Radios - Safety or Control of your riders?

[Benotti69]

<snip> Cycling at the pro level is about entertainment, frankly, almost no different than pro wrestling or baseball, thus within reason, almost anything goes with regard to such issues. By the way, also in reference to "too stupid to breath" the lack of unity and outrage on doping is more than passing strange........(regardless of one's personal stand on this)

if it is purely about entertainment and anything goes, lets arm them with special bats and let them beat the other riders in the last hour when the tv coverage comes on.

I think most fans feel it is a sport and goes a bit deeper than 'entertainment' as most fans appreciate the levels the riders need to be at to compete, the training (inc doping) and a whole host of factors that goes into pro cycling. reducing it to Tom and Jerry entertainment is way off the mark, because pro wrestling is basically a poor imitation of Tom and Jerry beating each other up.

my 2p

I dont get the outrage of the riders about this issue. i feel it has clinic undertones and the need for riders to have radios is clinic related, ie doping to give advance warning of the vampires, who is called for a sample etc...

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

There have been no crashes that have caused the kind of horrific outcomes they fear, before or after radios, yet there have been countless deaths & enforced retirements due to doping...

True. Excellent post.

I have said before, the root of the problem with radios is that it takes decisions away from the rides, and places it in the team cars, and the team cars have access to information the riders do not have. The biggest being accurate split times. Eliminate split times, even the old, innacurate motorcyclist chalk board on the road, and it would be a step. Radios or no radios.

I am starting to think this is bigger than radios, and the radio argument is a mask for other control issues. The riders are tired of being told what to do. Be that doping, TV, money, or radios. They want to do what they want with all of these, with no intervention from the UCI, or anyone else. It may be a bit of a conspiracy thinking to some, but I imagine that there are a lot of people in cycling, from JB to JV to Riis to Saiz, to a majority of riders, who would love it if a new league started, and that league had no real oversight. Back to where doping controls were a sham and easy to defeat, and riders had full radios, team cars had TV and full data access, etc. and didn't have to deal with the UCI. As BroDeal notes, if you think McQuaid and Verbruggen are bad, imagine cycling with Bruyneel, Riis and the riders in charge.

 

[BroDeal]

Uh-oh. It looks like no one sent the safety talking points to Bruyneel. He is off message.

"I have said to Pat McQuaid many times that I don’t know any relation between a boss and an employee where the boss cannot give orders. If you pay someone, then you must be able to give them direction.

“McQuaid complains that riders do not make their own decisions. That's right. Indeed, riders in a team have no total freedom to decide on tactics. If I have a leader and if I have a strategy, then everyone must respect that strategy. A rider who does not agree will have a problem with me. Or he can choose to ride for another team." -- from the Velonation interview

 

[Oldman]

Uh-oh. It looks like no one sent the safety talking points to Bruyneel. He is off message.

"I have said to Pat McQuaid many times that I don’t know any relation between a boss and an employee where the boss cannot give orders. If you pay someone, then you must be able to give them direction.

“McQuaid complains that riders do not make their own decisions. That's right. Indeed, riders in a team have no total freedom to decide on tactics. If I have a leader and if I have a strategy, then everyone must respect that strategy. A rider who does not agree will have a problem with me. Or he can choose to ride for another team." -- from the Velonation interview

In the 11 team breakaway post my point was this is about negotiation, not radios. It's about more "accountable" (read-which of my riders will I lose) UCI handling of the bio-passport, requirement to ride a bum-f*ck race in China and the Byzantine way emerging teams gain Pro Tour status or invitations to big races after their sponsors have paid the UCI tribute. Let's not get caught up in too much tactical or historical altruism because Pat & Co. are vulnerable because of the reputation of cycling. The rider's Association has found a small way to hang that problem on the UCI and are exploiting it just like NFL players expect a bigger revenue share.
The real problems of the sport may get lip service but it's easier to sanitize the process that the media sees than actually change the culture. Keep watching.

 

[Master50]

Can we even accept that racing at the pro level is a team sport? That a DS sets the objectives and tactics? Team leaders may or may not be tactically savvy or capable and some DS are incapable of making a tactically correct choice too. For 15 years radios have played an important team tool and one day some fat guy that has not spent 20 minutes in a caravan decided he thinks racing is boring and without any evidence of causality decided radios is the reason. Maybe it was an IOC bigshot that said those radios contravene the sporting principal of man against man.
Now a bunch of armchair race directors jump on the bandwagon and declare they are right, racing is getting predictable and boring. But what type of event is typified? flat sprint stages are the oft mentioned boring and predictable outcome. Well sprint teams want a win so the tactic is let the breakaway get established, ride tempo and chase for the catch to enable the sprinters. It is such a natural progression. HTC for example hires a fast young sprinter and capitalizes on his strengths. They win a lot of stages and get the sponsor the publicity they invested in. So the fat guys want to screw with an important team tool. Basic communications, that is it. the ability to talk to the car, to keep informed of internal operations of the team, to support the riders and yes to relay important tactical information. Improved information flow and communications does improve safety in the front for obstacles or unforeseen developments out on open roads that in Europe are often barely wider than the 1st line of cars never mind the width of a line of cars and a service lane. Most of what radios are used for is the support at the caravan level. Again a bunch of people that have no knowledge of these events are saying that is not important and we didn't have or need this technology when they raced. or the armchair quarterbacks claim the same thing but never spent a minute in a pro race agree.
There is a safety issue at stake and even Pat knows it but there is more that is not said here. Robotic control from the team car is not the issue, only the justification. Whether the tactics are dictated from the team car or the road captain in the bunch they don't change and are still dependant on the observations and Savvy of the person in charge. If there are 18 teams in a race there are 18 captains not 160. All you really change by taking the communications away is lower the working conditions of the riders in the team. You make the work of the water carriers harder and it is plenty hard enough. Yes there is the randomness factor where a flat can lose a race.
There was a time when I did my job without a cell phone or computer. I can still do the job without those tools but I have to wait a day longer to know if there is a permit for the work or tell a colleague of a problem he needs to know. We might need another employee that is paid by the taxpayer to provide the improved level of service.
What about improving work conditions is bad? What about improving caravan management has taken away from the race? In my work we often ascribe cause erroneously. I regularly see cause attributed to one thing, only to create a new hazard we did not foresee by changing the rules.
What ever predictability we are blaming on radios can just as easily be blamed on other mechanisms. This predictability thing is hardly repeatable in hard race and is most often attached to flat stages where the course plays little in the outcome. I have been 25 years in the race caravan and racing is little different because of radios from my observations. The caravan is a lot safer since they came into the sport. There are circumstances where radios have improved the safety in the front. Yes the ability of team riders to talk to each other and the DS effect the immediacy of communications but increasing the delay can have devastating outcomes to the investments and goals of the players. The banning of radios is a deeper issue than trying to re-establish some romantic idea and memory of day past. The simple fact that USA cycling can assay the situation and arrive at a different conclusion is pretty good evidence that this issue is not about predictability and boredom. There is little proven link to excitement of a race and radio use changing it.

 

[Master50]

Uh-oh. It looks like no one sent the safety talking points to Bruyneel. He is off message.

"I have said to Pat McQuaid many times that I don’t know any relation between a boss and an employee where the boss cannot give orders. If you pay someone, then you must be able to give them direction.

“McQuaid complains that riders do not make their own decisions. That's right. Indeed, riders in a team have no total freedom to decide on tactics. If I have a leader and if I have a strategy, then everyone must respect that strategy. A rider who does not agree will have a problem with me. Or he can choose to ride for another team." -- from the Velonation interview

Bruyneel is allowed to defend his use of radios. I would say he is pretty dialed into a winning formulae. Why would he get off that topic? He is in the business to win races and he is very tactically astute. He hires riders that fit his strategy and desire to run the show. Glad he is attacking the subject from his perspective. He didn't disclaim the safety issue and I suppose he is one of those joystick DS. Nothing about his interview discounted a safety justification. he just didn't go there since for him it is about his ability to direct the tactics. A completely justifiable position for a team manager. Not everyone could play for George Steinbrenner regardless of their desire to play on a winning team.

 

[VeloFidelis]

Uh-oh. It looks like no one sent the safety talking points to Bruyneel. He is off message.

"I have said to Pat McQuaid many times that I don’t know any relation between a boss and an employee where the boss cannot give orders. If you pay someone, then you must be able to give them direction.

“McQuaid complains that riders do not make their own decisions. That's right. Indeed, riders in a team have no total freedom to decide on tactics. If I have a leader and if I have a strategy, then everyone must respect that strategy. A rider who does not agree will have a problem with me. Or he can choose to ride for another team." -- from the Velonation interview

And this is different from any other professional team, in any other professional sport... How?

 

[BroDeal]

Bruyneel is allowed to defend his use of radios. I would say he is pretty dialed into a winning formulae. Why would he get off that topic? He is in the business to win races and he is very tactically astute. He hires riders that fit his strategy and desire to run the show. Glad he is attacking the subject from his perspective. He didn't disclaim the safety issue and I suppose he is one of those joystick DS. Nothing about his interview discounted a safety justification. he just didn't go there since for him it is about his ability to direct the tactics. A completely justifiable position for a team manager. Not everyone could play for George Steinbrenner regardless of their desire to play on a winning team.

The point is that those throwing a tantrum over the loss of radios have been making up ever more fanciful tales of safety while denying that radios are used by DSes to control races and here is Bruyneel saying outright that he wants to tell his riders what to do. In fact he goes a step further and says that any of his riders who tries to think for himself should find another team.

 

[Anonymous]

The Radio Ban - Part Seven Hundred and Fourty Two

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/teams-walk-out-of-uci-meeting-over-race-radio-ban

McQuaid gets upset, people throw their toys out of their prams, vaughters has a hissy fit.

 

[Jamsque]

It's as though the teams and the UCI are competing to see who can be the most childish about this situation.

 

[Christian]

You have an interesting way of expressing your disinterest in something

 

[Mellow Velo]

I feel a thread merge coming on.
I'm with TSF.
The UCI are a joke driven by ego, but the alternative is a bore, driven by egos.
Walking out before the subject was even aired.
Some growing up is needed on both sides of the fence.

 

[BroDeal]

I think it is funny that Vaughters is still pimping the safety issue after the firestorm of criticism that he suffered for giving his teams unpopular orders over the radio in recent weeks.

The outrage over what time to schedule the discussion about radios was a charade. Vaughters and co. intended to walk out no matter what. They were looking for a excuse, and if they could not find one then they would create one. But just like choosing radios to confront the UCI, they have again chosen a stupid issue to rally behind. Demanding a schedule change the day before and going apesh!t when it is not accepted makes the teams look idiotic.

 

[Anonymous]

You have an interesting way of expressing your disinterest in something

My point was that was easier than saying, when are they all going to grow up, this is doing cycling no good, blah blah blah

I feel a thread merge coming on.

I couldnt decide which of the other hundred radio threads to post to so i started a new one as this is fresh news so to speak.

 

[thehog]

My point was that was easier than saying, when are they all going to grow up, this is doing cycling no good, blah blah blah



I couldnt decide which of the other hundred radio threads to post to so i started a new one as this is fresh news so to speak.

...and hijacked my thread in the process.

 

[veganrob]

Leave it to JV and JB to make Patty look like more of an adult. Pathetic.

 

[pedaling squares]

I merged this into the "safety or control" thread as that seems to be what the argument is about. Well, on the surface at least.

Agree that this is somewhat of a competition about who can act the least mature, but much to my surprise I keep siding with McQuaid on this one. Perhaps if we saw some in-car footage that showed a DS discussing safety issues, but all I've ever seen from Bruyneel, Riis, and Vaughters is tactics, tactics, tactics.

 

[LugHugger]

I merged this into the "safety or control" thread as that seems to be what the argument is about. Well, on the surface at least.

Agree that this is somewhat of a competition about who can act the least mature, but much to my surprise I keep siding with McQuaid on this one. Perhaps if we saw some in-car footage that showed a DS discussing safety issues, but all I've ever seen from Bruyneel, Riis, and Vaughters is tactics, tactics, tactics.

That's because there isn't any. Can you imagine what AGR would be like to ride it that actually was the case? The babbling would have been incessant!

Through family connections I've had long discussions with several Pro Continental riders over this issue and do you know what? Most of the riders are perfectly happy to ride without radios. They do not perceive that the safety of their jobs is in risk by the loss of radios. Lack of results threatens every team right here, right now with the radios in play. There will always be winners and losers. That's racing, that's sport. These riders know and understand that. Of the riders I have spoken with, all of them believe that the fight to retain radio's is fuelled by the DS's and not the riders. In other words, safety is not the issue. Control is.

If the DS/team managers had made this an argument about control, tactics and team management from the start then at least they would have had the opportunity to persuade the fans and, who knows, the UCI. As it is, they persist with the fallacious safety argument and then whine like little b*tches when the UCI don't listen. It's hardly surprising, is it?

Vaughters claims to be trying to drive a business model and then tries to table an agenda item the day before a meeting? Professional? Don't make me laugh. And that applies to the UCI as well.

 

[Anonymous]

...and hijacked my thread in the process.

erm.. what

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Leave it to JV and JB to make Patty look like more of an adult. Pathetic.

Well, I'm in partial agreement because Paddy didn't exactly score too many mature points with this quote:

In an email seen by Cyclingnews, McQuaid wrote to Vaughters:

"I have had enough of this High Moral Ground from you and I am refraining myself from writing exactly what I am thinking.

"Enough to inform you that when I have finished with the teams today you will have plenty to "reflect" on and communication will be the furthest thing from your mind!!”

I agree with Mellow Velo that growing up on both sides is needed.

 

[Oldman]

I feel a thread merge coming on.
I'm with TSF.
The UCI are a joke driven by ego, but the alternative is a bore, driven by egos.
Walking out before the subject was even aired.
Some growing up is needed on both sides of the fence.

Pat Mc finally said it's about power and control. He vaguely referred to the riders and advised the teams to "know their place". They can both bicker about the little crap and ignore the sport's poor public image while the Carbineri, IRS, USADA and Interpol expose the racket they've all been protecting. You'd think Vaughter's constituency would be ready to revolt, except decades of submissive response to UCI manipulations has them all scared. It's got to be a weird profession right now.

 

[VeloFidelis]

If I were attempting to engage in serious discourse with a governing body, about issues pertaining to my profession, and was made to endure a history lesson from journalists; (especially French journalists) on the glorious pre-radio history of cycling in which I played a part, and in which I currently make my career; I would have walked out as well.

I can understand how Pros who have little or no chance of individual results would be apathetic or ambivalent about the use of radios. If they can't be told what to do, then maybe they don't have to do as much. Is that a safety issue? It is for the team leader and the team management. It is hard to believe this ridiculous fixation on the word "safety"... like it has a quantifiable definition.

Do you feel safer with a cell phone in your pocket? Do you take it with you when you ride? I doubt that you expect a phone call about that upcoming pothole, but you do take it with you, so it is about safety. If you don't think so, then leave it at home, or better yet turn it off for a month. Statistically you are at no greater risk, but you sure do feel more vulnerable. Is that about "safety"?

This is about communication. Once you have it, you don't want it taken away. On a personal level none of us do. Why should teams have a different perspective. The teams are stake holders in this sports and should have a collective voice in this issue. The UCI should figure that out and start taking them seriously, or an embarrassed Pat McQuaid is going to have to explain to some Chinese officials why they spent so much money to put on a race and no riders showed up.

The elimination of radios put the financial interests of the team sponsors at risk. Is that a safety issue? It would be for me if I were a sponsor writing those big checks. Since the sport is actually brought to us more so by the sponsors than the UCI, I would advocate listening to their concerns. This unproven nostalgic idea that radios have single handedly been responsible for a degradation in the quality of racing, and that it will magically return to the days of yore once that are eliminated is nonsense. And for those who don't believe it is, I have news for you; the racing wasn't really any better in those days of yore.

 

[BroDeal]

If I were attempting to engage in serious discourse with a governing body, about issues pertaining to my profession, and was made to endure a history lesson from journalists; (especially French journalists) on the glorious pre-radio history of cycling in which I played a part, and in which I currently make my career; I would have walked out as well.

Seeing as how Vaughters never managed to finish a Tour de France, he should have stayed. He might have learned something.

This unproven nostalgic idea that radios have single handedly been responsible for a degradation in the quality of racing, and that it will magically return to the days of yore once that are eliminated is nonsense.

Strawman alert!!

 

[Mambo95]

VeloFidelis,

I don't think I've ever been moved to post this, but....

That was a superb post.

I'm generally pro-radio (or rather not anti-them), but that actually made me appreciate the situation from a different angle.

 

[pedaling squares]

Do you feel safer with a cell phone in your pocket? Do you take it with you when you ride? I doubt that you expect a phone call about that upcoming pothole, but you do take it with you, so it is about safety. If you don't think so, then leave it at home, or better yet turn it off for a month. Statistically you are at no greater risk, but you sure do feel more vulnerable. Is that about "safety"?

You are comparing apples to oranges here. I often take a phone with me, and yes one reason is so that I can (hopefully) summon assistance if something goes sideways and I am unable to continue. But I am not cycling on closed roads, accompanied by motos and cars where cell phones can be found. If I were, what use would I have for a phone? I'm going to watch Overcoming again and shoot a beer every time Riis uses the race radio to warn his riders about a safety issue. I bet I'll still be sober at the end of the show.