Sir Chris Hoy, Laura Trott, Jason Kenny, Chris Froome, Jason Queally, Victoria Pendleton, Rebecca Romero, Becky James, Steve Cummings, Rob Hayles, Paul Manning, Nicole Cooke, Ed Clancy, Geraint Thomas, Paul Manning, Darren Kenny, Rachel Morris, David Stone, Mark Bristow, Jody Cundy, Simon Richardson.
Mark Colbourne, Neil Fachie, Anthony Kappes, Philip Hindes, Peter Kennaugh, Steven Burke, Callum Skinner, Owain Doull, Joanna Rowsell Shand, Elinor Barker, Katie Archibald, Kadeena Cox, Sophie Thornhill, Lora Turnham, Steve Bate, Megan Giglia, Karen Darke, Louis Rolfe, Jon-Allan Butterworth.
These are the names of just some of the British cyclists who have enjoyed success at the Olympics, Paralympics and Tour de France since the turn of the century. Many of these are now household names and I doubt that there are many people in the UK who are unaware of the astonishing watershed that occurred after the turn of the century when Sir Dave Brailsford, building on the foundations laid by Peter Keen, his predecessor, became performance director of British Cycling.
Until 2000, Great Britain’s cyclists had won relatively few Olympic medals. Since 2000, Team GB have won 46. British riders didn’t win a single Tour de France between 1904 (the start of the Tour) and 2012. Since then, Team Sky have won four times in five years.
As I see it, there are two alternative explanations for this success. The first is the one proclaimed by Brailsford and, until recently, most observers of cycling: namely, a bracing attention to detail, good funding and cutting-edge science. The second is that there has been a covert programme of illegality of a kind often insinuated on social media (and, in the case of Anna Meares, by a competitor). This explanation has become somewhat more prevalent since the Russian Fancy Bears disclosures, a subject to which I shall return.
Advertisement
Now, I have long been drawn to the first explanation, not, I hope, out of blind patriotism, but by witnessing the team in action. Most people are aware of the marginal-gains approach, looking for tiny advantages, whether the personalised mattresses to improve sleep quality, anti-bacterial hand-gel to cut down on infections, the customised bus and many others. Although each gain is small, they add up to a competitive advantage.
Other marginal gains are more technical. Brailsford and Tim Kerrison, his right-hand man at Team Sky, are practical innovators: learning new things through rigorous testing (rather as James Dyson created a revolutionary dual-cyclone vacuum cleaner by iterating through 5,126 failed prototypes). They do not rely on theoretical scientists, preferring to probe key dynamics, such as that between carbohydrate intake, pedalling rate and power output, through trial and error. They typically do not share what they discover in such areas because it would dilute their competitive advantage.
One cogent reason to favour this explanation for the success of British Cycling is that a performance method is scaleable. You can apply it to new riders and, in the case of road cycling, an altogether new challenge. This was one of the reasons that Brailsford cited when he launched Team Sky. He argued that given the success of a cutting-edge approach on the track, he could aspire to win the Tour within five years — something he achieved ahead of time.
But this, in turn, presents a formidable challenge for the alternative explanation.
Cover-ups are not easily scaleable. As they grow in scope and duration, they become ever more fragile. Think of the dozens of successful riders that British Cycling has produced. Think of the multitude of doctors, support staff, many of whom have now left the operation, friends, families, observers and other interested parties, as well as the journalists who have been invited inside to observe the operation. This is a culture quite different to the fanatically policed conspiracy involving Lance Armstrong and US Postal, which was nevertheless subject to credible allegations at least as early as 2004, with the entire edifice falling eight years later.
It is probably fair to say that, today, the pressure on Team Sky and British Cycling has reached a fever pitch. Investigative journalists are probing with impressive tenacity. On Monday, Brailsford answered questions in front of a parliamentary select committee. As the heat intensifies, there is a significant “first mover” advantage (as one of the Watergate co-conspirators put it) for the person who speaks out first. They are more likely to be regarded as a whistleblower than a crook.
Advertisement
So far, however, there is no smoking gun. The main questions to be answered relate to a single rider: Sir Bradley Wiggins. Like many, I have deep misgivings about the therapeutic use exemptions, but these were signed off by the team doctor, an independent specialist and (it is worth emphasising) the World Anti-Doping Agency. Team Sky followed the letter of the law, if not, some would suggest, the spirit. Either way, this isn’t evidence of a covert doping operation of the kind associated with Armstrong or alleged by detractors.
As for the suspect package delivered to Wiggins in 2011, Brailsford has stated that it contained a legal decongestant. There are, of course, many follow-up questions (“Why did Team Sky wait so long to tell us?” “Why did they not buy the drug locally?”, etc), but these become somewhat less relevant if documentary evidence can prove Brailsford’s assertion. Moreover, anybody who has been at a road event, when streets are often closed or jammed, will understand why a staff member who is said to have been coming anyway, was asked to bring the drug from the base, rather than having staff dashing around pharmacies in rural France, hoping it was in stock.
I detest cheating in sport. I abhor the fact that Kirsty Wade, who now runs a wonderful B&B in the Outer Hebrides, never stood on an Olympic podium for middle-distance running because she was defrauded by the East German doping system. I hate the fact that Kathy Cook, a brilliant sprinter and now a primary school teacher in the West Midlands, never got the credit she deserved. I applaud clean athletes, wherever they may be, and salute their probity.
But there is something else I detest: a guilty verdict delivered in advance of a fair trial. I have been troubled by the trolling, unique to cycling, where the presumption of innocence (at least when applied to Team Sky or British Cycling) is equated not with fair-mindedness, but with bad faith or gullibility. Twitter is not a forum preoccupied by due process or the kind of evidence that is sufficiently probative to prove guilt, rather than merely insinuate it.
I also abhor the notion that because one rider is under suspicion, the history of an entire operation is somehow tainted. How unfair to the dozens of riders who have triumphed in British colours since 2000 — the likes of Trott and Kenny, Hoy and Pendleton, Romero and Cooke, not to mention the admirable support staff who have relentlessly sought marginal gains on their behalf — to insinuate that they benefited from a corrupt doping programme because of the doubts (thus far unproven) surrounding one or two who wear the same colours.
Advertisement
The success of British Cycling has been one of the most powerful stories in global sport, is a tribute to the work of many honourable people, and is a source of national pride. When we look back in ten years, I suspect that this basic narrative will remain intact.
Certainly, we should resist those who slander this British success on the basis of one or two stories, however serious, for that would be to hand the Russian hackers everything that they had hoped for.
More importantly, it would be a violation of natural justice.
