TELUS World Ski & Snowboard Festival

Interview with a Loser: Mike Berard's love and loss with Icon Gone

While the TELUS Conference Centre ballroom boomed and flashed during the Follow Me Film Premier and the village stroll writhed with movement and color, a focused and carefully formulated grassroots debate was taking place underground. Oversized cue cards were tossed. Panelists sweated and jittered. The audience booed and cheered at their whim, and a controversial winner rose out of the pack.

Put on by the Whistler Museum, Icon Gone gives local personalities the forum to argue for a Whistler treasure that they deem worthy of iconic status. Each entrant is given a maximum of five minutes to deliver their argument, and the presentation of anyone who goes over the limit is terminated with a cutthroat gong.

The Pique’s Andrew Mitchell borrowed Freddie Mercury’s swaying voice before launching into his argument for bikes in which he declared his love of the Loonie race, described the difficulty in riding the valley trail home from after parties, and put forth his incorrect but hilarious French to English translation of vas deferens.

Kevin Demaskie strutted across the stage in retro neon ski gear to argue for the Whistler Answer, and Cathy Jewitt, clad in a mink trimmed coat which was quickly shed under the theatre’s hot lights, made a passionate plea for the now defunct Dave Murray Downhill. Shauna Hardy-Mishaw argued for Hugh Smythe, and Nicole Fitzgerald’s beautiful voice filled the theatre with an impeccably crafted narrative about the life of Florence Peterson. Mike Berard took the podium clad in squeaky yellow and green waterproof apparel to argue hard for Whistler’s most hated four letter word: rain. Stephen Vogler made the final presentation with historic black and white photos to emphasize his argument for squatter’s cabins.

Judged by applause-o-meter,  Berard was in first place going into the finals with Vogler, Jewitt, and Mitchell to defend against. Stating that “I didn’t prepare anything because I didn’t think I’d make it this far and now I’m in trouble,” Berard wasn’t yet aware he had an ingenious Mitchell to contend with. 

The champion for bikes invoked Godwin’s law, which states that the longer a debate goes on, the greater the chance that the topic of Nazis will arise. Pointing out that Hitler never rode a bike during World War I, Mitchell summed up his rebuttal with “Hitler bad, bikes good,” and clinched himself the win.

I sat down with Mike Berard to discuss his position after he’d had a few days to nurse his wounds (or more accurately, drown his sorrows). -Allie Jenkinson

AJ: I was secretly pleased to see that you lost, as we had planned this interview ahead of time and “Interview with a Loser” is a far better title than “Interview with a Champion,” don’t you think?

MB: If I wasn’t the loser I would agree with you.

AJ: Tell me a little bit about your experience in preparing for Icon Gone, and about how you chose your argument.

MB: My argument centered on the idea that Whistler’s unique element is the result of rainfall, the defining factor that separates it from other ski areas.

AJ: This is a controversial argument, as rain is the great adversary in these parts.

MB: Exactly. But anyone who chooses to pretend that it doesn’t rain here is a fool.  Rain is central to why we have amazing snow, trees, singletrack, lakes, rivers,  and people. Coastal BC relies on precipitation. When we curse the rain we are actually cursing the fact that we aren’t California, which isn’t our true intent.

Tourists won’t go up when it’s dark and cool and wet, but the locals will. Rain breeds people that appreciate adversity.

AJ: You’re one of a handful of Whistler locals that seems to relish in controversy. Were you looking for a controversial idea, which lead you to rain, or did the idea you had the strongest argument for just happen to be controversial?

MB: A little bit of both.  I do believe that rain is Whistler’s defining factor, and backed away from more controversial ideas because I didn’t find them as convincing.

AJ: What was the greatest challenge going into the debate?

MB: The biggest challenge seemed to be that I had to defend myself as a relatively new resident. I didn’t know how much of the contest would revolve around the ski town’s infamous localism. I thought I might get called out on being a tourist. Everyone was really cool though. In the end my perspiration problem under hot lights in raingear was the real challenge.

AJ: How did you feel about being stripped of the win?

MB: I didn’t mind losing to Andrew Mitchell because his rebuttal was hilarious.

AJ: It’s a very humorous event, but at the same time it has a distinctly bittersweet undertone.  You have a panel of dynamic people living in a place that they are clearly invested in and passionate about, discussing a lack of appreciation for or loss of the elements that they believe make Whistler what it is.

MB: In my eyes that’s the beauty of the event. It doesn’t simply exist for a good time. These people are addressing in their own clever way the changing of the guard in Whistler. It’s a way for the local mouthpieces, outside of their careers, to voice these opinions. Take the Peak 2 Peak Gondola. So many people in the valley make fun of it, but sometimes because of person’s career or political ties it gets complicated when we try to speak publicly about it. It’s a classic ski town dynamic. We’re here because of the tourists, but not for the tourists. 

AJ: Would you do Icon Gone again?

MB: It’s tricky to pick that one single element and argue with your heart and soul, and then come back next year and argue for another one. But I’d love to try.

AJ: The panelists weren’t too rough on you, even though you made yourself a bit of an easy target.

MB: Maybe, but I think the most important thing to remember is that without rain the people would be different.

AJ: But for the sake of argument, doesn’t the rain account for some of the elements that the locals view as negative? Isn’t it the rain that keeps tourists out for most of the season, leaving us with a jacked up cost of living that results from communities full of empty mansions?

MB: Those mansions don’t bother me.

AJ: But they bother Stephen Vogler.

MB: Right. Unfortunately they make it hard for the rest of us to afford living here, but those people don’t effect us because they are never here. It’s a sign of indulgence, but I don’t think it changes who we are as Whistlerites.

AJ: Perhaps it ensures that the people who live here are commited,  because they have to make sacrifices.

MB: Maybe that's my next Icon Gone argument: massive empty mansions.

Read Berard's full argument here.