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.

Team Sky and the Soccer-isation of Cycling

Let's clear up one thing at the start- this is not yet another attack (or defence) of how Sky have handled recent developments. There are plenty of other places where the whys-and-wherefores are being picked apart. While Sky's earlier promotion of their own cleaner-than-clean-you-can-trust-us PR image more or less guaranteed  that this situation was going to arise just as a politician who fronts an anti-drink driving campaign will inevitably be caught behind the wheel with a few Dan Lloyd mineral-waters consumed, this is more about what the reactions say about how cycling and cycling fandom has changed, particularly in Britain.

If, like most normal people, you actually read the title of this piece before  the main body, then you can probably guess where this is going. And I don't mean "soccerisation" in relation to the influx of money- well not totally, because Sky's approach to buying up any potential challengers and adding them to the team may sound familar but I mean more about fan dynamics. Ever since 2012, with Wiggo fever and so-called newspapers, that are more likely to be found on the dashboards of sociopaths happy to run cyclists off the road, offering free cut-out sideburns, the British were percieved to have suddenly developed an interest in the sport.  The UK Cycling Expert Twitter feed in particular is a hilarious and genius creation that parodies the new converts. Now this isn't slating new fans- it is indeed a joyus thing to attract new supporters and it is what the sport needs to grow and thrive. However looking at some of the reactions to Sky's recent difficulties seems to suggest that many new British followers are bringing a soccer fan's attitudes across, and this may not be so healthy.

Basically put there are traditions associated with being a football fan in the UK. I say this as an outsider because I don't actually follow it and I am in Ireland (so some of this is also relevant to GAA fans) but when it is more acceptable for politicans to be caught out in a lie about supporting a team than simply saying they aren't really all that into it , there is a lot of social and cultural capital in adhereing to certain customs and attitudes. However these don't translate so well to cycling.

For example I have seen many people feel almost offended that someone else dares to support a different team to them. Twitter exchanges I have seen from people who would otherwise have a lot of common, degenerate into real insults and the calling of the other person's intelligence into question. It tends to lapse into that unthinking brand of patriotism that the UK and USA seem to do so well- basically "this-is-my-team/country-so-are-unable-to-do-any-wrong-because-they-are-MY-team/country-and-any-highlighting-their-shortcomings-is-treachery". And that has largely been a lot of the reaction to the media coverage of Sky (and the irony of a Murdoch linked body complaining about bias and unfair reporting is just too delicious to let pass without comment!). I have a rule of thumb that says as soon as someone calls the questioning of an individual or body a "witch hunt", they may as well run up a flag that says "guilty" and this is one of the terms that keeps popping up in discussions. Simply reporting the fact Sky has been asked questions and their answers found somewhat wanting is now seen as bias and "tall poppy syndrome". Repeated slogans and mantras of groupthink ("haters are going to hate"; "witch hunt";  "the media love to build people up and knock them down" etc) are being used against people making relevant enquiries to try and get to the bottom of what has been going on.  The questioning of "my team" is now seen as a direct personal attack on the individual fan, since they are the ones who have chosen to hitch their wagon to Brailsford's band of brothers (with no room for the sisters according to Jess Varnish. Lizzie Deignan and Nicole Cooke).

This approach to fandom is really quite alien to cycling. Most die-hards are fans of particular riders rather than teams- indeed it is hard to give allegiance to a team whose name (and nationality) can change from season to season based on who is paying the rider's wages. There is also the fact that many people will have a team they support for the Classics, another for the Grand Tours and their national squad for the Olympics or World Championships. Sky in many ways are the cycling equivalent of the late 90s-early 2000s Manchester United- they are an easy team for the late-comer or casual observer to get behind because of their success and British identity (is it wrong to point out that neither of Sky's Tour winners were actually born in the UK...?) and being a well funded operation. The tribalism of soccer is not needed in cycling and in fact could be quite damaging.  New fans are very welcome and are to be encouraged, but they also need to be reminded that the structures and traditions of our sport do not fare well when people become so blinded to team loyalty that they are unwilling for questions to be asked. One reason Lance got away with what he did for so long was an unwillingness and inability to openly question. If a Sky fan gets bent out of shape every time a team rider gets asked about doping they would end up ressembling the route map for the Ronde van Vlaanderen. It is unfortunate but for journalists doing their jobs means that Chris Froome is going to have to answer the same question thrown at him in various languages every day he wears yellow. To be fair to Froome, he handles this with grace and politeness, so maybe the Sky fans need to learn from him, and await the outcomes of the UKADA investigation before feeling put upon.

This week's Cycling Weekly included the results of a poll around attitudes to Sky and the vast majority of printed responses went more for attacking the journalists and MPs than actually engaging with the premise of the question. However, at the risk of falling into the trap of stereotyping nationalities I ask this- if it had been Katusha or Astana in the firing line would the Sky (and British Cycling) fans be responding to it in the same way?