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?

TdF 2016-The story so far - Uncertainities and orthodoxies challenged...

So the Tour is at its half way point- how has it been so far? I could think of all kinds of adjectives and clichés, although saying I have already been accused of being inebriated by the exuberance of my own verbosity this evening (albeit in a slightly unrelated contexts) I will try and avoid this.

If there is one thing I hate about modern life it is "obviousness"- when people say or do things you know they are going to do, which you and they know isn't original but they still feel the urge to carry out. You can test this out in everyday life by simply carrying a box of chocolates or bunch of flowers past a group of people and time how long it takes someone to say "You shouldn't have"- the quickest I have experienced is 19 seconds. But cycling, and the Tour in particular, has its own problems in this regard. See the raft of "white shorts" articles that appear after every World Championships win, the "Tour can't be won here but can be lost" phrase, the people who only ever appear on cycling forums during these three weeks to roll out the stock "How can it be called a Tour of France if it goes into Andorra/ Spain/ The Netherlands/ Switzerland etc?" or "jokes" around doping (yes- we all know the one about "fair play to Lance- when I use drugs I can't even ride a bike"), stuff about shaved legs, Rule V and so on. Hopefully though, this year will finally kill off the most tired, lazy and inaccurate of myths- that of the "curse of the Rainbow Jersey" thanks to Armitstead and Sagan's performances.  While even Cav wearing the stripes winning on the Champs Elysees after being lead out by the maillot jaune couldn't stop the trope being recycled every year since, any hack spotted space-filling after Sep with this nonsense should be banned from writing about cycling and their race accreditation given to me!

And thereby hangs the link to the Grand Boucle so far- it has been a lesson in throwing out old uncertainties. Each year many journalists and writers, under pressure for print deadlines, contribute to various guides to that years events. This is often a problem since this is actually the first year I can remember that all of the big hitters promoted in the guides made it to the start of stage 1. Wiggins, Kittel and Matthews are just a few off the top of my head who stared out at me from the guides, despite, at that stage, sitting at home watching the Grand Depart. This year though generally everyone who was expected to be there was, but really in many cases that is the most accurate offering due to this TdF not going according to script.

 The challenge to certainities came straight off the bat. Stage One had Kittel and Griepel as favourites in nearly every preview I read. Cav barely merited a mention, or if he did appear, was favoured only if it didn't come down to a traditional sprint. Fast forward a few hours and suddenly many hacks were cursing the existence of internet caches. At least when predictions went awry in the past, it was in printed magazines that were either chucked or added to a pile that, despite best intentions, were never re-read. No such luxury these days!

Stage 2 probably did generally stick to the script, though again Cav bucked it a little by not losing as much time as other sprinters in his respectful defence of the jersey. Then to win another two sprints, including head-to-head with Kittel again- the Manxman's role in helping shape the narrative as a "Tour-unlike-others" has been large.

A few days later, the yellow jersey worn by van Avermaet, being allowed in the break, Cummings powering away from a group including Nibali to win and the flamme rouge collapsing, all added to the departure from the mean (well maybe not Cummings performance based on his other stage wins this year and the chance to stick two fingers up at the GB Olympic Selectors). The top of the GC standings included 3 Brits and an Irishman; three out of the four jerseys were held by those with UK citizenship; 5 of the first 8 stages were also won by individuals entitled to vote in the EU Referendum- (as an aside-if article 50 is invoked will they have to apply for work visas alongside the South Americans and Africans?). What odds would have been offered on Dimension Data leading the number of stage wins by the half-way point?


Also include Froome's victory after attacking on the descent and today's escape with Sagan to disrupt what all the guides say was a nailed on sprint stage, Contador's falls and abandon, Pinot and Porte losing time so early on (and the latter seemingly acting as a fifth columnist to distance van Garderen on the ride into Andorra), Nibali seemingly reverting to riding like a normal rider rather than a possible GC plan B or gregario deluxe for Aru... for some riders like Cav, a winding back of the clock. to others a fast forwarding of a calendar based on their form.

Yet despite all these surprises and deviation from the accepted storyline, is it really sucha shock? 2016 itself has been such a volatile year, when unpredicatabilty has ruled and many orthodoxies abandoned, why shouldn't the Tour follow suit?  Yet still predictions are being made based on old indicators. Froome has this tied down already reads the thread of dominant thinking, especailly after today and the fact the Ventoux stage has been truncated. But if I have learned anything over the past month- actually past 7 months- it is that things cannot be taken for granted. Remember Sky have been pulling everyone along, giving Movistar an easy ride. Week three is backloaded with 4 hard stages in succession- are Sky burning their matches too early? While Quintana has been accused of letting the race head up the road without him remember- even with his heroics today, Froome only took 12 seconds on Nairo. The energy he used today and on his great escape on stage 8 will have to be paid for eventually-  has it been worth it for a 35 second lead at this stage? The Time Trails are hillier than usual so the Colombian will not lose as much time as he would in more traditional chrono parcours.

So the lesson? Well as usual my Twitter feed is full of pessimistic individuals saying that the Tour is over already. But I say this- look at everything that is going on in the world, look at today's stage (number 11 Carcassonne to Montpellier) and embrace the chaos and uncertainity- if there has ever been a time in recent memory when we can discard the expected linear narrative it is now!

Team Kit 2016- Canyon-SRAM

After the dispiriting news that. despite winning their fourth consecutive TTT World Championships in Richmond, the Velocio-SRAM team would be wound up at the end of the 2015 season seemed to be going against the grain as women's cycling gradually increases its profile and popularity. However a new team, sponsored by Canyon bikes and SRAM emerged with a roster made up of Tiffany Cromwell, Hannah Barnes, Lisa Brennauer,  Elena Cecchini,Trixi Worrack, Mieke Kroger, Alexis Ryan, Barbara Guarischi and Alena Amialiusik.

And with every new team comes new kit, which has been developed and produced by Rapha.

The jersey seems to stand-out without being too in-your-face- a hard thing to achieve but done well in this case by every hedge-fund manager's favourite brand (yes-I know it is obvious but by law every article mentioning Rapha has to have some sort of reference like that). The scheme is colourful yet muted and could, given time, be a classic. Simon Richardson from GCN has already stated he is disappointed Rapha haven't produced a version for men and, while it would take a certain brio to carry it off, would certainly make a change from the wall-to-wall Sky jerseys that seem to make up a large proportion of sportive pelotons these days. A team loaded with talent like Canyon-SRAM deserves a kit to reflect this, and teamed with the paintjob on the bikes seen in the photo above, will surely add some class to the Women's World Tour for 2016.

Lisa Brennauer in the new kit.