More Special By Comparison

I know that, thanks to Lance Armstrong, it’s hard to look at cycling these days without thinking, “Doping.” It’s hard to look at a Tour de France winner without thinking, “Drugs.” In fact, it’s hard to look at any amazing victory in cycling anymore without thinking, “Dirty.”

But just because Lance Armstrong, Tom Boonen, Eddy Merckx and so many other big names in the cycling world have tested positive to banned substances or confessed to doping, it’s no reason to visit that reputation on the rest of the peloton. Though admittedly there aren’t a lot of Tour de France winners who have a completely clean record when it comes to doping, that’s something that has definitely changed in the past few years. Take Cadel Evans, for example. I challenge anyone to refute the immaculate reputation of Australia’s own Tour de France winner. Evans is undoubtedly one of the cleanest riders in the peloton – nary a whisper of scandal, doping or otherwise. Even Brad Wiggins, despite all the controversy he likes to generate, is as unimpeachable as Evans on the doping front.

And in a way, cycling’s doping culture only lends greater import to their victories. After all, consider what ‘dirty’ riders in the past have done, compared to the exploits of Wiggins and Evans. Yes, Armstrong won the Tour de France seven times, and there’s not a lot you can say to that, but Evans is the oldest winner since 1923. 1923. In all those 88 years of ‘doping’, no-one over the age of 34 was good enough to win the Tour de France until Evans came along. In fact, doping was still an accepted part of cycling in 1923. You could say that Evans is the oldest clean rider ever to have won the Tour de France. Doesn’t that make his victory even more special, knowing that even the cheats couldn’t do what he did?

Brad Wiggins’ hero, Tom Simpson, was the most successful cyclist in British history, at least until Wiggins came along. Yet Wiggins was able to win the Tour de France, a victory which eluded Simpson right up until his death from a drug-and-alcohol-induced heart attack during the 1967 Tour. If Simpson constitutes a ‘successful’ cyclist, then is there an adjective in the English language sufficiently superlative to describe Wiggins?

By no means am I saying that doping is in any way a good thing. On the contrary, it’s one of the most horrible phenomena that exist in professional cycling. But given it does exist, can’t we look at the bigger picture here and notice how every attempt to win by doping just makes the clean winners look even more brilliant by comparison? Yes, Armstrong may be dirtier than unwashed laundry, but that doesn’t mean that every other rider is dirty by association and that all their hard work is worthless. I for one can’t help but regard those clean riders with so much more awe and respect knowing that even the ‘great’ Armstrong or the ‘successful’ Simpson couldn’t do what they do – win because they’re simply the best.