so what can be done to attract a higher quality of sponsor for many of the other teams?  Maybe, just maybe the UCI could put more of an emphasis on this with this now the important isses of the supertuck, sock height and bidon disposal rules have been put to rest.

Book Review: Icons: My Inspiration. My Motivation. My Obsession. by Bradley Wiggins and Herbie Sykes; 2018, HarperCollins

 

 

 

For someone who likes to portray himself as an iconoclast, it may seem strange for Bradley Wiggins to be involved in such a project. However his love for cycling, its history, protagonists, pageantry and traditions is well know and is an interesting angle to come at in thiswork. While he looks at riders from through the years who inspired him to take up what was an unfashionable sport in Britain at the time, it is part history lesson, part-autobiography.

It is well illustrated with items from his own collections, genuine jerseys worn by those who he writes about and with some interesting photos. Each rider has his own chapter (no room for Beryl Burton, which as Wiggins was essentially a time trialist who lost enough weight to stick with the climbers, is a big omission,although I suppose we can't define other folks heroes for them). The inclusion of Armstrong raised some hackles at the time but, on the flip side we can't say that the Texan didn't have an impact. Whether we like it or not he was a part of our history and it would be more dangerous to pretend he didn't exist and write him out totally. It is also where Wiggins (helped by Herbie Sykes) is able to reflect on his own experiences and how these are mirrored by the lives of the riders he is ostensibly discussing. This allows him to avoid having to deal with some of the more unsavoury episodes some of these people were involved in, normally using the formula "rider x had a difficult time on this Tour, which reminds me of when y happened to me".

In many cases Wiggins is very clear about how he liked winning the Tour but didn't like being a Tour winner, with all of the issues that caused him. There is also some insight into Froome's actions on that 2012 Tour, that while interesting, allow for more distractions away from things he may not want to talk about in regards his subjects.

In fact there are often entire chapters where the rider meant to be the topic of discussion is only mentioned at the start and the end, with the main section being about Wiggins himself.  In effect this is almost an autobiography in disguise.

However the whole package does reflect the contradictions within Wiggins himself. On one hand he wants to present himself as the perennial outsider (being a cyclist from an early age, the influence of his father and mother, growing up in an age when soccer was the mainstay of sport), but on the other he still plays up the laddish persona  that so many males adopt to try and fit in with some perceived notion of this is what men do. He even mentions that his favourite photo of all is Nencini having a cigarette after winning the Tour (never mind that Nencini died of cancer at 50)- the sort of stuff that really looks like someone trying hard to be cool,  and as I mentioned in the beginning, an iconoclast (though how much of a laddish outsider you can be with the three letters "S", "I" and "R" in front of your name is up for debate).  He wants to be seen at the centre of his sport in one way but also wants to retreat from this as well.  No matter what persona he tries to adopt, this book appears to be Wiggins is still trying to find out who he is and while on the surface the main focus is supposedly on the other riders featured, behind it all is a man who is still tryign to shape an image that he can be comfortable in.