Teams & Riders Israel Premier Tech

[Oldman]

On most teams, perhaps. But the promotion of the state is at the behest of the team's owner, and the state is, as I understand it, only a very minor sponsor through its department for tourism.

And in a number of other cases, the team is owned by the sponsors: Red Bull, Ineos (via Ratcliffe), UAE, probably others.

If that particular interest is a minor sponsor and the team survival is at stake it becomes a simple business decision. If the Owner can't reconcile that from his personal standpoint he should make a smart business choice and sell his interest and move on.
Really bad press nets totally eternally bad marketing. No one gets paid as the other sponsors flee. Associated sponsors and contract riders are not altruistic on a political level any more than most aware citizens. You live with your best judgement, IMO. Riccatello will be moving, for sure.

 

[red_flanders]

I am just saying that he, as any rider on any team, is riding around with sponsors on his jersey advertising them. He reads what happen in the news and then goes out to ride around with certain things on his jersey. That's his choice, but if the sponsors are controversial, of course the rider will be criticised by people who disagree with the sponsors. It is the riders responsibility to know what and who he is signing for

Wonder if you might not be flirting with “they got it coming” here…

If it were just criticism there’s no difficulty to choosing. They would just ride and hear the criticism. The implied threat of crowds interfering with the race, however, goes well beyond criticism. Are we leaning into justification if someone does get hurt?

 

[Ilmaestro99]

Are we leaning into justification if someone does get hurt?

Not from me, no. I obviously don't support riders being harmed.

 

[Filippo_3467]

Probably they won't be able to sign riders going forward and that will be the end of the team.

They already weren't a team with great signings but good rider development. Now with Riccitello and Gee leaving, Woods retiring...they are loosing the two big names for their co-sponsor Premier Tech.

the team has only two signings for next year and 18 riders in the roster. Regardless of politics it seems like the riders are deciding with their choices about the future of the team. Of course they will find riders to fill their roster but it's pretty hard to stop that trend imo. I think the uncertainty is just to much for riders to not consider other offers if they have a market.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

Probably they won't be able to sign riders going forward and that will be the end of the team.

Froomey is going for Tour #5 next year. They had better realize it and prolong his contract before it's too late.

 

[Rou]

Probably they won't be able to sign riders going forward and that will be the end of the team.

They already weren't a team with great signings but good rider development. Now with Riccitello and Gee leaving, Woods retiring...they are loosing the two big names for their co-sponsor Premier Tech.

the team has only two signings for next year and 18 riders in the roster. Regardless of politics it seems like the riders are deciding with their choices about the future of the team. Of course they will find riders to fill their roster but it's pretty hard to stop that trend imo. I think the uncertainty is just to much for riders to not consider other offers if they have a market.

Signing new riders is the smallest issue for them.
As long as Adams wants the team to continue they will fill their roster even with amateur level riders if needed.
The team has a different goal - it is not a sporting related one.

 

[Cycling111]

Let's see if they clarify and they stop contradicting. In the first response they have been left in evidence.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1967630909118857350

View: https://x.com/CarlosCR_/status/1967630909118857350

 

[Oldman]

I thought that it was relevant in the sense that as arider, you are representing your sponsors, and you choose to do that

Easy to say that in hindsight. A rider signs with Froome's team that's operated for a few years assuming some status quo. When the named sponsor becomes associated at the venue with acts not related to the rider is he supposed to quit? The team would have every right to sue that rider and end his career so it's not that simple. It is the TEAM OWNER that has to protect the riders from a bad marketing change of conditions or give them the option to move on, penalty free and with some travelling money.

 

[CyclistAbi]

And that's why IPT didn't withdraw. They do have support, whether some people like to admit that or not.

But that would imply UCI is making political decisions, on who to expel from peloton and who not.

 

[Wyndbrook]

Generally world sport governing bodies follow IOC guidance, but also recognise that national governing bodies also have to abide by their individual government rulings.
With the next Olympics almost eighteen months away I doubt the IOC are much interested in bike racing at the moment.

 

[Rob5091]

Louis Vervaeke's thoughts on the recent Vuelta -
https://cyclinguptodate.com/cycling...t-out-after-vuelta-chaos-claims-peloton-rival

(original at https://sporza.be/nl/2025/09/15/-he...-ogen-van-een-belgische-renner~1757940959280/ )

“This wasn’t their choice. They wear a jersey that today is enormously loaded. They were suffering, just wanting the Vuelta to be done. Some even asked whether we had space in our team next year. They felt they couldn’t go home because they’re under contract — they risk losing their jobs. That was really sad to see.”

 

[Red Rick]

Is this just another dude who doesn't understand that much of what the UCI is dictated by the IOC and that the UCI isn't all powerful?

Also, Bahrain, LMAO

 

[Ilmaestro99]

Is this just another dude who doesn't understand that much of what the UCI is dictated by the IOC and that the UCI isn't all powerful?

Are you able to provide some more insight into this mate? As far as I know the ban of russian teams and russian sponsors was simply recommended by the ioc. The decision still ultimately remained with the uci?

Also, Bahrain, LMAO

Yeah it's not ideal. But at least someone within the sport wants to talk about this issue. Hopefully more people speak up. We have a team riding around advertising a regime causing a humanitarian crisis and committing war crimes committing a genocide. Not good to have them in the sport. And then yes hopefully Bahrain and UAE go too.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

Are you able to provide some more insight into this mate? As far as I know the ban of russian teams and russian sponsors was simply recommended by the ioc. The decision still ultimately remained with the uci?

World Athletics also banned Russia in the aftermath of the doping scandal against the wishes of the IOC, years before the invasion of Ukraine precipitated bans elsewhere.

But I guess you're replying to just another dude who doesn't understand that the IOC isn't all-powerful.

 

[Red Rick]

I remember the Russian Wimbledon ban. Points got revoked and they're competing everywhere under a neutral flag.

 

[AmRacer]

But that would imply UCI is making political decisions, on who to expel from peloton and who not.

Think UCI waits for IOC to decide and then just follow, UCI won't be first mover.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

I remember the Russian Wimbledon ban. Points got revoked and they're competing everywhere under a neutral flag.

And the revoking of points was instigated by the ATP and WTA, not the IOC. So that's not an example why the UCI couldn't act on its own accord.

 

[CyclistAbi]

Think UCI waits for IOC to decide and then just follow, UCI won't be first mover.

Likely IOC will at some point in the future voice their opinion or propose actions on this matter and after UCI management committee to for example align (some) views. But that will happen in some (distant) future. UCI will need to act on it IMHO much sooner than that. Citing UN and similar, that will likely be the back bone of the decisions taken.

 

[Netserk]

Two different claims:

Can the UCI possibly act independent of IOC? Yes.

Could the UCI have ignored the IOC in 2022 and afterwards remained an Olympic sport? No.

There's no double standard by the UCI if they prefer to act according to IOC, or if they generally don't want to exclude anyone, but prioritise IOC membership.

Is the IOC hypocrites? Not necessarily. The Olympic truce was only violated in one of the cases.

 

[houtdffan]

Let's just say the IOC wont do anything before LA 2028

Why? We all know why. No need to get into the politics of the situation

 

[Netserk]

It's not inherently wrong to treat different cases differently, when they materially differ. The ignorant accusations of double standards rest on the denial of all material differences.

 

[AmRacer]

Likely IOC will at some point in the future voice their opinion or propose actions on this matter and after UCI management committee to for example align (some) views. But that will happen in some (distant) future. UCI will need to act on it IMHO much sooner than that. Citing UN and similar, that will likely be the back bone of the decisions taken.

Whatever sport, each organisation waits for the highets one e.g. IOC to decide something and follow. Nobody wants to be first mover.

 

[AmRacer]

Then again UCI proved to have teeth in 2022. I agree that if 2022 wouldn't have happened and this would be about setting a precedent, then it would be moot and a much bigger uphill battle. But the thing is precedent for such things was already set, swiftly might i add.

UCI wasn't first mover 2022?

 

[CyclistAbi]

UCI wasn't first mover 2022?

UCI alignment with IOC recommendations happened in 2023, a whole year after:

The UCI approves IOC recommendations of 28 March 2023 concerning the participation of athletes with Russian and Belarusian passports in international competitions, and adapts its directives on their participation in events on the UCI International Ca

At its meeting held from 2 to 4 May in Cagliari, Sardinia (Italy), the Management Committee of the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) took a number of decisions in relation to the sanctions against Russia and Belarus following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

www.uci.org

This was already discussed in the past, but OK, some didn't read it or simply chose to ignore it.

 

[theyoungest]

What experts? I'm sorry you lost me there. The situation surrounding expelling teams from sport requires a certain political bipartisanship on the issue. In this instance there's no such thing.

It's as simple as that. The UCI can't unilaterally act upon the demands of one side of the argument without outraging the other, ergo status-quo was naturally observed. The rest was simply Spain demonstrating their willingness to use their own GT as a platform for political messaging.

Geopolitics ≠ science. There's no "experts" qualified to pressurize the forces in play in world events at the moment beyond what we see (namely the people who were elected).

One nation's "established fact" is another's lie. In these cases, I feel people have been somewhat blinded by certain prior examples (namely events surrounding 2022) where there was bipartisan agreement.

This is why you have independent bodies making assessments on the situation in a particular country. I can't go into specifics because that would be considered too "political" for this forum, but you know perfectly well what I'm talking about and otherwise I suggest you check out the BBC homepage.

Given said situation a team founded with the express purpose of promoting this country should be expelled from the sport, just like Russian teams and sponsors were. Otherwise there's no moral clarity, only double standards. Now of course double standards are pretty much what the UCI is known for, so I'm not expecting much, but objectively I don't see how you can reach any other conclusion.