Image vs. Reality

01 November 2010 | 0:00 - By Anthony Tan

Cycling’s past may be shameful, but as Anthony Tan writes, we must not delude ourselves it wasn’t so.

fignon_310_getty_1564325561

Two-time Tour de France winner Laurent Fignon (Getty)

For the simple reason of time, or more precisely a lack of it, I don’t normally read forums of any kind but when I do, it’s usually done to gauge public sentiment on a topical issue.

Recently, a colleague alerted me to a post on the Cyclingnews.com forum, ominously entitled: “Graham Watson: Keeper of Omerta”.

On October 21, the forum member who started the post, BroDeal, then wrote: “Snarfed this from a post on Bike Radar. It is from the Q&A portion of Watson's website.”

The ‘question’ from Eric G and Graham Watson’s answer were as follows:

Eric G - 10/06/2010:

"Just noticed the URL for the LeMond pics has the word “fool” in it instead of his name. Please correct this, not everyone is an Armstrong fan, and I was going to buy several prints from you, but no longer, very disappointed."

10/11/2010:

"Hi Eric, I've not noticed that mistake, I'll have my webmaster look at it. Sorry we cannot appease you, I'm a fan of both guys, they both did a lot for my career, just a shame one cannot keep his mouth shut… GW"

For those who don’t know, BikeRadar is an online publication owned by Future Publishing, the same owners of Cyclingnews.com, and tends to amalgamate various features from Future Publishing’s stable of cycling publications – a cycling outlet for everyone and anyone, if you like. However, I’ve been told the majority of traffic (and ostensibly its reason for being) comes from forums, which are incredibly popular in the United Kingdom and where Future is based.

The forum thread began in a sub-section called ‘The Clinic’ – “the only place on Cyclingnews.com where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures,” reads the description.

At last count, the thread had received 162 replies and amassed over 17,000 views – superceded only by a thread called “FLandis letter, links”, that coincidentally, just happened to be initiated by ‘BroDeal’, the same fellow who started the aforementioned thread on Graham Watson.

For Watson, who’s been the business of cycling photography for 32 years, it’s definitely an ‘oops’ moment to have accidentally label LeMond a “fool”. Whether LeMond has an agenda or not, from what I’ve seen and read of him the past 20 years that I’ve been involved in the sport, fool he is not.

And I have to admit, part of Graham’s reply to BroDeal – “I’m a fan of both guys, they both did a lot for my career, just a shame one cannot keep his mouth shut” – I do find slightly paradoxical.

Then again, after what has transpired between the two and their subsequent exchange of views (which, it should go without saying but are poles apart) since the ignominious outing of Floyd Landis less than a week after we thought he’d won the 2006 Tour de France, being a fan of Armstrong and LeMond is slightly paradoxical in itself.

While I see Watson at races all the time and whenever we see each other, we engage in a handshake and exchange pleasantries, it doesn’t really go much further than that. So I can’t claim to know him at any great depth beyond what one would normally expect of an acquaintance or colleague in the business.

Like many of you judge me on what I write or say, I can only do the same for Watson – who, although he hides behind the lens of a camera some 250 days a year to take his often superb images, doubtless has a public face in the sport because he is almost always there to capture those defining moments.

This brings me to the recent exhibition he staged during the course of the road world championships, held at the National Wool Museum in Geelong, and what he said about certain riders he’d photographed, in what was a lifetime of cycling photography.

Asked by Mike Tomalaris who were his favourites, Watson replied: “Jan Ullrich – one of my all-time favourites. I don’t really care, the stories you hear about him; as a physical person, he was incredible to photograph – he was a monster. I used to love his challenges, his battles with Lance Armstrong. Wonderful, wonderful, stuff.”

Later, about Armstrong, he said: “We always knew he was going to be good – but we never knew he was going to be as good as he became.”

In theory, photographers are bound by the same ethical principles as journalists – among other tenets, reporting the truth, reporting it fairly (that is, balanced journalism), and reporting it accurately – for the plain reason they are part of the media, and should (again, I say in theory) respect the rules of journalism and what it stands for, if not obey them.

Because in this age where cycling’s credibility is being questioned every day by those inside and outside the sport, if our elder statesmen adopt the laissez faire “I don’t care what he’s done, he’s still a champion in my eyes” attitude, how do we convince the new generation that a true champion is one who, win or lose, plays fair?

Watson also said: “Cycling reflects life. It’s a very hard sport but very honest sport.” But for much of the last 20 years, it hasn’t been, unfortunately.

Thankfully, with certain figureheads from the UCI and WADA, and teams like Garmin-Transitions, HTC-Columbia and Team Sky, who accept how it was and want it to change, the omerta is lifting, albeit not fully exorcised.

I’ll leave you with a passage from the last chapter in the no-holds-barred autobiography of the late Laurent Fignon, who admitted using banned drugs on occasion but nothing to the extent he witnessed at the time of his retirement in 1993, titled: “A Whiff of Authenticity”.

“There is now a fight being waged against ‘no-limits’ doping which was the rule in the 1990s and the early 2000s. That’s being done partly thanks to advances in drug-testing but above all by the inception of new rules of which the biological passport is the most complete and efficient form.

“For a little while now, it’s looked as if cycling is returning to more normal ways. We are again seeing exhausted cyclists. Their exploits are more coherent. And so is my passion for the sport. At a certain time, despair was gaining the upper hand, I have to admit. […] With the doping years, all the old signposts were hidden.

“Now, it feels as if the sport is regaining its classic side, and the foundations are a little cleaner. Let’s say there is a whiff of authenticity. Sniffing the wind, my eyes sparkle a little. Passion is a happier thing than pessimism.”

Hear hear, Laurent.

Share article: 
top

Comments (11)

Display: 20 | 40 | All comments per page
Previous 10 | Page 1 | 2 | Next 10

03 Nov 2010 11:36 AEST

Martin

From: Melbourne

--

Forums in general are not the sole domain of the European or American. The cyclingnews forum attracts considerably more Australians than you evidently realise. One of the members with the highest post count is a Melbournian, in fact, like myself. Ths site has gained its popularity because the moderation policy is designed to control offensive behaviour etc and NOT to control the nature of topics discussed. If you have a substantiated claim then you are welcome to raise it - unlike a site such as this one that stamps on anti-Armstrong sentiment. As you have observed, we have created a rule about doping discussion in order to concentrate it in one place and keep the structure of other sections. A read of the Clinic should be mandatory for all fans of cycling. In there you will find well formed discussion on both sides of every argument, as well as details of every major (and most minor) ongoing doping investigation. (including a massive amount of detail about the current US FDA investigation into fraud at US Postal/Discovery. A read of the Graham Watson thread that you mentioned will point to just how much further this "scandal" has reached than you indicate. Amongst other knock on effects, Lance Armstrong ended up in a debate on Twitter with Simone LeMond (and later Scott LeMond). Further investigation shows that any products purchased from the Graham Watson website are actually fulfilled by Mellow Johnnie's - the shop owned by Lance Armstrong. It is clear from just this that there is no way that Graham is going say anything positive about Greg whilst Lance is still smearing Greg's name. oh, and the BroDeal that posted a comment on this site IS the real BroDeal. :-)

Agree (17 people agree)    Disagree (0 people disagree) Report this
 

03 Nov 2010 4:43 AEST

buck

From: canada

--

Please Lance, just come clean.

Agree (8 people agree)    Disagree (3 people disagree) Report this
 

03 Nov 2010 3:59 AEST

Greg

From: London

--

"In theory, photographers are bound by the same ethical principles as journalists – among other tenets, reporting the truth, reporting it fairly (that is, balanced journalism), and reporting it accurately – for the plain reason they are part of the media, and should (again, I say in theory) respect the rules of journalism and what it stands for, if not obey them." Surely in an age where the lines between journalism/ opinion are becomingly so closely intertwined it's hard to begrudge a photographer his opinions of people within the sport he has covered for such a long period of time. There does seem to be a reticence by a significant proportion of the cycling population to cast down those with dirty pasts (especially those who have admitted them). The racing exploits of Ulrich and Pantani are still glorified by large portions of the cycling press. I've often found it strange that this is the case. I think to some extent there an underlying acknowledgement - particularly in Europe - that doping has always been a part of cycling and will continue to be. I imagine it's hard to look at a sport that you love, where such a large number of it's "champions" have doped, and not feel as if that doping is in some way inherent.

Agree (2 people agree)    Disagree (2 people disagree) Report this
 

02 Nov 2010 13:51 AEST

David

From: Newcastle

--

I do not know Greg Le Mond but I find his reported comments incredibly hypocritical. Are we honestly to believe that Le Mond was clean when he won three tours but everyone else doped? Give me break Greg. Why is Le Mond so obsessed with Lance's wins and whether he doped or not but has nothing to say about the other 5 time victors anquetil, merckx, hinault and indurain. Did those guys dope? Maybe it is easier to target Lance because he eclipsed Le Mond's record. It appears that there is a lot of selective criticism going on here. Recent comments by some anti doping authorities and busted dope cheats suggest that you have to cheat to win. If that is the case then they are all guilty and Le Mond should own up or shut up!

Agree (9 people agree)    Disagree (21 people disagree) Report this
 

02 Nov 2010 4:32 AEST

BroDeal

From: No Magpie Region

--

Woo hoo. I'm famous. I would really like to come to Australia to take advantage of my new fame, but I am afraid that I'll be eaten by crocs, bitten by giant spiders, poisoned by snakes, swooped by birds, maimed by rampaging ozone holes, or killed by any number of lethal dangers that the folk down there seem to dismiss as minor inconveniences. I think Watson's comment is extremely disappointing because it shows how omerta extends beyond the riders and cycling's governing body to those who exist on the periphery of the sport. This goes beyond the usual defensive and often ludicrous statements about doping from the likes of Phil Ligget because it indicates Watson's true way of thinking about doping and those who want to clean up the sport. Watson's website uses rider nicknames to group photos. For example, the URL for pictures of Miguel Indurain uses "bigmig" instead of Indurain's full name. "JanJan" is used for Ullrich. "Pirata" is used for Pantani. I do not for a second believe that "fool" being used for LeMond was a mistake. It is likely that content management on his website is done by a database driven system that allows he himself to categorize his photos. If he did not create the "fool" category himself, I find it unlikely that he did not know of it. It reflects very clearly the attitude of Watson and those he associates with. It also shows how far away from a clean sport of cycling we are. If a lowly photographer is doing his best to stick a knife in those who fight against doping then what chance is there of changing the attitudes of those who have far more power and have been personally involved with doping before they moved into cycling's team management and governing positions?

Agree (30 people agree)    Disagree (1 people disagree) Report this
 

01 Nov 2010 23:28 AEST

Ruben

From: Roermond

--

The piece was ruined by this. "Garmin-Transitions, HTC-Columbia and Team Sky, who accept how it was and want it to change" How do you know, for sure? Sorry. I'm not buying it.

Agree (10 people agree)    Disagree (4 people disagree) Report this
 

01 Nov 2010 22:20 AEST

Leon

From: bne.qld.au

--

Geez Anthony. If that's your opinion on LeMond, what do you think about Kimmage?

Agree (3 people agree)    Disagree (1 people disagree) Report this
 

01 Nov 2010 21:39 AEST

Sam

From: Perth

--

Why is there a thread on a Cycling forum? Watson is just another Lance fanboy who believes his lies. Average piece tan-man!

Agree (14 people agree)    Disagree (12 people disagree) Report this
 

01 Nov 2010 20:30 AEST

Tim B. AKA "Cobber"

From: Brisbane

--

Strange that you claim "I don’t normally read forums of any kind" yet decide to write an entire article on a single thread on a single forum, singling out a single poster "BroDeal" for 2 threads he posted. If you frequented the CN forum, which I suggest you should do, you would realize that that the reason the "Flandis letter, links" thread "supercedes" the Graham Watson thread is because it is a "Sticky". If you would sort the threads by views/replies, you would have seen that these are not the top 2 threads on the CN site. Further, if would have searched for threads started by BroDeal, you would have realised that these are not the only 2 threads he has ever started. He has also started threads such as "Classic Racing Pics", many of which contain examples of Graham Watson's photography. The fact is, and the reason for BroDeal's thread, that the Omerta is NOT "lifting". Several experts have stated that the Biological Passport actually facilitates doping (also extensively covered in the CN "Clinic"). The president of the UCI covered up Contador's recent public drug test for 2 months until Contador himself revealed it. Graham Watson's reply to "Eric G" (not BroDeal btw) indicated frustration that LeMond is so outspoken about doping in cycling. If that doesn't justify the thread title that BroDeal used, then I don't know what does!

Agree (16 people agree)    Disagree (2 people disagree) Report this
 

01 Nov 2010 20:10 AEST

Frank

From: Melbourne

--

UCI is as bad as anyone in protecting Lance and keeping omerta healthy and well Anthony. Well done.

Agree (10 people agree)    Disagree (4 people disagree) Report this
 
Display: 20 | 40 | All comments per page
Previous 10 | Page 1 | 2 | Next 10

Join the discussion

You have characters remaining.
Validation (
) :
This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots.

PLEASE NOTE: All submitted comments become the property of SBS. We reserve the right to edit and/or amend submitted comments. HTML tags other than paragraph, line break, bold or italics will be removed from your comment.