My daughter and her boyfriend (both competitive cyclists) bought me two books for Father's Day: Pro Cycling on $10 a Day (Phil Gaimon) (PCO$10), and Land of Second Chances: The impossible rise of Rwanda's cycling team (Tim Lewis) (LSC). Both are great reads, and both raise some interesting questions. (I noticed that this is getting long, so I'll just talk about Gaimon here and save LSC for later.)
Gaimon's memoir is alternately funny and inspiring, in a post-modern sort of way: got to love the grossness and obscenity of some of the stuff that goes on among the riders in practice, races, and training, and it's interesting to see Gaimon work through his emotions about the injustices that necessarily attend when someone is pursuing a labor of love in the context of a money-making sports environment. (Of course, ultimately he is on the cusp of getting what he set out to accomplish. Uplifting.)
But it's most interesting to see a young one with postmodern ethics attempting to navigate the moral ambiguities of the cycling scene. Gaimon has one ethical principle that comes to the fore: ride clean (of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs)). So, we get a lot of Lance lancing (don't read this book, Armstrong, it'll make you mad). Lance is Satan. I understand this issue, to a point: certainly the sport of cycling has lost much of its popularity in the U.S. thanks to this, and, to be honest, for me it's not so much Lance's actual drug use (I'm willing to give him a pass to an extent on it anyway; EPO was a survival tool during his treatment). Instead, it's the bullying, the stonewalling, the abandonment of friends and subordinates, and the cultivated cult of personality that are ultimately the most off-putting, for me personally. Lance's (can I say tragic? Professionally fatal?) flaw (and he has been capable of great good with the Livestrong foundation) was thus interpersonal and not behavioral.
But what Phil focuses on is the drugging. I understand this, I understand the soap tattoo, I understand the problems of being an effective teetotaler in the company of the addicted. And he HATES the hypocrisy of the main user pontificating self-righteously. I get it--hypocrisy is the worst.
Phil is an example of the uniquely American moralist; American moralists run the gamut from social liberals to conservatives (and have, through American history), some tied to traditional religion, some not. The Puritans get a bad rap, but primarily because we don't believe in the specific moral principles that they are aggressively forwarding. But their primary moral characteristics, collectively--censoriousness and legal perfectionism--are mirrored in the discussion of almost every social issue of the last two hundred years in the nation.
This is an accident of history: it so happens that we had a supreme and heinous evil woven into the fabric of the nation before nationhood--slavery. That monstrous evil was fought from a moral perspective by Abolitionists of all stripes, who all tied themselves to this principle: that slavery is wrong and must be abolished. Their methods differed: Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote a book, Thoreau wrote an essay, harbored fugitive slaves, and spent a night in jail, John Brown attacked Harper's Ferry and was hanged. That was the great moral principle that divided the nation, and led to 620,000 soldier casualties, besides the unrecorded number of slaves and civilians who died in the war and the centuries of slavery. Rightly, it is a watershed moral issue, and those on the wrong side of it were (and are) vilified as monsters or despicable.
Of course, we did that with alcohol too (Prohibition), and women's suffrage, and civil rights, and gay marriage, and drugs, and speech, and names, and feminism, and smoking, and global warming (climate change?) . . . and the list goes on. Feel free to add your own items. One might be forgiven for thinking that some of these causes are more important than others.
But in every case, there's what I guess I'll call the rhetoric of censoriousness and dismissal. Just think about how people talk about smokers and tobacco companies, and you get my point. (It is, of course, the unpardonable sin [registering irony here; I have smoked a bit myself]).
Oops. Anyhow, back to Phil: he spends most of the book in the moralist position, but at the end is forced to confront the fact that those who were fighting alongside him on the PED issue were themselves often implicated in PED use. I would say (as Greg Lemond has said, I think) that it was impossible to remain at the top levels of cycling any time between the mid 1980s and pretty much 2013, and not be involved in the doping scandal somehow. I applaud Gaimon for his final reflection on the issue.
But I'm old; I was inspired by Lemond, and by Jock Boyer, Lon Haldeman, Susan Notorangelo, and others in the '80s. I've seen a lot of ups and downs. But that's grist for my next review.
