Book Review- "The Invisible Mile" by David Coventry, (2015, Picador)

Verbosity does not always equal profundity

Let me begin by saying that David Coventry writes beautifully. Or, to be more precise, he writes beautiful, individual sentences, laced with metaphor and discriptive prowess, and keen observations. So why do I make the distinction? Simply because almost every single sentence in the book is overwritten in this way. It makes reading more of a slog than actually riding the 1928 Tour de France. Often I found myself getting agitated because sometimes being direct is fine- not every element of every sentence should require mental gymnastics to get to the core of the plot. Don't get me wrong- I like an intellectual challenge but this book simply seems to ignore what Freud, in an other context once said- "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar!".

In many cases it feel that the author has mistaken verbosity with profundity. There are many conversations detailed in the book, but they are more like those you would expect from characters in a surrealist existentialist play directed by sixth formers- almost a parody, where every single word and action is drenched in meaning and no one responds simply or directly. You get the feeling that even asking any of the characters what time the stage starts the next day would result in a treatise on the fluiduty and temporal nature of time rather than a simple "9:30am". Even the conversations and contributions from the crowds watching the Tour go past are framed as profound- the simple peasant woman mourning her daughter lost during the war seems to speak like a philosophy professor leading a symposium on the nature of loss.

As for the narrator- I don't remember ever getting so annoyed with a fictional character! If he used the energy he expended on his deep conversations (internal and external), getting drunk and spending nights with a female (both in bed and on car journeys in the middle of the night)on actually riding his bike, he would have beaten Franz, never mind Opperman! Cycling is a sport where conservation of effort is one of the keys to success, and this is not reflected in the writing in this book. The closer we get to the end, the more of the character of the narrator is revealed and it is impossible to have any empathy or sympathy for him the longer it goes on.

There are some twists as we go on, but these are signposted quite early for the more attentive reader (and anagram fans might pick up on one of the most unsavory reveals before it happens). The end of the book left me with mixed feelings- glad that I had finished it, but the actual denouement seemed a bitter cop-out- an attempt to make the reader feel even worse about human nature than a book that is grounded in the aftermath of the First World War (as individuals and countries were still trying to come to terms with it) and other personal tragedies already does.

Coventry has blended fact and fiction in this book- some of the riders and events were real, whereas others are not. This can be distracting if you actually know about history of the Tour de France- yes 1928 did see the first NZ/ Australian team enter and Opperman was a real person (in fact his life story would be worthy of a work on its own). Frantz really won that year and others like Bottecchia who was mentioned in passing existed (although Conventry got the dates of his victories wrong). The narrator is a fiction as is the names of many of the teams he mentions, so part of the problem when reading is the little voice at the back of my head that kept pointing out what was real and what wasn't. To be honest being a cycling fan could actually be an obstacle in getting through this book.

Of course maybe the frustrations, the hard going and the lovely writing are a clever ploy by Coventry to allow the reader some sympathy with the struggles of the riders. After all, they are also surrounded by beauty but are unable to appreciate it because of the demands of just making it through. I felt guilty about not always appreciating Coventry's skill with the written word, but I had had reached saturation point. Sentences that danced around and around what they were meant to describe and left room for ambiguity, and phrases used where words would have done ( "bullets" is dramatic enough instead of "shouts of death") meant that the whole book could be submitted to Pseuds Corner in Private Eye.

Perhaps Coventry's undoubted skills as a wordsmith would be better suited to a travelogue type book, because he could definitely replicate natural beauty on the page, but as for "The Invisible Mile" I have never been so conflicted about a book before. While I don't want a simple linear "We did this and then did that", this doesn't come anywhere near the quality of Tim Krabbé's "The Rider" which takes the same cerebal, pyschologicial approach but does it so much better without feeling so forced.

Porte-nts of Froome...?

Only a week until this modern classic echos forth once more from the television, followed by Gary Imlach's acerbic, dead pan and economical but effective introductions, summing up quite complex action in a few words.  Boardman and Boulting will ham it up for the cameras while Phil and Paul try to outdo each other in seeing who can misidentify the most riders. Well ,OK forget that last bit since it seems Millar and Boulting will be calling the action instead but anyway... Yes, the annual 3 week long advert for the French ( and this year German and Belgian) Tourist Board has come around again, and suddenly rugby and soccer supporters transform themselves into cycling fans in the way Wimbledon turns many into tennis fans for the duration. 

As the first rider leaves the start ramp in Dusseldorf for the opening TT,  the editors of Tour and the Official Tour de France guide will breath a sigh of relief if all their cover stars actually make it to the race, which doesn't happen every year.  Suddenly the predictions and form guides that had been developed ever since the season kicked off in Australia and used to fill gaps in the action by commentators in every race since can finally be held up to scrutiny.  So on current showing, is Froome going to come away with his fourth maillot juane?

A lot has been made of the fact that each year he taken the top step on the Champs Elysees podium, Froome has won, at the very least, 5 races since the season started. Currently the 2017 shelf in his trophy cabinet is very bare- empty in fact. Add on Richie Porte's great start (particularly his Dauphiné performance compared to his mucker) and inidications are that maybe Corbyn's recent electoral performance isn't the only thing that can make a Murdoch throw their toys out of the pram. However a caveat or two- Froome's victories have come because of decent performances which tail off in the last week. Has this year's lack of results come about because of a different approach. designed to allow him to peak later and save more of himself for the final week? Is that this year's equivalent of his attack on a descent and a four up time-trail with the green jersey to break away and spoil the sprinter's day out?

No matter the reason for the lowly palmarés this year (lowly in relative terms of course!), it was quite clear that Froome wasn't at the top of his game on the Dauphiné. His aggression on the Mont du Chat seemed to be more of desperation rather than a planned tactical assault, as if he knew he wouldn't have enough to do any damage when gravity went from being an ally to the enemy again. Even his interactions with his supposed best mate seemed to be bullish- he undercut Porte very tightly on the descent and then steered him into the boards as they wound up for the sprint. Watching, I felt Froome wasn't displaying his usual temperament. Was it a coincidence that he was acting out of character in around the same time L'Équipe was running a quickly denied story linking him to a BMC move? Let's imagine a hypothetical situation- if the article had any grain of truth the big loser would again be Porte who went to BMC to get out from under the Kenyan's shadow. How would he feel if, after finally cementing himself as a viable TdF GC contender in one of the few squads who can match Sky's budget, suddenly the guy he acted as a domestique deluxe for reappeared to put Richie back down the pecking order? A wee leak to the press, at a stage when technically riders and teams are not supposed to be making approaches to each other, would require a firm denial and make such a move that bit harder to engineer and allow Sky to come up with a package to try and get Froome to stay.  Again I have to emphasise that this is just  a flight of imagination based on conjucture and theorising- I'm not saying this happened! A lost opportunity to rescue his reputation by breaking the link that has been tainted through Sky's disasterous TUE/ jiffy bag debacle could maybe add a bit of spice to any race. Even the post-race comments were more barbed than usual, but again perhaps I am reading too much into it- after all this is really the first time that the Tasmainian and Froome have really gone head to head on almost equal terms and we have no real indication of how that plays with either of them.

So cast that little soap opera aside- is Froome going to win the 2017 Tour?  My heart says no but head says yes. It is highly likely Sky are playing the psychological game here- reduced expectations lead to reduced pressure, and Porte will probably still have his one bad day. And of course we haven't even looked at Quintana yet. Is Nairo's Giro-Tour double attempt actually another sandbagging strategy? Go into the Giro, look under par and instead use it as an actual training race for the Tour? This of course may all be wishful thinking on my part  and probably come July 23rd, Murdoch newspapers will be hailing "their" man as a great human being before reverting to type and encouraging White Van Man to cut a swathe through ordinary cyclists on the 24th. Am I grasping at straws in an attempt to add intrigue and jeopardy into this year's Grand Boucle ahead of watching the horde of white jerseys sitting at the front defend Froome's lead? Probably but it is still a good time to remember - races are won off, as well as on the bike and it would be nice if, for once, Twitter wasn't full of the too cool for school types who publicly decree that they stop watching as soon as Froome takes yellow (but suspiciously seem very well informed about how the rest of the stages go...!).

Team Sky and the Soccer-isation of Cycling

Let's clear up one thing at the start- this is not yet another attack (or defence) of how Sky have handled recent developments. There are plenty of other places where the whys-and-wherefores are being picked apart. While Sky's earlier promotion of their own cleaner-than-clean-you-can-trust-us PR image more or less guaranteed  that this situation was going to arise just as a politician who fronts an anti-drink driving campaign will inevitably be caught behind the wheel with a few Dan Lloyd mineral-waters consumed, this is more about what the reactions say about how cycling and cycling fandom has changed, particularly in Britain.

If, like most normal people, you actually read the title of this piece before  the main body, then you can probably guess where this is going. And I don't mean "soccerisation" in relation to the influx of money- well not totally, because Sky's approach to buying up any potential challengers and adding them to the team may sound familar but I mean more about fan dynamics. Ever since 2012, with Wiggo fever and so-called newspapers, that are more likely to be found on the dashboards of sociopaths happy to run cyclists off the road, offering free cut-out sideburns, the British were percieved to have suddenly developed an interest in the sport.  The UK Cycling Expert Twitter feed in particular is a hilarious and genius creation that parodies the new converts. Now this isn't slating new fans- it is indeed a joyus thing to attract new supporters and it is what the sport needs to grow and thrive. However looking at some of the reactions to Sky's recent difficulties seems to suggest that many new British followers are bringing a soccer fan's attitudes across, and this may not be so healthy.

Basically put there are traditions associated with being a football fan in the UK. I say this as an outsider because I don't actually follow it and I am in Ireland (so some of this is also relevant to GAA fans) but when it is more acceptable for politicans to be caught out in a lie about supporting a team than simply saying they aren't really all that into it , there is a lot of social and cultural capital in adhereing to certain customs and attitudes. However these don't translate so well to cycling.

For example I have seen many people feel almost offended that someone else dares to support a different team to them. Twitter exchanges I have seen from people who would otherwise have a lot of common, degenerate into real insults and the calling of the other person's intelligence into question. It tends to lapse into that unthinking brand of patriotism that the UK and USA seem to do so well- basically "this-is-my-team/country-so-are-unable-to-do-any-wrong-because-they-are-MY-team/country-and-any-highlighting-their-shortcomings-is-treachery". And that has largely been a lot of the reaction to the media coverage of Sky (and the irony of a Murdoch linked body complaining about bias and unfair reporting is just too delicious to let pass without comment!). I have a rule of thumb that says as soon as someone calls the questioning of an individual or body a "witch hunt", they may as well run up a flag that says "guilty" and this is one of the terms that keeps popping up in discussions. Simply reporting the fact Sky has been asked questions and their answers found somewhat wanting is now seen as bias and "tall poppy syndrome". Repeated slogans and mantras of groupthink ("haters are going to hate"; "witch hunt";  "the media love to build people up and knock them down" etc) are being used against people making relevant enquiries to try and get to the bottom of what has been going on.  The questioning of "my team" is now seen as a direct personal attack on the individual fan, since they are the ones who have chosen to hitch their wagon to Brailsford's band of brothers (with no room for the sisters according to Jess Varnish. Lizzie Deignan and Nicole Cooke).

This approach to fandom is really quite alien to cycling. Most die-hards are fans of particular riders rather than teams- indeed it is hard to give allegiance to a team whose name (and nationality) can change from season to season based on who is paying the rider's wages. There is also the fact that many people will have a team they support for the Classics, another for the Grand Tours and their national squad for the Olympics or World Championships. Sky in many ways are the cycling equivalent of the late 90s-early 2000s Manchester United- they are an easy team for the late-comer or casual observer to get behind because of their success and British identity (is it wrong to point out that neither of Sky's Tour winners were actually born in the UK...?) and being a well funded operation. The tribalism of soccer is not needed in cycling and in fact could be quite damaging.  New fans are very welcome and are to be encouraged, but they also need to be reminded that the structures and traditions of our sport do not fare well when people become so blinded to team loyalty that they are unwilling for questions to be asked. One reason Lance got away with what he did for so long was an unwillingness and inability to openly question. If a Sky fan gets bent out of shape every time a team rider gets asked about doping they would end up ressembling the route map for the Ronde van Vlaanderen. It is unfortunate but for journalists doing their jobs means that Chris Froome is going to have to answer the same question thrown at him in various languages every day he wears yellow. To be fair to Froome, he handles this with grace and politeness, so maybe the Sky fans need to learn from him, and await the outcomes of the UKADA investigation before feeling put upon.

This week's Cycling Weekly included the results of a poll around attitudes to Sky and the vast majority of printed responses went more for attacking the journalists and MPs than actually engaging with the premise of the question. However, at the risk of falling into the trap of stereotyping nationalities I ask this- if it had been Katusha or Astana in the firing line would the Sky (and British Cycling) fans be responding to it in the same way?