Only a few weeks on from the Olympics and it turns out that British sport is starting to resemble an over aged cheese. What was seen as the premium product is starting to go just a little bit whiffy. The smell is faint though – a slight discomforting odour which occasionally pervades through. That’s because fundamentally no one has actually done anything wrong. Indeed further to that, the channels with which those (non) offences have come to light are often as suspect as the supposed misdeed. Those channels both have significant motive for causing the trouble or the discussion that has followed.
On the one side, a national (almost tabloid) newspaper has the significant incentive of selling more papers (and therefore advertising space) by creating the most sensational story possible. And on the other, the Fancy Bears as they refer to themselves, are seemingly intent on showing the world that the concentration on Russian State involvement in doping is just the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately, these motives don’t make the allegations incorrect.
The first, that of the ex-England football manager Sam Allardyce, is probably the clearest. Even he admits to a major miscalculation in meeting the agents / journalists to advise on how to ‘bend’ transfer rules and in regard to the comments that he made against the royal family and Roy Hodgson. There are many though who say that he would have been innocent if not for the media ‘plotting’ to bring him down. Anyone who has read my posts before will know I am generally hugely against stings by the media but I have to say that this has highlighted ‘good and bad stings’. This was not a matter of sexual indiscretion or lifestyle choice for which I believe there is very rarely any legitimate public interest. It was a matter of clearly breaking the rules. As the England manager – the very pinnacle of representing British sport, it was imperative that Allerdyce played the ethical line. He didn’t and was rightly sacked. His moaning about entrapment is purely self-pity. It is arguable that the might not have gone looking for it. He certainly didn’t run from it. The flip side of course is (aside from the comments) he didn’t actually break any rules…he seems to have advised on how to, and the inference is that he may have accepted payment had it gone further but nothing actually happened.
|That Peak Form Look
Image © Surrey Council
The second incident leaves a really bad taste in the mouth even though there is in theory no evidence of wrongdoing. For me, Sir Bradley Wiggins is the poster boy for the changed face of (British) cycling. Arm in arm with Brailsford, he represents the clear line that British Cycling and later SKY have taken in terms of their no drugs, no needles policy. And yet, the much exalted policy of marginal gains is starting to leave a grey area around how close up to the line those marginal gains were pushed.
The response from Brailsford to the Wiggins TUEs along the lines of ‘we have not done anything that we didn’t have the right to do’ hardly provides comfort that rules were followed rather than bent. I don’t know anyone whose asthma is bad enough to need an injection of such a strong drug (although I don’t doubt they exist). I doubt that that same person would record themselves in their autobiography as being in peak condition at that point though. I doubt they would categorically say in the same book that there is a no needles policy within the team if they required such a medication (shades of Armstrong there perhaps) and I doubt that they would only have a need for such an aggressive intervention before key races. Having said that I don’t know any elite athletes either.
When contrasted to Callum Skinner’s excellent reaction to the TUEs exposure, the reactions of Wiggins and Brailsford feel like stuttering, floundering defences of potential guilt which of course adds to that slight uneasiness… It seems clear that no rules have been broken. But Sky and British Cycling have presented a proactive image of being whiter than white. And that’s clearly not quite the case – more greyer than grey perhaps.
We want British sport, any sport, to be watchable, we want it to be a competition played on a level playing field. Unfortunately Wiggins own concept of generating that “level playing field” is probably not what the public thought (hoped) that they were watching. What both these examples show is that what the vast majority of the public wants to think is happening – transparency in sport, clarity that what they see is real, confirmation that there is a level playing field both in and out of the arena – is not there.
Britain it seems is actually no better than any of the other competing nations which casts doubt on the missiles thrown at FIFA as well as the condemnation of Russia. Many, would sacrifice some of the ‘success’ that the GBR team has enjoyed for the confidence that we can properly hold that moral high ground.