Riders protest radioban in Mallorca

[Darryl Webster]

The problem with ever geting the riders united is there all to scared in case everyone doesnt join in.
The idea that these guys are " Hard men" is a bit of a joke when ya know how badly there often treated..and put up with it. As they use to say ( brobably still do?)...theres always plenty of fresh "cannon fodder". That whole term sais so much.
Seems to take a race death for them to unite..and that aint even a certainty.
The story surrounding Tom Simpsons " tribute" stage following his death makes uncomfortable reading.
Out of respect Im not gonna put it here but it`s very telling.

 

[VeloFidelis]

That would be true except it was organised by the teams and DS's not the riders.

Can you please explain the course of events necessary to make this "Riders Strike" an actual strike by riders? Or are we splitting hairs, and engaging in semantic subterfuge?

How does a riders strike exclude "teams and DS's"?? What does that look like?

 

[Darryl Webster]

Can you please explain the course of events necessary to make this "Riders Strike" an actual strike by riders? Or are we splitting hairs, and engaging in semantic subterfuge?

How does a riders strike exclude "teams and DS's"?? What does that look like?

It looks like this : DS`s have a meeting , make a descition (that meating might be formal or informal and doesnt nescercerily feaure all DS`s..some will just tow the line), and tell the riders what to do.
Nothing complicated about it.

Oops..thats what a DS`s strike look likes..

...a riders strik is normaly pretty spontanious to a race condition. Its pretty rare.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Can you please explain the course of events necessary to make this "Riders Strike" an actual strike by riders? Or are we splitting hairs, and engaging in semantic subterfuge?

How does a riders strike exclude "teams and DS's"?? What does that look like?

The CPA represent the riders - the AIGCP the actual teams, which is headed by JV who said.

"I think it sends a strong signal of the unity of the teams at this point in time, the unity and strength of the AIGCP. We just want to sit down with the UCI and come to a mutually beneficial solution to this."

 

[For The World]

I think we keep forgetting that the higher the game the higher the stakes. For the last few years radio bans have been in the lower category races. Now it is starting to effect the meat and potatoes races and next year the sponsorship and payday events.
We are talking money, the engine of the sport. Teams are going back to chance and losing control of their investments. What other Pro Sport are coaches denied access to their athletes? The Superbowl is today, Anyone thing the quarterback is making the calls? Sure a good QB adjusts to the dynamic forces but the plays are called in. They don't get to freelance.
Safety is an issue too but it is only 1 factor.
We still have fat old men who once raced bikes in a more romantic era and are trying to direct the sport from conference rooms at World Championships.
They are not riding in the races. They are watching the races on TV and believing they know what is going on in the riders ears.
Right now the radio issue is a threat to the order established in professional cycling teams. It is playing with the game and part of the game is winning. Points determine access. Bad tactics can lose a race but so can dearth of information.
Would you feel more secure in you multi million dollar sponsorship agreement with a well disciplined pro team or 9 guys that are riding together? These rules can have huge financial consequences.

I will agree with you that the higher the game, the higher the stakes, yet with two way race radios, you are effectively nullifying a great deal of the chance that actually creates a high stakes game. The decisions of the race are no longer being made by 200 guys riding bikes, but only a maximum of 50 who are sitting behind the wheel of a car. This directly contradicts your point about "fat old men who once raced bikes". I'm not sure if you've looked at say, Bjarne Riis lately, but he's put on a few pounds, and is now making the decisions for the riders in the race, rather than the riders making them for themselves.

Part of this game we call cycling is using tactics you picked up through years of racing, and, in conjunction with years of training and racing, applying them to the best of your ability. That chance, that you imply is a bad thing, is what makes the sport exciting.

The teams don't invest any (or very little) money. They get it from businesses (unless you're Team Leopard). Any business that invests in a cycling team at any level will not fully understand the idiosyncrasies that are part of a cycling race. They are told an overall picture, and only want to know how much airtime they're going to get to maximise their return on the advertising (which is really all it is). The lack of race radios has had no bearing on sponsorship in the past 100 years of professional cycling. The business just wants their name out there displayed on TV or heard on the radio at any opportunity.

If a professional cycling team is put together, and the riders cannot ride as a coherent unit without radios, then I would say that the riders aren't very professional at all. Even at club level, I expect riders to make safety calls about obstacles coming up on the road ahead (something that is [or should be] taught to every junior when they start), and to either anticipate when a break might go, or have looked at the course and know where they will make a break. All done without race radios.

Riders should be able to win, and thus, help their sponsors with or without radios. To me however, you seem to think that the business end of cycling is more important than the racing itself.

 

[usedtobefast]

give me my dang radio.

 

[cyclopeon]

The UCI doesn't need to make a big deal about this: just fly a high-power radio jammer over the races or put some in the official vehicles. Let the DS's talk all they want.

 

[Martin318is]

I have merged the clinic version of the thread with this one - why the clinic needs a topic discussing race radios truly baffles me.

 

[ultimobici]

Well, it surely must have been more random in the past with riders losing races because they couldn't get the help from the team car they needed in time and things like that. One of the arguments in favor or radios is that it makes the racing more fair. That to me is reason enough to keep the radios. I know that people like it when break aways manage to stay away but for me it always feels like an anti-climax when break aways hold out because of a fluke and not by their own power. I much prefer a flat stage ending in a spectacular sprint rather than some nobody winning a GT stage by simply being lucky enough to get away in a break. Especially since breaks usually form with riders that are not seen as a threat to anyone.

Far from making it fair, radios skew the results in favour of the physically stronger but tactically less astute rider. Racing is not only a physical game, it's a mental battle too. A rider needs to have the ability to read the race for themselves, not have their DS tell them what to do and what not to do.

Just leafing through an old ProCycling mag and they had an article on this subject. They highlighted Gilbert in the 2008 Het Volk, where he broke away before 100km had been ridden. No one rated his chances, including his DS Madiot. But Madiot couldn't tell him to sit up as Gilbert's earpiece was not working. Gilbert put his head down and won!

Charly Mottet was in a similar position in the 88 Lombardia. Guimard drove up to him in the break and told him to wait for the rider he'd dropped. Mottet supposedly told him to get stuffed and rode into win with almost 2 minutes on the chasers.

 

[Basecase]

why not have a neutral race radio by the organisers to warn of hazards / give info on riders in breaks / distances to go?

 

[xmoonx]

Overwhelmingly? According to Hilaire van der Schueren 60% of the riders are in favor of radios, 40% want to ban them (survey of the CPA, the union of cyclists). A small majority, that's mostly much more vocal than the people who want to ban radios.

Besides, it's not even that important. Cycling, like any sport, is not a democracy. The UCI makes the rules. Of course they certainly have to listen to what the riders think and take their imput serious, but the UCI's decisions shouldn't be dictated by what the riders think.

I wouldn't be surprised if this protest was mostly instigated by the sporting directors, who are afraid they'll lose control of their riders during a rice.

Well according to the head of AIGCP, Jonathan Vaughters ,"It was good to see that we were able to get together in our latest meeting and come up with a general position on the radio issue. We were able to debate it objectively as a democratic association and vote on it and come up with an official position," he said. The teams opposed the ban 26-2.

That seems pretty overwhelming to me.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vaughters-to-preside-over-aigcp-teams-organisation

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I say let them have their radios, as long as they wear these (including DS's)

 

[For The World]

why not have a neutral race radio by the organisers to warn of hazards / give info on riders in breaks / distances to go?

They already have a good description of the route that they can go over before each stage, which tells them how far it is, how far along certain points of interest or danger are etc. Additionally, there are officers standing at points of danger with yellow or orange flags warning of the danger ahead. If one person sees the flag and makes the call, it should be relayed through the bunch. That's just good bunch riding etiquette.

There are motorbikes that come alongside the riders in breaks advising them of how far ahead they are, and the team cars sitting behind the breakaway riders already have access to race radio and can tell the riders.

All bikes now have power meters, which will presumably calculate the distance travelled as well. If a rider can't subtract distance covered from total distance to find out how far there is to go, then he might have a larger issue to deal with.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I have merged the clinic version of the thread with this one - why the clinic needs a topic discussing race radios truly baffles me.

Because I was subtly bringing in JV's comments in his position as AIGCP head, and how his view of 'wink wink' using it as a Trojan Horse to effect larger change in the UCI via the riders may be a red herring.

Thanks for throwing it to the bike nerds. This is now my official first posting outside of the clinic.

I miss my friends. I'm going home...

 

[Martin318is]

Because I was subtly bringing in JV's comments in his position as AIGCP head, and how his view of 'wink wink' using it as a Trojan Horse to effect larger change in the UCI via the riders may be a red herring.

Yeah - but that is still nothing to do with the Clinic. The Clinic is for discussions that centre around Doping. not machiavellian anti-UCI scheming.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Yeah - but that is still nothing to do with the Clinic. The Clinic is for discussions that centre around Doping. not machiavellian anti-UCI scheming.

JV's self-crowning as the clean master of the Universe, to say nothing of his heading the AIGCP, to say nothing of the questions surrounding his team managment (involving a dirty Dr.), to say nothing of what he's picking a fight with the UCI for (when, according to his rhetoric it should be doping-related), to say nothing of his tweets which say the protest IS actually a Trojan Horse (for, ostensibly, we would assume to be better testing)...

There are numerous reasons why this could have stayed in The Clinic.

Not picking a fight, just stating my point and interpretation of why I started the thread in The Clinic.

 

[ingsve]

Far from making it fair, radios skew the results in favour of the physically stronger but tactically less astute rider. Racing is not only a physical game, it's a mental battle too. A rider needs to have the ability to read the race for themselves, not have their DS tell them what to do and what not to do.

Just leafing through an old ProCycling mag and they had an article on this subject. They highlighted Gilbert in the 2008 Het Volk, where he broke away before 100km had been ridden. No one rated his chances, including his DS Madiot. But Madiot couldn't tell him to sit up as Gilbert's earpiece was not working. Gilbert put his head down and won!

Charly Mottet was in a similar position in the 88 Lombardia. Guimard drove up to him in the break and told him to wait for the rider he'd dropped. Mottet supposedly told him to get stuffed and rode into win with almost 2 minutes on the chasers.

Well, that's simply not true based on what has been observed in low category and U-23 races already without the radios. It hasn't shifted anything in favor of "smarter" riders all it has done is make it more random and chaotic. Smart riders will have an even bigger benefit when they have good information to base their decisions on.

 

[ingsve]

If they go through with the radio bans in all races then I can't wait for the time when a big Tour favourites loses the Tour by a simple mistake that could have been completely avoided if they had radios. I'm sure it will happen sooner or later.

I wonder what would have happened in stage 2 of last years Tour if no one had had radios when half the peloton crashed on the oil. It would certainly have played out very diffrently.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Far from making it fair, radios skew the results in favour of the physically stronger but tactically less astute rider. Racing is not only a physical game, it's a mental battle too. A rider needs to have the ability to read the race for themselves, not have their DS tell them what to do and what not to do.

Just leafing through an old ProCycling mag and they had an article on this subject. They highlighted Gilbert in the 2008 Het Volk, where he broke away before 100km had been ridden. No one rated his chances, including his DS Madiot. But Madiot couldn't tell him to sit up as Gilbert's earpiece was not working. Gilbert put his head down and won!

Charly Mottet was in a similar position in the 88 Lombardia. Guimard drove up to him in the break and told him to wait for the rider he'd dropped. Mottet supposedly told him to get stuffed and rode into win with almost 2 minutes on the chasers.

Perfect example of why I changed my take on the issue, Ultimo...

Moments of spontaneous critical decisions. THAT is a crucial aspect of racing that can get lost in these legalese debates.

I'm really tired of the weight DSs have in the game at this point.

 

[cyclingPRpro]

i'll take a shot - DS's like radio's. they can control riders like dependent puppets without having to actually teach/coach them to be autonomous decision makers on the road (IMO one of the coolest things about the sport is developing the ability to "read" a race, but whatever). the riders are fooled into thinking the DS's have their interests in mind and while they are protesting safety concerns and DS's claim with a wink and a nod that it is about larger political issues like establishing a precedent in which they have a voice with the UCI when it comes to making important decisions. meanwhile, both DS's and athlete's hope that making it about "safety concerns" will be an effective appeal to emotion with fans but it quickly falls apart when no one suggests fairly obvious compromises.

Have NONE of you ever worked for a pro team and know what the radios are actually used for? Really?

Okay... Here goes. We mostly use them for feeding, mechanicals and injuries. Yes, some tactical orders are issued but it's the non flashy stuff that is important.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Go riders! **** off UCI!

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Have NONE of you ever worked for a pro team and know what the radios are actually used for? Really?

Okay... Here goes. We mostly use them for feeding, mechanicals and injuries. Yes, some tactical orders are issued but it's the non flashy stuff that is important.

That's it. I'm outta here...

 

[cyclingPRpro]

why? serious question.

 

[ultimobici]

Perfect example of why I changed my take on the issue, Ultimo...

Moments of spontaneous critical decisions. THAT is a crucial aspect of racing that can get lost in these legalese debates.

I'm really tired of the weight DSs have in the game at this point.

Also can work the other way round. Guimard famously drove up alongside Lucian Van Impe in the mountains in 76 to personally deliver the message to attack as Van Impe was notoriously conservatice at the Tour. Guimard had to threaten to run him off the road unless he attacked Zoetemelk!

 

[For The World]

why? serious question.

There were myriad riders and teams who were able to do all those things before race radios. The book "The Great Bike Race" illustrated why (to me at least) radios aren't necessary. The race seemed far more animated and left to chance, but teams and riders could still communicate and get things done.

Professional sports are for spectators - why else would there be so much corporate sponsorship, which seeks to provide said corporations with as much advertising as possible? If the spectators don't enjoy viewing the racing experience (which, from my point of view, seems to be far more orchestrated than late 80s and early 90s when I was getting into cycling), then sponsors don't get the same impact from all their dollars, and isn't that what professional cycling is for sponsors? up to 8 hours of potential air time each day?