Image vs. Reality

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

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At last count, the thread had received 162 replies and amassed over 17,000 views – superceded only by a thread called "FLandis letter, links", that coincidentally, just happened to be initiated by 'BroDeal', the same fellow who started the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.