Race interference: Protests, Sabotage, and Assaults

[Netserk]

Respect the rules against G.R.A.P.E.S. This can be seen as a grey-area, so be extra attentive to the directions from the moderators in this thread. This is not the place to discuss specific political causes, so please rather reference merely an abstract class of possible causes if the justifiability of certain actions depend on the existence and quality of such a cause.​

This thread is not about chaotic, ordinary spectators and how to police them. For that, go here:

Whacky Spectators at the Tour de France

Covering over 3,000 KM, the Tour is bound to attract some very whacky behaviour from spectators. In this poll you simply select all examples of whacky spectator behaviour you think will happen during the three weeks of the Tour. Bingo Card NAKED BUTTS! People in pools by the roadside...

forum.cyclingnews.com

Yesterday's stage to Bilbao in the Vuelta was neutralised after protesters made the finish of the stage unsafe for racing.

Bike races have long been targets of various organised efforts to affect races and to promote messages. This thread is the place to discuss how to handle such efforts and what kinds of efforts are legitimate and justified, to the extent we can speak of that within the rules.

Spoiler: To the mods

If older posts are to be moved to this thread, can the oldest post be one of mine from yesterday that gets edited to only contain the content of this OP?

 

[AlfaLum]

Very difficult subject. I dont like these type of protest, but many other type of protest on behalf of humanity have failed to have results.

So I understand that groups of people feel the need to step it up a notch in order for the protest to have effects. However doing so at the costs of other peoples safety is a line that should never be crossed and that what has happened yesterday.

 

[red_flanders]

What scares me is that today's success, affecting the outcome of the event, will lead to more. More protests, more escalation of tactics.

 

[AlfaLum]

You cannot discuss the most relevant topic in Cycling at the moment without touching a little bit of politics.

 

[hrotha]

People can blame the organizers or the local police, but the fact of the matter is that road cycling is intrinsically vulnerable to disruption and there's not much that can be done about it if would-be disruptors are determined enough. Lining the road with police is only workable over relatively short distances (a circuit, a particular climb, etc) and even that won't stop certain kinds of attacks.

The only way to do it would be to severely restrict or outright prohibit access to the race, which again, can only be done in a circuit. And that would suck so much the trade-off is simply not worth it.

Which leaves us with the need to manage the PR side of things so that the situation doesn't blow up in your face. Something that the Vuelta and the UCI failed to even attempt.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

Maybe One Cycling really is the future. You won't have problems with spectators if there aren't any.

 

[pastronef]

Maybe One Cycling really is the future. You won't have problems with spectators if there aren't any.

post of the month, if not of the year

 

[the delgados]

Respect the rules against G.R.A.P.E.S. This can be seen as a grey-area, so be extra attentive to the directions from the moderators in this thread. This is not the place to discuss specific political causes, so please rather reference merely an abstract class of possible causes if the justifiability of certain actions depend on the existence and quality of such a cause.​

This thread is not about chaotic, ordinary spectators and how to police them. For that, go here:

Whacky Spectators at the Tour de France

Covering over 3,000 KM, the Tour is bound to attract some very whacky behaviour from spectators. In this poll you simply select all examples of whacky spectator behaviour you think will happen during the three weeks of the Tour. Bingo Card NAKED BUTTS! People in pools by the roadside...

forum.cyclingnews.com

Yesterday's stage to Bilbao in the Vuelta was neutralised after protesters made the finish of the stage unsafe for racing.

Bike races have long been targets of various organised efforts to affect races and to promote messages. This thread is the place to discuss how to handle such efforts and what kinds of efforts are legitimate and justified, to the extent we can speak of that within the rules.

Spoiler: To the mods

If older posts are to be moved to this thread, can the oldest post be one of mine from yesterday that gets edited to only contain the content of this OP?

Answer: Do not include the team responsible for the protest in the race.
Problem solved.
As has been mentioned many times, it's impossible to separate politics from sport, no matter how much people try.

 

[GenericBoonenFan]

Answer: Do not include the team responsible for the protest in the race.
Problem solved.

Cool, imma rally some fellow fans and protest against every sportwashing team ahead of the Flemish classics, maybe Wout can win one for once...

 

[Brullnux]

Cool, imma rally some fellow fans and protest against every sportwashing team ahead of the Flemish classics, maybe Wout can win one for once...

Alpecin will still be in it sadly for Wout, unless we exclude them for being a literal washing product

 

[the delgados]

Cool, imma rally some fellow fans and protest against every sportwashing team ahead of the Flemish classics, maybe Wout can win one for once...

I totally understand what you're saying.
[content deleted]
All I can say in response is priorities matter.

 

[GenericBoonenFan]

Alpecin will still be in it sadly for Wout, unless we exclude them for being a literal washing product

Aren't they looking for a secondary sponsor? Surely, there's a dubious character out there that fancies sponsoring them.

 

[GenericBoonenFan]

Here's an idea for people that don't like a certain team/person or nation partaking in an event: Don't watch it! Turn of the TV!

I'm not a fan of certain teams (for sportwashing reasons or others) in cycling or other sports. But if it were to get to the point that I wanted to ruin the watching pleasure for others, I'd just turn off the TV.

 

[red_flanders]

Answer: Do not include the team responsible for the protest in the race.
Problem solved.
As has been mentioned many times, it's impossible to separate politics from sport, no matter how much people try.

The team is responsible for the protests? Not the protesters. Hmmm.

Interesting take.

 

[the delgados]

The team is responsible for the protests? Not the protesters. Hmmm.

Interesting take.

Of course not. I had a feeling someone was going to point out my choice of wording.
In case anyone is confused, none of the riders are responsible for the protests that occurred.
They are just riders who are fulfilling their contractual obligations.
I hope that clears things up.

 

[the delgados]

You mean your priorities matter?

Not only mine. You should have already noticed that. Are you paying attention?

 

[red_flanders]

Of course not. I had a feeling someone was going to point out my choice of wording.
In case anyone is confused, none of the riders are responsible for the protests that occurred.
They are just riders who are fulfilling their contractual obligations.
I hope that clears things up.

Thanks for that, I saw no other way to interpret what you said given the wording. You suggest removing the team as the solution. I would argue that removing the team would simply invite more of the same in the future, giving those seeking to disrupt races exactly what they were after.

Seems to me that giving protestors exactly what they want is the worst possible outcome for the sport and the events I pay to watch (Peacock, etc.).

I support (of course) the right for anyone to protest. I do not support disruption of events or attempts to silence speech one does not agree with, not matter how objectionable or abhorrent.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

No sanctions applied (yet) for anything in this thread, but many deleted.

I'll remind you of Netserk's very apposite (and very large, so no excuse of having missed it) intro

This is not the place to discuss specific political causes, so please rather reference merely an abstract class of possible causes​

 

[the delgados]

Thanks for that, I saw no other way to interpret what you said given the wording. You suggest removing the team as the solution. I would argue that removing the team would simply invite more of the same in the future, giving those seeking to disrupt races exactly what they were after.

Seems to me that giving protestors exactly what they want is the worst possible outcome for the sport and the events I pay to watch (Peacock, etc.).

I support (of course) the right for anyone to protest. I do not support disruption of events or attempts to silence speech one does not agree with, not matter how objectionable or abhorrent.

re: Removing the team inviting future protests: First, removing the team would detract future protests, because there would be nothing to protest. People will always protest, regardless of the cause, especially on open roads spanning many miles. But people do not protest and interrupt an event unless, in the eyes of the protestors, the the cause supersedes the event. These decisions are not taken lightly.
The whole point is to raise awareness. Sometimes it's impossible to separate sports from real world events. I'm not going to say I'm sorry for the interruption because I'm not.
No one is attempting to silence speech. In fact, the exact opposite is occurring.
No one cares about how much you pay to watch sports. That's up to you and your service provider. And no one is going to ruin a long-standing tradition -- i.e. The Vuelta -- for raising awareness.

 

[Netserk]

Not only mine. You should have already noticed that. Are you paying attention?

Yes. It's the rule of extremist, intransigent minorities. Whoever can organise and enforce political violence gets to dictate the terms. That's how you slide from liberal democracy towards anarcho-tyranny.

 

[the delgados]

Yes. It's the rule of extremist, intransigent minorities. Whoever can organise and enforce political violence gets to dictate the terms. That's how you slide from liberal democracy towards anarcho-tyranny.

What violence has occurred? Was anyone killed during the Vuelta protest?
I can go into details about violence and the damage incurred, but this isn't a political message board --as you have mentioned on more than one occasion.
You are the one who introduced this topic of conversation, so you might want to be careful. I would never report you to authorities, but I will remind you that you can't have it both ways.

 

[AmRacer]

What violence has occurred? Was anyone killed during the Vuelta protest?
I can go into details about violence and the damage incurred, but this isn't a political message board --as you have mentioned on more than one occasion.
You are the one who introduced this topic of conversation, so you might want to be careful. I would never report you to authorities, but I will remind you that you can't have it both ways.

As someone wrote, if one group of protesters win it will create precedent for other protesters. Just gather a group and protest at something and they will fold.

 

[red_flanders]

re: Removing the team inviting future protests: First, removing the team would detract future protests, because there would be nothing to protest. People will always protest, regardless of the cause, especially on open roads spanning many miles. But people do not protest and interrupt an event unless, in the eyes of the protestors, the the cause supersedes the event. These decisions are not taken lightly.
The whole point is to raise awareness. Sometimes it's impossible to separate sports from real world events. I'm not going to say I'm sorry for the interruption because I'm not.
No one is attempting to silence speech. In fact, the exact opposite is occurring.
No one cares about how much you pay to watch sports. That's up to you and your service provider. And no one is going to ruin a long-standing tradition -- i.e. The Vuelta -- for raising awareness.

No one? You speak for everyone? In all cases? For all causes?

By “silencing speech” I refer to people wanting to cancel the very presence or even existence of IPT because of what the team represents…to them. Of course IPT is just a symbol being used to make a point. Sure, protest the symbol. By all means. Don’t interfere with the race and don’t try and cancel (silence) the team.

Free speech isn’t about removing any idea one objects to from the discourse. It’s about presenting one’s own POV.

But it seems many don’t want to have a debate. They just want to silence those who have a different POV. Or in this case those who can be seen to represent an idea. A tenuous connection at best.

I object to those tactics in all cases in all venues.

 

[the delgados]

As someone wrote, if one group of protesters win it will create precedence for other protesters. Just gather a group and protest at something and they will fold.

Protestors have been part of the sport since day one. How many races have been canceled due to protests?
And who are "they"? Who folded? Seems to me the race continued as planned.
I honestly don't understand why some people are skipping the overall point here. Netserk is asking what should be done about it.
What say you?

 

[proffate]

Cool, imma rally some fellow fans and protest against every sportwashing team ahead of the Flemish classics, maybe Wout can win one for once...

If a large crowd of people feel strongly enough that Astana/Kazakhstan or whoever is doing something that needs to be stopped then more power to you. Otherwise you'll have a hard time organizing that.