I found the article announcing the 50 most influential people in cycling today puzzling. I know you must be struggling for content in this time of "no races happening," but this article reminded me of the gimiks used on the web to get browsers to view gross amounts of advertising. All of us have our favorites that weren't included in your list and I understand that is simply a matter of preference and opinion. However, I want to take issue with two names that were included that reflect negatively on the ethics of those who run the governing bodies. Veronica Ivy's inclusion on this list hints that professional cycling is becoming more interested in social engineering than sport. It also sends a message that women's sports are not really important and do not need to be protected from hijackers. Biology is biology, science is science, and to declare that how one identifies can change scientific fact is illogical and leads dangerous and harmful outcomes. If the UCI is bent on pursuing this experiment, simply start yet another organization and race schedule for transgender men and women. See how well that gets supported. Since I'm sure part of this is driven by "inclusion" concerns, I can't help but wonder where are the black faces in the peleton? Professional cycling is light-years behind other sports in the area of racial inclusion and there is certainly no biological reason to exclude them since they excel in almost every sport known to humanity. Where are the programs to develop teams from Africa, other than white riders from South Africa?
Secondly, how can you completely annihilate Lance Armstrong for being the most egregious cheat in the history of the sport, strip him of everything he ever won, and then include him on this list? If he does remain one of the most powerful and influential people in cycling, it is because you have allowed it. The documentary, 30 for 30, aired recently in the United States revealed his character from his own lips, and it was an ugly portrait. His actions set cycling in this country back 20 years. Why does the media insist on giving him visability? Why do I see his name on cyclingnews.com frequently?
There are so many names that could have been included on this list that were not. They may not be as colorful or controversial, but they have had a positive influence on the sport.
Secondly, how can you completely annihilate Lance Armstrong for being the most egregious cheat in the history of the sport, strip him of everything he ever won, and then include him on this list? If he does remain one of the most powerful and influential people in cycling, it is because you have allowed it. The documentary, 30 for 30, aired recently in the United States revealed his character from his own lips, and it was an ugly portrait. His actions set cycling in this country back 20 years. Why does the media insist on giving him visability? Why do I see his name on cyclingnews.com frequently?
There are so many names that could have been included on this list that were not. They may not be as colorful or controversial, but they have had a positive influence on the sport.