Cycling is hard; I’m not leaking any trade secrets with that statement, but it feels good to say it anyway. No Cyclist avoids suffering, but of those who venture into our world, there are some who seek to limit it while others choose to embrace it. Then we have a handful of characters who consider playing Whack-a-Mole with the Man with the Hammer to be good sport, particularly when playing the part of Mole.
In the current climate, it’s impossible not to consider the impact doping has on our sport. I, for one, have happily watched professional bike racing and delighted in the spectacle for close to thirty years, aware to varying degrees that doping is part and parcel of that spectacle I enjoy so much. In the last decade, I’ve gone so far as to assume most – if not all – riders are doping; a regrettable situation but one which has done little to temper my enthusiasm for the sport. After all, when all the riders are doing it, then surely what we’re watching is a level playing field of willing participants who understand how the game is played. Cheaters cheating cheaters hardly seems like cheating.
It’s all beautifully romantic so long as all the riders are doping. This is not the case, however; there are those who are racing clean against dopers. These riders are truly being cheated out of a livelihood by a culture which not only turns a blind eye to cheating, but who ostracize those who don’t. These riders who refuse to dope have few voices and last week, the sport lost one of the most forward of these with the retirement of Nicole Cooke.
Nicole has been a force in Women’s Cycling since turning Pro in 2002. A powerful rouleur, she excelled in every terrain and in any race format, but was nigh unbeatable in uphill finishes, taking a total of three La Fléche Wallonne Féminine titles, each of which required such a large laying of The V that it brought her to collapse. I was aware of her as much as anyone can be with the state of the coverage of Women’s Cycling, but she became one of my favorite riders after reading a piece in Rouleur about my favorite hub manufacturer, Royce. In the article, Royce’s Cliff Polton described being at a trade show when a young girl better described as a ball of loosely-contained energy bounded up on his booth and started asking about bottom bracket axles and wondering aloud if he could help her achieve her goal of becoming the wolds most dominant female cyclist.
Given what I understand of her personality, I get the feeling it was more like executing a plan than achieving a goal.
Cooke raced at the top of her sport for thirteen years; she scaled the heights of achievement with wins in every major race on the calendar including the Ronde van Vlaanderen voor Vrouwen, La Fleche, the Giro d’Italia Femminile and Grand Boucle (women’s Tour de France), the Olympic Road Race, and the World Championship Road Race. What’s more, she accomplished it while remaining staunchly anti-doping to the point that she faced sackings for refusing doping products.
Anyone who is a fan of Cycling should read Nicole’s retirement statement – I could never do it justice here. My personal hopes for the Pharmstrong Legacy is that it yields a a blood letting in the UCI and that the energy it spends on covering up its own corruption goes instead into promoting Women’s Cycling.
I’m sad to see Nicole go. Yet, for a rider who thrived in the hardest conditions and who unyieldingly stuck to her principles, I find it very fitting that the final two wins of her career came in Stages V of the Giro Femminile and Energiewacht Tour, respectively. Bravo, Nicole.
Here is the finale of her last Giro stage win:
I know as well as any of you that I've been checked out lately, kind…
Peter Sagan has undergone quite the transformation over the years; starting as a brash and…
The Women's road race has to be my favorite one-day road race after Paris-Roubaix and…
Holy fuckballs. I've never been this late ever on a VSP. I mean, I've missed…
This week we are currently in is the most boring week of the year. After…
I have memories of my life before Cycling, but as the years wear slowly on…
View Comments
@DerHoggz
He has an issue with anyone that has more talent, cycling gear, money, and/or time to enjoy it than he does. It's just his thing, like the Oz/Kiwis with sheep.
@Buck Rogers
I'm an Art School drop out - it's a wonder I can wipe my own arse...
@itburns
Yes, and if anyone wants to discuss the issue further, I recommend taking me to the edge of a cliff so I'll push back harder.
That is all.
What an eloquent, well written and well argued retirement statement!
One of the many things that struck me was how the men's team would be caught for doping and would lose sponsors. The team would use that to cut back on the women's team while keeping the men's team as-is.
@ChrisO
The financial, cultural, and historical factors involved in running a cycling team are so complicated that I don't think anyone can make a simple direct calculation of an athlete's commercial value (or should judge them by it.).
@ChrisO
I admire the fact that you stick around despite holding this view (rightly or wrongly) of yourself. I certainly disagree that you might be a cunt, you do sometimes act like one. But I have always believed that if someone doesn't hate you, you're not being honest enough. Some people here think everyone has to like them and no one can argue, and that's bullshit as far as I'm concerned. You cunt.
Not quite - sponsorship is, like anything else in business, about return on investment. Sure, target audiences are a part of the equation, but they're after getting a return on their investment - converting impressions of their brand into an increase in revenue for their business, whatever that might be or how its measured.
Based on this, any organization that has an interest in attracting sponsors - this would include the UCI and Women's Cycling - needs to look at how this conversion occurs. Assuming the UCI has a vested interest in making money through promoting women's sports, they have an obligation to make the sport as visible as possible.
Based on their calendar and the promotional effort that I can see as a fan, I can't possibly conclude the UCI has a vested interest in helping make Women's Cycling successful.
Women's Cycling has the responsibility to make their sport appeal to all audiences that can attract sponsorship and audiences. They do their part as far as being exceptional athletes, making exciting racing, and having attractive and articulate athletes act as spokespeople. I hate to bring looks into this, but lets all be honest that being beautiful and having sex appeal makes the sport more appealing across sexes. I mean, look at Boonen and Cancellara - there's a reason they're loved by both gay and straight men and women across the globe - people love good looking people, regardless of sex and orientation.
Based on the last season of racing when we covered it in the VSP, I see no fault on the part of women's racing in the above areas - they have met their end of the bargain. The UCI has not.
This is bullshit for Cycling since men who like watching men in spandex would have no qualms watching women in spandex, assuming the racing is good. There were lots of men on Velominati who fought having the Women's VSP because they don't follow women's racing and at the end of the season they were glad we did it because by that time they were familiar with the athletes and the racing style. It's a question of exposure.
This is nicely demonstrated by Alpine ski racing, where women and men get about equal coverage of racing (at least in the US) and as a fan I can't see any obvious difference in treatment, though I don't know what goes on behind the scenes. And, to be fair - it helps that the US Ski Team has the perfect female athlete (Vonn) to help promote it.
This is very true in all walks of life, but this is what a governing organization like the UCI is for - they are there to help provide the stage, the athletes provide the show. The UCI is found wanting in terms of providing the stage. Just look at the calendar.
As with anything, money is limited and the UCI has to prioritize. As I obliquely pointed out in the article, I think there is a tremendous amount of waste in how the UCI manages itself; if that waste was redirected into Women's Cycling, I think the sport would turn around.
@eightzero
Yes, and you're still wrong. You don't buy your way to the top of the Mur de Huy, at least not when you're competing agains Mary V for the win.
@itburns
Ah, it was time to hand out the V-Badge again anyway...
@G'rilla
I missed that - brilliant. Revise my previous statements to include not just the UCI but also any team with mens/women's rosters.
An excellent point - ROI is key, but its all much closer to "guessing" than "science".
So lets call it "Meteorology".
@ChrisO its no fun to have a go at you when you already call yourself a cunt. Leave that to us.
@frank
swimming over here sounds similar to skiing in that mens and womens get equal coverage. i had a great sports and chicks experience this morning - we had a bunch of chicks in our swim squad who went very hard this morning. Eventually I had to destroy them but they went pretty hard for a fair while.
The fact that they are aged around 12 and 13 didnt make me feel like any less of an athlete.
@freddy
Great, great read. Thanks for that. I wish I had more time to read other cycling sites; one of the few downsides of running Velomianati...
Nicole Cooke won Junior gold medals in road, track, and MTB.
After winning the Giro d'Italia, she took home £240 in prize money.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2004/aug/10/athensolympics2004.cycling?INTCMP=SRCH