I thought I’d break up the run of Tour posts with a piece of work I did for a UNC-Chapel Hill class in Spring 2012, on Tsarist Russia. We could basically choose our own subject, so I chose sport, and a paper that was meant to be on a mix of things ended up being pretty much dedicated to Russian Cycling. Obviously it’s academic and so not quite as light as it could be (I may do some much needed editing at some point), but hopefully its interesting enough. It was certainly good fun writing it.
Sports define nations. Many are so intricately linked with one another that the mere suggestion of one will evoke the name of its companion: New Zealand and Rugby, for instance, or England and football/soccer. Many of these associations are however temporal: the fact the ‘Soviet Union’ is so heavily associated with sporting success and not ‘Russia’ should stand testament to that. So what of sport in Imperial Russia? Reading its histories, full of peasants, violence and literature, sport seems to have little place. What this paper sets out to examine however, is the hypothesis that not only was sport there, but it was a key feature of Imperial Russian society, and was a fundamental gear in the machinery that was forever attempting to drive Russia to modernity. Unfortunately, we will find that whilst Russia possessed the ingredients for modernisation that quantified a modern sport, they remained uncombined into a formula that would produce modernity, and instead remained simply as their constituent parts. The key thread throughout will be the sport of cycling, which will provide a reference point to Europe and time across which we can compare the relative modernity of Russia. We hope to prove this by examining the records for evidence of participation in sports, and cross referencing these with not only other periods in Russian history, but also other nations who are acknowledged to be ‘modern’ in order to properly assess exactly just how important sport was to Imperial Russia.
First, although clichéd, we must define exactly what we mean by ‘modern sport’ and ‘modernity’ in themselves. John D. Windhausen & Irina V. Tsypkina neatly cite modern sport as ‘characterized by secularism, specialization of roles, systematic regulations, a zeal for quantification and record setting, the rise of sporting heroes and, above all, by bureaucratic structures’ – all accepted terms describing modernity. Significantly in the case of sport, we can see that aside from record setting, these are not physical but mental constructs. This is a very European construct, given that late nineteenth century Europe was built upon the idea of an ‘Age of Enlightenment’, with developments such as the periodic table in 1869 showing the zeal for quantification etc. It is clear that Russia was attempting to appear to look European: we need look no further then fusing ‘Enlightened’ onto ‘Despotism’ to see this, but the key question that must be answered to assess whether Russia’s sports made it ‘modern’ is whether or not it was simply aesthetic in its ‘modernity’. In other words, just because Russians began, say, playing football does not make them modern – we must find evidence of the structures associated with modern sport for it to be truly recognised as being so. Commercial factors and a view to globalisation, rather than the inward looking isolationism favoured by Slavophiles would be good indicators of this. We thus have our conditions: we now need to look for them.
The sport of cycling is an excellent case study for modernity, especially given its heartland is undoubtedly Europe, the region Russia was desperate to impersonate. Following from the Windhausen & Tsypkina definition, it is obsessive with record breaking, with the longest running record, The Hour, which is simply based around the furthest distance one can cycle in sixty minutes, having been first set on March 25th 1876 at 15.85 miles in Britain, before the first official record was made on May 11th 1893 by Henri Desgrange, the man who would later find fame as the somewhat dictatorial organiser of the Tour de France. Technically, Russia has a claim to the record: the fastest time ever recorded was in the Moscow Velodrome in 2005, albeit by a Czech with a ‘dubious reputation.’ With its odd mix of the nostalgic and futuristic, with race routes often celebrating past historical events, yet simultaneously is obsessed with pushing the boundaries of technology as well as the human physical and mental constitution in a race to take men up steeper hills in faster times than ever before., cycling is a perfect yardstick by which to measure Russia’s sporting modernity not only in Tsarist times but across the ages.
The first cycle race on a track was held in 1868, in Paris, whilst the first race between two points was the Paris-Rouen on November 7th 1869. Russia was, as always, late to the party: her first race took place on July 24, 1883 on a Moscow racetrack. However, this temporality is not necessarily indicative of a lack of modernity. We could argue that in reality, it is more sensible to adjudicate the pace of development in Russia to show its modernity, as this is a fairer comparison with other European nations.
Unfortunately, Russia does not come out so well in this manner either. It took 26 years from the first race in France till the sport suffered its first fatality: Pierre Froget, from a fall, whilst it took just 12 years for the first Russian fatality to emerge. More telling in terms of modernity was the manner of death – the unfortunate I. N. Sheliaev died of gangrenous infection after his rubbing his perineum raw on the saddle. There is an odd irony in that sport was being marketed by the regime for health reasons – advertisements show how sport was linked with good health through the calming of ‘restoring energy and strengthening nerves’ , and Nicholas II even created a government office for the promotion of sport. Even Tolstoy wrote that athletics ensured ‘my muscles were growing and getting stronger, my memory was being enriched, my ability to think and comprehend was becoming greater.’ Whilst we can thus see the beginning of bureaucratisation of sport in Russia, which would give hints of modernity, the health aspect is perhaps the more important factor. The fact that sport was being promoted as a method of national self-betterment links with the later Soviet ideals, who used sport as a method to ‘demonstrate its ideological and political superiority’ demonstrates that Tsarist Russian sport could be adjudicated to be modern, given this temporal link. Thus, given that sport was transferred away from simply competition to a cultural phenomenon, it can be classified as modern, in the same manner that Louise McReynolds demonstrates Russian hunting to transition between ‘feudalism and modernity’ by becoming ‘culturally contested terrain.’
Temporal links for asserting Russia’s modernity must however be treated with care. When, for instance, we examine the sports asserted to be most popular in Russia, we find that Russia was again, ‘late to the party.’ For instance, Basketball and Volleyball were created respectively in 1891 and 1895, but didn’t get played officially until at least 1909, whilst football was not properly organised until 1879, and even then only by English factory workers in St. Petersburg rather than Russians, who didn’t take up the sport for another two decades. If we were assessing modernity purely by time, then we would clearly see that Russia was not modern as it was never up to date with the current trend, and thus by definition, would be backwards. However, this is not a very fair method of assessment: in terms of cycling, the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia claims that the first bicycle was invented by a Russian, Efmin Aratamonov, in 1801, and that in presenting his invention to Alexander I, he gained emancipation for himself and his family having cycled 1,634 miles to do so. If we ignore the mild issues over the fact that said bicycle was shown only to have been built in 1876, then this would serve as a counterbalance to the idea of Russian backwardness and place them at the forefront of technical innovation, with the tale also showing the development as being an exemplar of social change given the emancipation. This highlights
the problem of assessing modernity by time – it exaggerates the importance of singular
events. Instead, we must look at what caused such events to occur. In other words, why did sports take the time to reach and progress in Russia?
One explanation is the relative lack of urbanisation in Tsarist Russia, which Robert A Lewis and Richard H Rowland claim to be ‘negligible’, with just 9.9% of the population in urban areas (by comparison, the United States had 29.1% in the same period, 1897-1900, whilst Europe had achieved a similar urbanisation rate a century before.) Urban areas create environments where sports can flourish and grow, as we will see in Russia later, but the comparative lack of such areas compared to Europe surely limited the development of sport and thus modernity. For instance, an explanation for this lack of cycling professionals may be found in Russia’s road system. This was ‘extremely primitive’ outside of the major cities, of which there were essentially only two: Moscow and St. Petersburg. Indeed, an examination of a map even from 1914 confirms that the road system was concentrated around Moscow and St. Petersburg, and it would seem the reason for this lack of development was due to the steamboat network on the Volga. However, given that by this point French cyclists were crossing roads the 2115m Col du Tourmalet, it makes sense to ascertain that cycle sport in Russia was limited by the road network, especially given that the bikes that were made were termed ‘Psycho’ due to the bone shaking ride the road gave them. Thus, it makes sense to say that by comparison with other European nations, Imperial Russia’s deficiency in modern roads made it impossible for a sport such as cycling to prosper, setting it aside from other European nations whom used their infrastructure and popular press to drive its growth.
However, the urban areas themselves were breeding grounds for sport to flourish. The effect was to concentrate the ‘prosperous professional and business classes’ into one area, and these people were content to enjoy ‘technological marvels’ such as ‘motor cars, aeroplanes, and bicycles.’ Indeed, cycling was so popular amongst the Moscow population that detailed regulations had to be produced to allow the cities 25,000 cyclists to be identified, with nineteen bicycle clubs in the surrounding area. Cities were melting pots for sports with events being used to stage multiple examples: football was played as interval entertainment to bike races in St Petersburg for instance. What is more interesting is sports clubs created cultural environments that were reported, incredibly, in New Zealand – the Otago Witness describes how, in 1892, the Moscow Bicycle Club had held a race meeting in the Moscow Drill Hall, with ‘one half of the income …devoted to charity purposes.’ There is much to take from this – not only the clearly commercial aspect of the sport, which is a key indicator of modernity, but the notion of the charity, which gives connotations that Russia society was, through sport, aware of social problems enough to be able to both establish and give to charities. This striving for social improvement through the medium of sport is highly indicative of modernity.
Finally, we must consider the global element the report brings up. The report is not isolated, with the Witness continuing to report the cycling news from Russia, telling us of Henri del Strother, the champion of the Moscow Cycling Club, coming second in a race in Liverpool, England, and the English cycle championships being won by a St Petersburgian, M. Dracoff, when they were held in Russia in 1896. This demonstrates both that Russian sport had a global character as well as global exporter of sporting talent. These international links show that Russia was not as isolated as we might think, and that it was instead part of an interconnected ‘global village,’ to borrow from McLuhan’s influential work on globalisation. We could however make a reverse argument: the very concept of endurance ‘adventurer’ Robert L. Jefferson’s ‘A Wheel to Moscow and Back’, which charted his cycle tour from London, implies the great distance to Moscow, whilst it’s cover, which contrasts the Kremlin with St Paul’s Cathedral, seems in doing so toportray Russia as a distant and distinct culture from Europe and the West. It would thus appear that international opinion still depicted and saw Russia as a separate entity from their modern nations, even when connected by a sport the two shared. Given that the bicycle was originally seen by Russians as chert na diavole edet, ie ‘Satan riding on the Devil’ and as a ‘dangerous Western invention,’ it seems that both inside and outside Russia, sport was a medium that managed to project Russia as a backward nation that did not conform with modern conceptions. Thus, it seems fair to equate that whilst Russia was modern by comparison with its own history, it was not with the rest of the world, and so unfortunately we must declare that urban sport did not fully manage to make Russia ‘modern.’
Internally, a nation’s journals can help indicate its progression, as the production of such material symbolises the secularisation that Windhausen & Tsypkina cite as being an important indicator due to the separation and self-regulation of the journals community, as well as the expression they give, a very important idea in an era where ‘independence from the state…was impossible.’ Russia did manage to create a journal for cycling: Tsiklist, which lasted for 18 years after its birth in 1895. Unfortunately, when compared to its European cousins, it does not stand up well for modernity. Whilst like its French equivalent L’Auto it was funded through commercial advertisements, although the companies in L’Auto were somewhat more ingenious in the marketing strategy – John Boyd Dunlop, on inventing his pneumatic bicycle tyre, spread the roads with tacks and nails so that riders would puncture and be able to quickly change his tyres, thus demonstrating the benefit of his product – its legacy is zero by comparison. The Tour de France was created by L’Auto to boost sales against rival L’Velo, and persists to this day. In doing so, the paper’s circulation rose from 25,000 to 65,000, and by 1908, it had reached a quarter of a million. The race thus created an intense public sphere, as the only way to learn who had won was to purchase one. By comparison, Russia had fallen out of love with cycling by 1900. The implication is that Russia simply viewed sports as passing, fashionable fads, to be tried and tested rather than developed. It is this effective immaturity that distinguishes Russia from its European neighbours. The fact is that the record for cycling seems to almost disappear from Russia, to the extent that some research on the subject manages to make the mistake of claiming that ‘no Russian had taken part in the Tour de France or Giro d’Italia’ – an odd claim given that when the book was published in 2005, fourteen Russians had ridden the Tour, taking six stage victories, whilst the Giro had been won twice by Russians. This apparent lack of proper records is indicative of Russia’s lack of modernity in sport, which lest we forget requires ‘a zeal for quantification and record setting’, and with that, recording. Thus again, given the comparison with the other European nations, Russian sport turns out to be underdeveloped under the Tsar, lacking both the longevity and bureaucratisation so vital to producing a ‘modern sport.’ Therefore, we cannot see Russian sport in the period of modern.
It would be criminal to look at sport in Tsarist Russia without looking at the Tsars and their family themselves. After all, the autocrat was effectively the most important person in the country. Did the Tsar have an effect on Russian sport that was modernising? Certainly not intentionally. Aside from the aforementioned limited promotion of health, if anything, the Tsars attempted to limit the progress of Russian sport. It could be argued that banning rugby in 1886 on the basis that it was ‘brutal, and liable to incite demonstrations and riots’ was a move toward modernity as it was encouraging morals and upstanding behaviour, but given the record of the Tsars, who ‘felt it necessary to observe, if not control, any activity that brought significant numbers of people together’ it seems more likely that the actual reasoning was more in line with preserving the autocracy: a move few would argue was exactly encouraging modernity. However, interestingly, we can track the development of bicycle technology through the models the Imperial family owned: Alexander II began with a wooden wheeled machine that was ridden through the halls of the Winter Palace by the future Alexander III,
whilst Nicholas II spent 381 roubles on bicycles in the first year of his reign, buying both American and Russian models. It thus may appear that sport was a great equaliser, uniting both people and Tsar through a shared vocation. Unfortunately, evidence for other sports does not make this out to be the case. We have already seen the existence of sports clubs, but what we have not seen is the social stratification these required – the clubs required a subscription, with football clubs annual fees being more than the average monthly wage of the workers. It seems that many sports were based on a certain elitism. Only the nobility were admitted to the Imperial St. Petersburg Yacht Club, founded in 1846,for instance, and Tennis was taken up by the Imperial family and upper classes. In essence, anyone searching for evidence of sport under the Tsars being a great equaliser will be disspaointed – at best, sport strengthed social divisons, helping the development of the working class through factory football teams, for instance. Whilst it could be argued that the Tsars penchant for preserving autocracy helped enable the
systematic regulation of sport required to make it modern, it certainly didn’t help secularisation – sport was still bound to the state. For this reason, we can see that sport under the Tsars was not modern.
Finally, we come to the event that draws all the threads of sport together: the Olympics. Russia had actually been a founding member when the Olympics were revived, but hadn’t bothered to take part until 1908, where its seven athletes had managed a single gold and two silvers. Nicholas did actually push for an increased presence at the following Stockholm Games, and 127 athletes managed ten bronze medals and six silvers, although had they not let Finland, which was part of the Empire, compete as a separate entity, they could have added nine gold medals. Despite the failure, the push for recognition on the global stage was easily the closest Russia had come to trying to demonstrate its modernity through sport. It is telling that a temporal comparison with the Soviet Union, who would win over a thousand medals at the Summer Olympics, whom used the event as effective force projection against the United States. Similarly, there was certainly development from 1908 to 1912: whilst both were embarrasing, at least 1912 had a degree of organisation and planning behind it in comparison to sending a doctor and student from an athletics society to London. Howeer, again, whilst we can thus find a couple of factors of modernity, we do not still poseess the full set. Given the Olympics is the ultimate sporting occasion, we would require all the factors required to demonstrate the modernity of Russia to be present, but unfrotunately, they were not – the Tsar was still in control of regulation, and it was athletes failed to deliver the sporting heroes the nation required. A telling point is that the Grand Dukes were part of the shooting team: not exactly demonstrative of an nation who had developed its citizenry into athletes, or indeed was breaking away
from a centuries old political system other nations had long abandoned. Russia may have had the appearance of modernity, but this was but a veneer behind which a backward nation remained.
To be fair, Russia is still struggling look more modern, even in regards to cycling. It did begun the age of the ‘super team’ based upon the aggregation of marginal scientific gains through its creation of the Katusha ‘Russian Global Cycling Project’ in 2009, an effective state funded team with a stated objective of ‘positive changes in all domestic cycling, and, at all levels.’ ‘We want to rebuild Russian cycling to the powerhouse it was back in the Soviet era’ Andrei Tchmil, the highly decorated team manager claimed. However, the team managed to send an all-Russian ‘team that represents, in all of its riders and staff, a single nation’ to the 2011 Tour de France (they even wore jerseys bearing the Moscow skyline), an odd move in an era of the sport which has seen the increasing globalisation of cycling that hearkens back to the slavophile, Russification policies of Imperial Russia. The policy of choosing nation over talent bombed, – in attempting to demonstrate the growth and development of Russian cycling, they instead proved Russia was governed by emotive nationalistic tendencies rather than the scientific results driven motive of other teams, including the Kazak Astana team, who constantly outperform their neigbours. Tellingly, in an era that has seen events spring up in Malaysia, Qatar, Argentina and China, the nation next to the sports traditional heartland has consistently failed to produce a top
tier race.This would suggest that Russia has not truly progressed since the days of the Tsars whilst Europe and the world has moved on around it, and given reference to Europe is a key indicator of modernisation for Russia, we must acknowledge that ultimately, cycling demonstrates Russia to be woefully behind the ‘modern world’ not only in its sporting constitution but also in the infrastructure required to support it.
Ultimately, for Russian sport to be modern and an indicator of the nation’s modernity, it has to simultaneously hold all the factors set out at the beginning of this paper. Unfortunately, whilst we could just about scrape all the factors together, they are never truly mated – they remain as constituent parts and never produce the smooth running machine of modernity. That said, it would be harsh to equally argue the antithesis that Russia was completely backward – it was clearly using sport to attempt to better its population, and was internationally recognised for its efforts. Literature and journals built a commercial aspect, as did the push for the promotion of health, and to be fair, managed the best secularisation and bureaucratisation of its sports through the creating of clubs etc that it could manage under the autocracy. For in the unending game of ‘who is to blame’, it is the autocracy that falls foul. The structure and organisation of Tsarist Russia combined with its geography caused inherent problems for sporting development, which was second to the promotion of the state itself, and thus ended up being used as an organ of the state despite its underdevelopment. It is in this arena of comparison to other nations that we must make the ultimate judgment on Russian sport, and frankly, it never stood a chance. It is telling that sports were imported into Russia rather than out, and the resounding progress and legacy produced by parallel European organs demonstrates their relative progress and modernity compared to Russia. Ultimately then, sport under Tsarist Russia cannot be seen as modern due to the underlying foundation of autocracy which limited any progress.
 John D. Windhausen & Irina V. Tsypkina, National identity and the emergence of the sports movement in late imperial Russia, [The International Journal of the History of Sport, Vol.12, No:2, (1995)pp164-182], p166
 http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/history/history-periodic-table.htm [Accessed 15.4.2012] The date is however disputed as John Newlands had created a proto-periodic table in 1863.
 http://www.espn.co.uk/onthisday/sport/story/100.html [Accessed 31/3/2012]
 http://www.bikeradar.com/blog/article/save-the-hour-record-18316/ [Accessed 31/3/2012]
 The 2011 Giro d’Italia (Tour of Italy) for instance celebrated the 150th anniversary of the unification of Italy by visiting as many provinces of the country as was possible and beginning in Turin, which had been the state’s first capital.
 Benjo Masso, The Sweat of the Gods: Myths and Legends of Bicycle Racing, (Mousehold Press, 2005),p2
 http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/dossiers/dos_paris_rouen.php [Accessed 31/3/2012]
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_cyclists_who_died_during_a_race [Accessed 1/4/2012]
 Lousie McReynolds, Russia at Play: Leisure Activities at the End of the Tsarist Era, (Cornell University, 2003),p100
 Susan K. Morrissey, The Economy of Nerves, : Health, Commercial Culture, and the Self in Late Imperial Russia, [Slavic Review, Vol. 69, No. 3 (FALL 2010)], p647
 http://www.pbs.org/redfiles/sports/debrief/s_brief_ter_keys.htm [Accessed 1/4/2012]
 Timothy C. Harte, Game Set, Stanza: Modern Sport in Russia and the Poetry of Osip Mandel’shtam, The Russian Review 59 (July 2000), p356
 Brigit Beumers, Pop Culture Russia! Media, Arts and Lifestyle, (ABC-CLIO, 2005), p264
 Lousie McReynolds, Tracking Social Change Through Sport Hunting, in Ronald J. Hill, (ed.) Transforming Peasants: Society, State and the Peasantry, Selected Papers from the Fifth World Congress of Central and East European Studies, Warsaw, 1995, (Macmillan Press, 1998), p65
 McReynolds, Tracking Social Change…, p71
 Beumers, Pop Culture Russia!, p277
 By which I mean soccer!
 Robert Edelman, Spartak Moscow: A History of the People’s Team in the Workers’ State, (Cornell University Press, 2009), p11-15
 http://russiapedia.rt.com/on-this-day/september-15/ [Accessed 5/4/2012]
 http://russiapedia.rt.com/on-this-day/september-15/ [Accessed 5/4/2012]
 Robert A. Lewis and Richard H. Rowland, Urbanization in Russia and the USSR: 1897-1966, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Volume 59, No. 4, December 1969, pp776-796
 Lewis and Rowland, Urbanization in Russia and the USSR, p780
 Paolo Malanima & Oliver Volckart, Urbanisation 1700-1870, http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/1/1679/papers/Malanima-Volckart-Chapter.pdf [Accessed 5/4/2012], p3
 After having been scouted out, a telegram describing the ‘very good…perfectly feasible’ road had been sent to organisers.
 McReynolds, Russian at Play, p98
 Which seems to have birthed the saying ‘There are two main problems in Russia: fools and roads.’ http://observers.france24.com/content/20111004-russia-moscow-builds-first-bike-path-obstacle-course-bicycle-cycling-university-video-photo [Accessed 31.3.2012]
 Peter Waldron, The End of Imperial Russia, 1855-1917, (St Martins’ Press, 1997), p92
 Waldron, The End of Imperial Russia, , p92
 McReynolds, Russia at Play, p102
 Waldron, The End of Imperial Russia, , p92
 McReynolds, Russia at Play, p96
 Robert Edelman, Spartak Moscow: A History of the People’s Team in the Workers’ State, (Cornell University Press, 2009), p15
 Cycling, Otago Witness, 9th June 1892, p31 (issues available at http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=p&p=browse&e=——-10–1—-0–
 Cycling, Otago Witness, 9th June 1892, p31
 Cycling, Otago Witness, Issue 2213, 30th July 1896, p41
 Marshall McLuhan, The Gutenberg Galaxy, (University of Toronto Press, 1962), p31
 Image in J.A.Mangan, Reformers, Sport and Modernizers: Middle-Class Revolutionaries, (Routledge, 2002), p112
 Beumers, Pop Culture Russia, p285
 Edelman, Spartak Moscow, p14
 McReynolds, Russia at Play, p98
 Masso, The Sweat of the Gods, p32
 Les Woodland, The Yellow Jersey Guide to the Tour de France, (Yellow Jersey Press, 2007), introduction
 Woodland, The Yellow Jersey…, introduction
 McReynolds, Russia at Play, p102
 Beumers, Pop Culture Russia!, p285
 http://www.letour.fr/HISTO/us/TDF/recherche/RUS/all/participations.html [Accessed 12.5.2012]
 http://www.letour.fr/HISTO/us/TDF/recherche/RUS/all/vainqueurs_etape.html [Accessed 12.5.2012]
 James Riordon, Sport in Soviet Society — development of sport and physical education in Russia and the USSR (Cambridge University Press, 1977), p22, cited from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_union_in_Russia#cite_note-Riordan1-4 [Accessed 12.5.2012]
 Edelman, Spartak Moscow, p14
 http://www.spbvedomosti.ru/article.htm?id=10264670@SV_Articles translated by Google, accessed 16.5.2012]
 http://www.prlib.ru/en-us/History/Pages/Item.aspx?itemid=553 [Accessed 15.4.2012]
 Beumers, Pop Culture Russia! p264
 McReynolds, Russia at Play, p111
 The connections between the team and the state were neatly drawn together by British publication Cycling Weekly, which noted that the President of the Russian Cycling Federation was simultaneously chairman of one if the teams sponsers, Itera, as well as sitting on the teams supervisory board. Cycling Weekly, April 12th 2012, p22
 http://www.katushateam.com/2012/eng/main.php?mod=supervisory [Accessed 5.4.2012]
 ‘Former Soviet Bloc: Still an Olympic Force, Velo, Volume 41, No 4, March 2012, p58
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/nov/26/cycling.sport [Accessed 1.4.2012]
 http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tour-of-sochi-postponed [Accessed 1.4.2012]
– Brigit Beumers, Pop Culture Russia! Media, Arts and Lifestyle, (ABC-CLIO, 2005)
Cycling, Otago Witness, 9th June 1892, 30th July 1896 , 4th June 1896, 8th March 1906 (issues available at http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=p&p=browse&e=——-10–1—-0–
– Cycling Weekly, IPC Media, Croydon, England, April 12th 2012
– Edward Crankshaw, The Shadow of the Winter Palace: Russia’s Drift to Revolution 1825-1917, (Da Capo Press, 2000),
– Robert Edelman, Spartak Moscow: A History of the People’s Team in the Workers’ State, (Cornell University Press, 2009)
– Timothy C. Harte, Game Set, Stanza: Modern Sport in Russia and the Poetry of Osip Mandel’shtam, The Russian Review 59 (July 2000)
– Robert A. Lewis and Richard H. Rowland, Urbanization in Russia and the USSR: 1897-1966, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Volume 59, No. 4, December 1969, pp776-796
– Paolo Malanima & Oliver Volckart, Urbanisation 1700-1870, http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/1/1679/papers/Malanima-Volckart-Chapter.pdf [Accessed 5/4/2012]
– J.A.Mangan, Reformers, Sport and Modernizers: Middle-Class Revolutionaries, (Routledge, 2002)
– Benjo Masso, The Sweat of the Gods: Myths and Legends of Bicycle Racing, (Mousehold Press, 2005)
– Lousie McReynolds, Russia at Play: Leisure Activities at the End of the Tsarist Era, (Cornell University, 2003)
– Lousie McReynolds, Tracking Social Change Through Sport Hunting, in Ronald J. Hill, (ed.) Transforming Peasants: Society, State and the Peasantry, Selected Papers from the Fifth World Congress of Central and East European Studies, Warsaw, 1995, (Macmillan Press, 1998)
– Marshall McLuhan, The Gutenberg Galaxy, (University of Toronto Press, 1962)
– Susan K. Morrissey, The Economy of Nerves, : Health, Commercial Culture, and the Self in Late Imperial Russia, [Slavic Review, Vol. 69, No. 3 (FALL 2010)]
– Thomas Riha (ed.), Readings in Russian Civilization: Volume II: Imperial Russia, 1700-1917, (London: University of Chicago Press, 1969)
– Peter Waldron, The End of Imperial Russia, 1855-1917, (St Martins’ Press, 1997),
– John D. Windhausen & Irina V. Tsypkina, National identity and the emergence of the sports movement in late imperial Russia, [The International Journal of the History of Sport, Vol.12, No:2, (1995)pp164-182]
– Les Woodland, The Yellow Jersey Guide to the Tour de France, (Yellow Jersey Press, 2007)
– Richard S. Wortman, Scenarios of Power: Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy, (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2006)
– Velo, Volume 41, No 4, March 2012
http://www.bikeradar.com/blog/article/save-the-hour-record-18316/ [Accessed 31/3/2012]
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tour-of-sochi-postponed [Accessed 1.4.2012]
http://www.discusmedia.com/catalog.php?id=24977 [Accessed 31.3.2012]
http://englishrussia.com/2011/10/14/tsarist-russia-ads/ [Accessed 2/4/2012]
http://www.espn.co.uk/onthisday/sport/story/100.html [Accessed 31/3/2012]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/nov/26/cycling.sport [Accessed 1.4.2012]
http://www.katushateam.com/2012/eng/main.php?mod=supervisory [Accessed 5.4.2012]
http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/history/history-periodic-table.htm [Accessed 15.4.2012]
http://www.letour.fr/HISTO/us/TDF/recherche/RUS/all/participations.html [Accessed 12.5.2012]
http://www.letour.fr/HISTO/us/TDF/recherche/RUS/all/vainqueurs_etape.html [Accessed 12.5.2012]
http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/dossiers/dos_paris_rouen.php [Accessed 31/3/2012]
http://www.olympic.org/medallists-results [Accessed 20/4/2012]
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/13753566 [Accessed 15/4/2012]
http://www.pbs.org/redfiles/sports/debrief/s_brief_ter_keys.htm [Accessed 1/4/2012]
http://www.prlib.ru/en-us/History/Pages/Item.aspx?itemid=553 [Accessed 15.4.2012]
http://russiapedia.rt.com/on-this-day/september-15/ [Accessed 5/4/2012]
http://www.spbvedomosti.ru/article.htm?id=10264670@SV_Articles translated by Google, accessed 16.5.2012]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_union_in_Russia#cite_note-Riordan1-4 [Accessed 12.5.2012]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lesgaft [Accessed 2/4/2012]
http://www.wolfgang-menn.de/hourrec.htm [Accessed 31/3/2012]