At what point does a writing piece separate itself from history and verge on romanticism? It is a difficult one to answer (as I could be as guilty as the next man), but in a way anyone who writes can fall pray to it, no matter what the year you are covering.
Reports from L'Equipe or Gazzetta are just as guilty as blogs and marketing types for creating a view which isn't entirely true. Some of it may be the myth that drugs only exist in the few and not the many. That the PRO's use regular clothing and not special items like Roubaix shorts and summer jerseys which are made from snow fleece in the harsh conditions.
Or the massive use of black and white photos to create mood which can prevail in certain areas of print and the net. Which I have no problem with, but it is how and what the photographer is trying to convey. Does that person want to create an escape or are they shooting an escape. The words get mixed up, but the image and the story it tells can be so different. I will say it again, neither of which I have a problem with.
The Eighties, came and ushered in the 'new romantics', never reaching the world wide iconic status that the punks had in the Seventies. The punks were visually a more dangerous beast that the ruffles of the followers of Spandu and Duran Duran. What many people forget is that the look, the attitude and music of the Sex Pistols was a marketing tool for a clothes shop. That detail has been lost to romantic memories, and it has been replaced by the notion that it was a revolution of the angst ridden youth.
Ironically most writers cling to a similar period in history, the Seventies. When people talk of Merckx, they talk of how the industry and riders feel about him now, with fond regard and great admiration. Not very often does the true story get told of the tough times he faced, never quiet excepted by those around him. Even the name 'the Cannibal' has been turned around into a positive compared to it's original negative routes. For the record Eddy hated the nickname saying "Well it's a bit of a barbaric name, but it probably reflected how my rivals truly felt about me."
Great photographers like Cor Vos could be blamed in some way for part romanticising our sport. The other flipside is that they caught the subject in an image of how they saw it. I like his work, and it has inspired many a person to pick up a camera to try and re-create the magic. Is that in itself a bad thing?
The treatment of the then organisers of the Tour de France as Armstrong became more and more dominant was nothing new. Thankfully books record the treatment of Merckx at the time by the then organiser Jacques Goddet. He insinuates that Merckx used cortisone towards the end of his carreer in an interview published in 1992. Merckx was absolutely incensed by Goddet's remarks. Merckx said at the time "When I won the Tour for the fourth time in a row, I can still remember the way the Tour organisers celebrated it with a forced sense of merriment. They had enough of me, they were afraid that I might ruin everything for them." Sounds familiar doesn't it, and history has a funny way of repeating itself.
So what am I trying to say? I am as easily drawn in towards the romantic view, but never forget that behind it lies history and fact. That heady mix is why our sport continues to draw people from all walks of life as we find our own line to follow in the pursuit of our love of the bicycle. After all the most important thing is that we still enjoy the ride.
image Camille J McMillan