In a book on the rise of British Cycling, I came across a
phrase that has stuck with me over the past few months. Describing the decision to focus on the track
events Peter Keen, the originator of the modern British Cycling high
performance plan, said they chose to aim their efforts at the velodrome because
he felt that the winning efforts in these disciplines were “credible.” At the time at least, the capacities needed to
win on the road were outside of what he considered the boundaries of credible
performances.
Despite the moody lighting, he's a pretty credible guy.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the question of credibility
is one that we can apply to a lot of the challenges that face cycling’s growth
in this country. It’s not a grandiose
word, it is not “excellent” or “greatness” but it may be the word we need in
order to move towards those concepts.
When I look at where cycling in Canada is at the moment I
can’t help but think we might be in the same place Great Britain was 20 years
ago. We have had some notable successes,
but you cannot help but feel that we haven’t yet realized cycling’s full
potential in this country. And while I
don’t believe that cycling will ever be mainstream in Canada I do believe that
we can move further towards excellence in it.
Take rowing for example. It is
not a mainstream sport in this country and yet Canada has a history of
excellence in it. We also have a history
of excellence in cycling- but we have not to date been able systematize it. There is no doubt we have had excellent
athletes- but have they had an excellent structure?
That is what I want to talk about in this blog post, not the
athletes themselves, but the larger landscape that they operate in – from clubs,
to trade teams, to events. Essentially everything that makes up the tapestry of
this sport in Canada would fit under this umbrella.
Good things are in development for bike racing in Canada- this
fall will see the opening of our first World Cup standard velodrome in Canada (at
least since the UCI moved the goalposts on the track in Victoria). We have a rapidly expanding track program. We
have some fantastic new UCI events for the men- including the fantastically
organised Tour of Alberta. Delta has taken a great step in adding a UCI Women’s
event for the coming season.
But recognize as well - we stand at a crossroads at the
moment. We could just as easily remain
stagnant or erode. We are posed to
either break new ground, or keep doing exactly what we have been doing for the
two decades I have been involved with the sport.
Milton could be a game changer for cycling in Canada- if we make it one.
We don’t currently have a UCI professional team for either men
or women. We have had, by my count 8*
doping infractions or scandals in the last three seasons. Eight.
While the number of UCI events in Canada for men has
expanded, the women’s side has contracted from ten days of racing to three –
and with it we lost the single best development tool we had for women in this country. Last year an event was introduced at Road
Nationals solely for men and not for women. For no valid reason as the sprint
event is a non-UCI novelty format already. That action alone erodes our credibility when
it comes to our claims to be trying to advance women’s cycling.
Credible is a simple word that I think can be used as a
litmus test for many of the cycling initiatives in this country- and a test
that when applied we often come up short on.
If we want to increase youth participation in this country
then we need to be as credible as the mainstream sports we are competing with
for talent. When we send co-ed teams of young
athletes on trips without female chaperons, or use coaches with dubious track
records simply because they are available, we
are not credible. Parents will, and
do, recognise this and will steer their children towards other avenues as a
result. Avenues with chaperones, proper
insurance and accredited coaches. If we
do not seem as credible as, say swimming, then parents will put their kids in
swimming instead.
If we want to change the perception about doping in cycling
then we need to take actual action. Make
no mistake there is an increasing stigma about Canada’s doping culture outside
of this country, and that stigma will hurt our riders trying to advance into
the professional ranks. We cannot be lassez-faire
about who we associate with. We need actions with weight. We need educational programs for young riders
by which we foster an environment in which clean sport is presented as the only
truly viable avenue to success. We have
some fantastic role models for clean sport in this country, let’s try and make
the most of them. Continuing to turn a blind eye is not credible.
In my mind if we collectively ask ourselves the simple
question: “Is this credible?” as we move forwards, and if we answer this
question honestly then we can begin to push the boundaries for cycling
excellence in this country. On my part I
want to try and make a pledge to apply it to my own actions in the sport: to
help run the Stevens-Cyclery program in an honest and ethical manner. This means not promising our riders more funding
or material than we can actually deliver, and to be fair and transparent in our
internal selections. I want to be credible in my approach being a Board Member of
Cycling Canada. Neither of these things are my “job” but I
want to endeavour to approach them in the most professional manner that I can,
because I honestly believe that this is part of how we will achieve cycling
excellence in this country.
And I believe that we can be excellent. We just have to be credible first.
*Papillion, Martel,
Agreda, Hesjedahl, McGrath, Sheppard, Barry, Cavanagh
