Teams & Riders Israel Premier Tech

Page 21 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
It's not about it being a different standard. An Ineos rider should not be surprised if their team is targeted should a race be disrupted by environmental protesters, for example.
But they never are.

"*** around and find out" is something you can say when something is a reasonably expected outcome. This hardly is.

Unless you want to argue that riders should either be able to look 2 years into the future, or be okay with morally ambiguous stuff but make an exception for this one because this one is always gets the most scrutinized treatment.
 
But they never are.

"*** around and find out" is something you can say when something is a reasonably expected outcome. This hardly is.

Unless you want to argue that riders should either be able to look 2 years into the future, or be okay with morally ambiguous stuff but make an exception for this one because this one is always gets the most scrutinized treatment.
Come on, were you born yesterday? It didn't take a psychic to predict that riding with "Israel" on your jersey would be deemed somewhat controversial at some point. Like signing for Zenith Saint Petersburg a few years ago... you can do it but you know there will be trouble.
 
Come on, were you born yesterday? It didn't take a psychic to predict that riding with "Israel" on your jersey would be deemed somewhat controversial at some point. Like signing for Zenith Saint Petersburg a few years ago... you can do it but you know there will be trouble.
Depends on how many years ago.

But my general point is we're making judgment not on moral issues but the collective response to said moral issues. So I find it dumb to judge it like that.

Realistically, 99% of pro riders are not thinking about where the sponsor money is coming from, they're simply taking the best opportunity available. Humans tend to follow the incentives like that.
 
But they never are.

"*** around and find out" is something you can say when something is a reasonably expected outcome. This hardly is.

Unless you want to argue that riders should either be able to look 2 years into the future, or be okay with morally ambiguous stuff but make an exception for this one because this one is always gets the most scrutinized treatment.
Race-disrupting protests because of the team's sponsors were already documented by January 2024 (Si Clarke at the Aussie nationals, as mentioned) at the latest. 6 of the 8 riders on the IPT Vuelta team didn't join the team until then. The current source of protests was already the state of affairs when they first rode with the team, and the team has been targeted by such protests on multiple occasions across their entire tenure with the team, such that they really oughtn't be unprepared or surprised.
Realistically, 99% of pro riders are not thinking about where the sponsor money is coming from, they're simply taking the best opportunity available. Humans tend to follow the incentives like that.
While true, a basic premise of "I didn't think about whether my actions would have consequences, therefore it's unfair that I face consequences for my actions" is hardly going to win them sympathy.
 
Some of you are forgetting that not that long ago this exact problem was on the table and it took no protestors to act on it and to resolve it swiftly. Imagine if that wouldn't have been done, the protests being involved. IMHO it would have surpass farmer and oil protests by magnitude rather easily.
 
There have been protests at every Tour in memory from aggreived French working groups. Save for Hinault punching out a protestor the riders seem to take it in stride. If a protestor is successful in hurting a rider that will change things; possibly in a big way. There may be grumblers within the peloton but they'd best keep it to themselves. It's just a matter of time before your team sponsor or DS pisses off other competitors.
I know, but this different than some disgruntled farmers.
 
While true, a basic premise of "I didn't think about whether my actions would have consequences, therefore it's unfair that I face consequences for my actions" is hardly going to win them sympathy.
This would completely depend on the type of consequences. If people show up with some banners and flags that's fine. But when people show up en messe to disrupt an entire race throwing tacks on the road, causing crashes and other safety issues, that responsibility is on them, and not on the targets of this protest.
 
It's not about it being a different standard. An Ineos rider should not be surprised if their team is targeted should a race be disrupted by environmental protesters, for example.

Protests have been disrupting IPT riders for at least a couple of years now, Simon Clarke was being targeted by protests at the Australian Nationals last year - and those protests were targeting him personally and specifically - and there have been multiple disruptions relating to the team over the past two years, so the riders shouldn't be all shocked Pikachu face by this point.

And as to the situation changing after contracts were signed, of the 8 riders for IPT in this Vuelta, Matthew Riccitello and Marco Frigo are the only ones who were on the squad prior to 2024.
Simply, there is a war going that has polarized many in Spain and not only. I could site the graffiti in Greece this summer, while riding up remote beautiful passes, but this would infringe upon the forum rules.
 
This would completely depend on the type of consequences. If people show up with some banners and flags that's fine. But when people show up en messe to disrupt an entire race throwing tacks on the road, causing crashes and other safety issues, that responsibility is on them, and not on the targets of this protest.
The fact that the riders are being implicated in protests is the consequence of their choosing to sign with a team whose sponsors are controversial. People have been protesting the team for at least two years now, at least as long as 3/4 of the team's riders in Spain have been with the team.

What actually happens in the protests is an entirely separate issue that I have not engaged with.
 
But they never are.

"*** around and find out" is something you can say when something is a reasonably expected outcome. This hardly is.

Unless you want to argue that riders should either be able to look 2 years into the future, or be okay with morally ambiguous stuff but make an exception for this one because this one is always gets the most scrutinized treatment.
It boils down to the hot spot, like a bomb that gets ignighted. Well, the sparks are flying. And there is no rational control over this, but only human emotion backing a cause, like trying to put your finger in hole to stop a raging flood.
 
Nov 24, 2021
18
9
2,545
Some proper reading about what's going on:

https://cyclingreport.substack.com/p/cycling-change-forever-la-vuelta-protests
How could cycling change after these protests.

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/no...for-tough-job-market-for-contractless-riders/
Riders with no contract in 2026 struggling with this situation.

https://www.marca.com/ciclismo/vuel...pender-vuelta-audiencia-nacional-estudia.html
A pro-Israel association calls for the suspension of La Vuelta and the National Court is reviewing it. (for hate crime)
 
  • Like
Reactions: the delgados
Well for one thing I don't believe there is any factual evidence that tacks were being thrown. That one is nothing more than speculation and wanting to pile on more accusations.
I’d argue that believing there weren’t tacks thrown, without any supporting evidence, is also speculation. Just to keep the logic consistent….

I think it makes more sense to say, “I’ll believe the claims of tacks when I see the evidence”, rather than “I haven’t seen any evidence, so I believe it didn’t happen”.

Positive claims, burden of proof and all that.

The logical stance is not to believe a claim until I see convincing evidence for a claim. What you bring up is a good point. I also haven’t seen evidence for the tacks story, so I don’t accept the claims either. Convincing evidence could change that position.

Suspending the Vuelta is a hate crime allright, hope they lock up the people calling for it
I think you might be stretching the definition of “hate crime”…juuuuust a tad. 😉
 
Last edited:
I’d argue that believing there weren’t tacks thrown, without any supporting evidence, is also speculation. Just to keep the logic consistent….

I think it makes more sense to say, “I’ll believe the claims of tacks when I see the evidence”, rather than “I haven’t seen any evidence, so I believe it didn’t happen”.

Positive claims, burden of proof and all that.

The logical stance is not to believe a claim until I see convincing evidence for a claim. What you bring up is a good point. I also haven’t seen evidence for the tacks story, so I don’t accept the claims either. Convincing evidence could change that position.
I was merely pointing out that I had heard no one reporting on tacks or any riders in interviews saying anything about tacks yet Red Rick was stating it like it was fact. The only mention of it that I heard was either Bob or Christian speculating about it when Vingo got his flat along with a couple of others in short order, and the other of the two responding by pointing out that it had just started to rain and that sometimes washes grit onto the road that can cause punctures.