Radio Boycott of Het Nieuwsblad

[royalpig180]

So because the riders body does not like the radio ban the UCI should automatically change the rule for them? We might as well have the riders run cycling then. Because the UCI has ruled against what the riders want that does not mean they didn't listen to their point of view.

Having radios is also a dangerous issue as all the directors warn their riders there is a dangerous corner coming up through the radio. The whole peleton of 180 riders tries race to the front to get through a dangerous corner or section in the 1st 20 places therefore there is a very high chance of a crash anyway.

Ok, look. I'm not commenting on the validity of the radio issue. I don't really care one way or the other. And i'm not necessarily saying that the UCI should always give the riders exactly what they want, but there should at least be some meaningful dialogue shouldn't there? Regardless of how much we think the safety excuse is crazy (and I'm with you on that one), the riders sure seem convinced about it. They deserve at least the right to talk with the UCI about it. I'm not saying the rule should necessarily be completely changed, but at least a compromise could be reached or the rider's concerns could be adressed in different ways. One possible compromise could be for a denoted road captain within each team is allowed to wear a radio to communicate with the DS in the team car, and the rest of the riders don't.

 

[Jancouver]

Well if you get enough top teams behind the protest and then take away their license then the World Tour licenses become a bigger joke.



So can you explain to me then why rabobank are doing this stupid boycott then? We can't just keep on taking shots at the UCI for everything as it sometimes gets a little old. Why don't the riders just follow the rules?

Why Rabo? Have you heard of Pedro Horillo? Thats why ...

Since you probably never heard that name, here is a link for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Horrillo

 

[royalpig180]

Why Rabo? Have you heard of Pedro Horillo? Thats why ...

Since you probably never heard that name, here is a link for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Horrillo

This is a very isolated incident, but it does show that radios have some merit as far as safety is concerned. I'm still not convinced they're a safety necessity, but the riders feeling safe is the most important so whatever works for them...

 

[auscyclefan94]

Why Rabo? Have you heard of Pedro Horillo? Thats why ...

Since you probably never heard that name, here is a link for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Horrillo

I understand that as I watched that stage. Pedro's story is a very sad one. Did the radio stop that from happening? It certainly did not.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Maybe the riders should be able to keep the radios and do away with the bike. That should totally eliminate any safety concerns

This is pretty funny.

My personal opinion---I think no radios would be great...somehow in the 'old days' messages seemed to be conveyed to the riders, and I really think the riders had to be sharp and pay attention and think for themselves.

I'm not sure that it is such a safety issue, either...but I am not a pro rider so cannot validate that one.
My basic feeling is that it's sad that it had to come to this---the riders need to be included in decisions and their voices are important and need to be respected. It's too bad they could not have worked this out before the classics were starting.

I, too, am totally excited for the start of the classics.
No real winners here....

 

[orbis_25]

I understand that as I watched that stage. Pedro's story is a very sad one. Did the radio stop that from happening? It certainly did not.

Radios are not necessarily going to stop accidents. They will continue to happen, just like they did before radios were introduced. The point about Horillo is that thanks to the race radio being worn by his teammate Jos van Emden, Horillo was found far sooner than he otherwise would have been. In situations like that, speed is key, and it clearly helped. Do bizarre events like this justify the keeping of radios? I don't know. Cycling is a dangerous sport, and some risks have to be assumed.

The riders views on this matter do have to be respected, however. They are the major draw of our sport. Without them, cycling is nothing. You can have all the sponsors in the world, but without the riders no one will care. As such, they should have a powerful voice that is respected by all organising bodies. At the moment, they don't and so actions like this are necessary. Why should the riders just roll over and accept any and all rule changes the UCI forces through? Why should they not have a say in the direction the sport takes? The riders need a strong, unified voice that is listened to and respected. As it stands, the AIGCP is fairly weak compared to the UCI and organisers. There should be greater balance between the major interested parties.

 

[Eric8-A]

I feel as if the UCI makes the riders their *****. I really don't know why the riders don't seem to have a voice in the UCI's decisions. Can't a rider's union be created on this?

As for the radio thing, I'm on the neutral side. Whether they're banned or not, it's cool with me.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Radios are not necessarily going to stop accidents. They will continue to happen, just like they did before radios were introduced. The point about Horillo is that thanks to the race radio being worn by his teammate Jos van Emden, Horillo was found far sooner than he otherwise would have been. In situations like that, speed is key, and it clearly helped. Do bizarre events like this justify the keeping of radios? I don't know. Cycling is a dangerous sport, and some risks have to be assumed.

.

So I pose this question to you all, are the radios to help rescue someone or for communication between race director and riders about about corners and tatics on the roads?

Did communicating with the radio that Pedro had fell down the rivine significantly change what injuries he would of occured or dramitically changed how much time it would of taken to get a rescue party to him? I don't think it would of been that significant.

 

[Pelican]

UCI = bunch of stupid old men!

Stand fast riders... The UCI is again displaying the sort of petulant behaviour that makes it a laughing stock amongst international sporting bodies. Talk to the riders! Don't just make (another) bad decision and stick by it without some dialogue. I hope the riders hang-tough and the UCI withdraw their support from this race and as many races as it takes for the riders to be heard.

Historically the riders have had no voice and have constantly been downtrodden by a governing body full of insipid old men more concerned which race they get flown to on behalf of the UCI - that is those of them still with all their marbles!!!

 

[joy118118]

did they boycott helmets rules several years ago？

 

[Eric8-A]

I see no use as to why someone would boycott helmet use. It protects one of the most precious parts of your body. Look what happened to Fabio Casartelli, they said had he worn a helmet, he would have lived.

What would have been the excuse? Helmets make me look dumb? I look much cooler without it.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I see no use as to why someone would boycott helmet use. It protects one of the most precious parts of your body. Look what happened to Fabio Casartelli, they said had he worn a helmet, he would have lived.

What would have been the excuse? Helmets make me look dumb? I look much cooler without it.

I think they did even after Kivilev died. I know for certain that riders protested when they introduced compulsory helmet use during 1991.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

Any one else wonder if bmc were against the ban acf might have a different opinion on this one?

Anyway I agree with the majority, not so much about the issue- heck I probably prefer no radios too. But safety, wheater an excuse or not ', should not be ignored. But the riders should get thier voice heard, the uci are doing all they can to have the riders, teams and race organizers disband from this world tour. I say keep going UCI, push em over the edge!!!

Ps: with cars following the road, all it would surely take is for attentive passengers to do thier job to ensure safety. But yeah, like I said it's more the manner the uci are treating the situation, then the situation for me. Safety is certainly an excuse.

 

[joy118118]

I see no use as to why someone would boycott helmet use. It protects one of the most precious parts of your body. Look what happened to Fabio Casartelli, they said had he worn a helmet, he would have lived.

What would have been the excuse? Helmets make me look dumb? I look much cooler without it.

I heard a lot of riders disliked helmets. But i didnt know if there was a boycott at that time.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

I heard a lot of riders disliked helmets. But i didnt know if there was a boycott at that time.

Climbers dislike the extra weight.

 

[BroDeal]

Look what happened to Fabio Casartelli, they said had he worn a helmet, he would have lived.

No, they did not. The top of the dude's spinal column was pushed into his brain when he nailed a concrete bollard. He would have died whether or not he was wearing a piece of styrofoam on his head. Sometimes you are just unlucky.

As for Horillo, all it would have taken is for riders to stop and flag down a car. It is ridiculous to defend one side of an argument with something that might happen once in a few decades. Name another rider who was "saved" by radios.

The riders want a fight with the UCI. They should choose an issue that has fan and race organizer support.

Heck, Ricco almost died a couple of weeks ago and instead of protests against doping, these a-holes who are supposedly so worried about safety were twittering that they hoped he died.

 

[Eric8-A]

So it brings up the concern again. Cyclist union. How about it. Can one be done amongst the riders?

 

[Dewulf]

I don't follow your logic. The AIGCP is "the voice of the riders" and it "has been heard". This is not the case. Yes, we've all heard what the AIGCP and the riders have to say (that they want radios), but that's not the point. The point is that the UCI has ignored the AIGCP, so what I'm saying is that the riders have no voice where it matters--in the governing body of the sport.

Now you mention that no other major sport lets its riders have a say in its governace. This isn't true. Look at several major American sports leagues--the NFL, the MLB, the NHL, etc. They all have collective bargaining agreements between the league and the players. It is through these negotiations that the players have a voice--in the lenght of the schedule, or in the rules (if they really wanted). Also, cycling is more dependent on its riders for funding (sponsors pay succesful teams, and riders need to help maintain the image of the teams and the sport). Safety is even more of an issue in cycling, one of the most dangerous sports in the world (just look up the number of deaths per participant for some common sports). Riders need to have a say, especially where their safety is at stake.

Mkay, look ACF already answered the part about being "heard", but I'll just add this - the riders are using deceptive language. They say "we weren't heard" but what they really mean is "the UCI heard but they won't do what we want them to".

As for governance, you point out yourself the sports you name have collective bargaining BUT rules aren't currently part of those discussions (in your words they could "if they really wanted", ie. they don't now). In other words, rules are not negotiated in these sports, and if the players and teams tried, we don't know what the outcome would be. There's every chance it would be the same as we have in cycling - the organisation makes the rules.

Next, this is about safety?? Then where was the appropriate response in the CPA surveys over the last couple of years? A miserable reply rate, and those that did were 50 - 50 for and against the radio ban. IF THIS IS ABOUT SAFETY THEN WHY AREN'T THE RIDERS ASKING FOR A NEUTRAL SAFETY RADIO SERVICE? Because that wouldn't allow the DS's to control the entire race from the car, that's why.

Or, yes, this could just be the teams and riders wanting "more of a say" - ie. the power to actually control decisions the UCI makes, but like BroDeal says they should've chosen an issue which they'll be supported on. The re-categorization of USA events would've been one, the re-shuffle of ProTour license crietria this year another. Again, I think they've gone for this issue because the teams want to control races, and riders now want to avoid the extra responsibility of making their own decisions on the road (not to mention the potential clip around the ears from the DS if they get it wrong).

Oh, and you know how Gilbert spoke against radios, apparently he got some nasty calls about that from within the rider & team fraternity, and that should tell you lots about what the motives really are here.

 

[auscyclefan94]

If you actually read the article Timmy before assuming, BMC are actually for radio usage in races but they are against the protest. I was actually originally for having them in races . I don't mind if their is a bit of coaching but riders should go back to the cars for any tatical messages. if teams are using them for safety then I don't see why there isn't one neutral service radio.


From what I've understood from Jonathan vaughters the protest it is more about the riders not being heard from the uci. I am not entirely sure either way who is right but who knows who else will protest and be involved.

 

[online-rider]

It's about more than race radios - riders want their voices to be heard by the UCI, and this is the first big issue.

The UCI has already said they'll pull their Commissars and make it a non-event. Will teams that think they have a chance to do well in the race join the boycott? If not, aren't the other teams sabotaging those who want to compete by making the race unofficial? The thought just popped into my head, but it reminds me of the stage Cancellara neutralized at the Tour de France. I don't think it works if the teams don't stand together. Even then they could play favorites by which events they use for protests.

I don't think thats it. Pro riders have always been a bunch of pussies regarding their radios. Even the hardest riders protest about having to give them up. Rabobanks riders saying racing without radios is not safe is plain dumb ... Just look back to the 70's and 80's .. Was racing more dangerous then? - No it wasn't.

 

[royalpig180]

Mkay, look ACF already answered the part about being "heard", but I'll just add this - the riders are using deceptive language. They say "we weren't heard" but what they really mean is "the UCI heard but they won't do what we want them to".

As for governance, you point out yourself the sports you name have collective bargaining BUT rules aren't currently part of those discussions (in your words they could "if they really wanted", ie. they don't now). In other words, rules are not negotiated in these sports, and if the players and teams tried, we don't know what the outcome would be. There's every chance it would be the same as we have in cycling - the organisation makes the rules.

Next, this is about safety?? Then where was the appropriate response in the CPA surveys over the last couple of years? A miserable reply rate, and those that did were 50 - 50 for and against the radio ban. IF THIS IS ABOUT SAFETY THEN WHY AREN'T THE RIDERS ASKING FOR A NEUTRAL SAFETY RADIO SERVICE? Because that wouldn't allow the DS's to control the entire race from the car, that's why.

Or, yes, this could just be the teams and riders wanting "more of a say" - ie. the power to actually control decisions the UCI makes, but like BroDeal says they should've chosen an issue which they'll be supported on. The re-categorization of USA events would've been one, the re-shuffle of ProTour license crietria this year another. Again, I think they've gone for this issue because the teams want to control races, and riders now want to avoid the extra responsibility of making their own decisions on the road (not to mention the potential clip around the ears from the DS if they get it wrong).

Oh, and you know how Gilbert spoke against radios, apparently he got some nasty calls about that from within the rider & team fraternity, and that should tell you lots about what the motives really are here.

Solid point. I still think that the unique dangers and reputation of cycling merit the riders having a say that athletes in other sports rarely get, but radios definitely is a bad point to argue over. Regarding being "heard" or not, I guess heard was the wrong word. Their voice has clearly been heard, but the UCI won't give them any input. Now were back to the first issue...

Regardless, this all is bad for us as fans and for the less outspoken riders in the peleton as races are jeopardized and cycling has to deal with yet another controversy...

 

[craig1985]

I would agree with them if they were all united.

 

[il_fiammingo]

Teams and riders want to keep the transmitters for safety reasons. UCI wants to ban them to have more attractive racing.

So why can't UCI set up it's own communication channel to warn the riders about speed bumps and other road related issues?

By doing so, the team wouldn't need the transmitters anymore, except for tactical reasons then. But they already stated tactics are not the main reason to keep the earpieces.

 

[dsut4392]

Boo-hoo, the cyclists "aren't being consulted"? Never knew bike racing was a democracy, next thing they'll be wanting to vote on who won the race. Do I "consult" my staff about major decisions which will affect them? Of course I do. But that doesn't necessarily mean my decision will be the same as the majority of my staff want it to be.

While I loathe the apparent corruption and ineptitude of the UCI as much as the next guy, the team radios need to go if we want to get away from the monotony that stage racing has become. We need more unpredictability, big time gaps and yes, even screw-ups by favourites who "should have won if only x hadn't happened", and races 'lost' due to random mechanicals. We need the drama and emotion to make it interesting. If you don't think that's true, then have a think back to what the most exciting parts of the Giro and the Tour were last year...or any year.

Most of the interesting moments in my mind involve chaos and confusion, and splintering of the peloton in echelons, on mountains, in the rain or extreme heat, and yes, after crashes. With radios, what we get is "I'll just conserve my 30 second deficit and stay in the group I'm in". Without radios, we have more potential for "is my rival in that group I can see just up there, or is he off the front?".

I don't really buy the safety arguments that have been put forth, even about Pedro Horrillo's awful crash. Still I would be happy enough with a compromise that sees a single "safety radio" channel on which commissaires can broadcast neutral safety information, riders can broadcast 'open mike' if they want to, DS can listen-only, and with team-wide penalties applied for any tactical use e.g. "hold up everyone, Frank has just fallen over and Andy can't get past him".

 

[dsut4392]

Solid point. I still think that the unique dangers and reputation of cycling merit the riders having a say that athletes in other sports rarely get

The unique dangers and reputation of cycling are what exactly?