Riders protest radioban in Mallorca

[Fester]

These pro tour prima donas are such spoilt brats. Everything is a reason to protest except their own wretched behaviour.

 

[Chuffy]

Spotted some interesting comments from JV's Twitter:-
"Vaughters Jonathan Vaughters
To be clear, radio ban protests are not only about the radio ban. Teams and riders must have greater participation in governance of cycling."

and

"Vaughters Jonathan Vaughters
Our licensing fees and bio-pass contributions to the UCI are massive. We must be represented."No taxation w/o representation." Patrick Henry"

JV's comments seem unequivocal, the race radio issue is a trojan horse to get greater influence for the riders.

Are the riders unhappy with the UCI? Interesting if they are because you wouldn't want to pick an argument with them unless you had some pretty solid ground under your feet. Just ask Floyd re: his Mercury payment.

 

[VeloFidelis]

I am happy to see the riders finally standing up for themselves in some unified fashion. It's about time that they found the huevos to push back on issues that directly affect them. I hope their continued solidarity and empowerment expresses itself in other areas where their interests and concerns are being largely ignored. As a unified body they have more clout in these negotiations than any other group. I hope they will learn how to use it effectively.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I am happy to see the riders finally standing up for themselves in some unified fashion. It's about time that they found the huevos to push back on issues that directly affect them. I hope their continued solidarity and empowerment expresses itself in other areas where their interests and concerns are being largely ignored. As a unified body they have more clout in these negotiations than any other group. I hope they will learn how to use it effectively.

Yeah, we haven't seen this since Festina - where they were appaled at being treated like criminals... Oh wait, they were criminals...

I'd be a bit more gracious about this if the riders would get together to protest the inconsistency of testing (or any of the myriad serious problems generated by the UCI) rather than the 'Trojan Horse' of radios and supposed safety.

Maybe this is a step in that direction. Only time will tell, but I'm not holding my breath...

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Rider protest in Mallorca vs. radio ban...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/riders-protest-aganist-radio-ban-at-the-challenge-mallorca

Not to open the radio issue (again), but rather wondering if the clinicians feel that this is a valid pursuit by the teams and the AIGCP. Don't they have bigger fights to pick? I'm thinking of the IO report from last year's tour, the legacy of riders not getting paid in a timely manner, contravening the rules when disclosing test results, etc etc...

The statement from AIGCP has a familiar pedantic ring to it. I wonder who their president is...

What the...

Is there some reason this could not have been handled in the following existing thread?
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=12277
... both threads reference the same CN article.

 

[lean mean &green]

Spotted some interesting comments from JV's Twitter:-
"Vaughters Jonathan Vaughters
To be clear, radio ban protests are not only about the radio ban. Teams and riders must have greater participation in governance of cycling."

and

"Vaughters Jonathan Vaughters
Our licensing fees and bio-pass contributions to the UCI are massive. We must be represented."No taxation w/o representation." Patrick Henry"

JV's comments seem unequivocal, the race radio issue is a trojan horse to get greater influence for the riders.Are the riders unhappy with the UCI? Interesting if they are because you wouldn't want to pick an argument with them unless you had some pretty solid ground under your feet. Just ask Floyd re: his Mercury payment.

perhaps it's a trojan horse, perhaps not. i can just as easily imagine JV channeling patrick henry because he really wants radio's and knows that most fans despise them. the only way to push that agenda is with some good old-fashioned manipulation.

While I understand their "concerns" over the radio ban, I don't agree with the riders & teams claiming that there are safety issues. If that is the case then why can't there be an open-channel system so there can be communication between riders and race officials so a situation such as Pedro Horillo's crash can be communicated back?I think that the lack of them suggesting a constructive alternative shows that the safety argument is BS.

i REALLY like this idea and i've suggested similar solutions in the past. why not find a way for safety concerns to be addressed but return the responsibility of strategy and decision making to the athletes? what are your feelings on this JV? (i know you're reading) how about purposeful dialogue rather than grandstanding via twitter?

 

[Darryl Webster]

If theres realy a saftey issue ( though I dont belive it) then why dont they ask for a one way ear pieace link from the commisaires?. Simples

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

What the...

Is there some reason this could not have been handled in the following existing thread?
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=12277
... both threads reference the same CN article.

But this one's in the clinic, for those who don't visit the other forums...

 

[lean mean &green]

If theres realy a saftey issue ( though I dont belive it) then why dont they ask for a one way ear pieace link from the commisaires?. Simples

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.

 

[Darryl Webster]

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.

Absalutly spot on. It`s 100% about DS`s control over there riders.
Every other reason is nonsense.

 

[lean mean &green]

Absalutly spot on. It`s 100% about DS`s control over there riders.
Every other reason is nonsense.

first and foremost DS's want control of their riders, but they probably wouldn't mind making a public show about how the UCI is gouging them on licence fees and the costs associated with drug testing. the riders look like they're being totally manipulated though, it would be funny if it weren't so sad to see them proudly wearing those stupid earpieces on the start line in mallorca, confident they're standing up to "the sysem". JV's quoting patrick henry actually starts to look despicable.

the UCI is totally mishandling this as usual tho. too many people mistake their incompetence for corruption. the UCI/McQuaid are just dumb and greedy, and WAY too dumb to execute a conspiracy plot. all mcquaid would have to do is make simple and cheap compromises to ensure rider safety and the whole thing would be over. instead they make rigid demands and again come off as bullying.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I do think it is more about the DS's than the riders - but it has exposed some genuine problems within the sport.

To the OP - yes, there are more pressing issues facing the sport but riders safety and welfare should always be paramount.
Even if my preference is to see 2way radios removed if there is a genuine safety concern then it should be addressed, not ignored.

The difficulty here is that the UCI have set a rule with no input from the other stakeholders who have revolted. As much as I have little time for the UCI, the rules they set should be adhered to and enforced and those that ignore the rules punished accordingly.

This is a 2way street- the riders and teams (& organizers) need to have proper representation which must be recognized by the UCI, but any representation need to accept and abide by the rules that ultimately set.

 

[hrotha]

I think some of the concerns the teams and riders have raised are good points and that the UCI should have addressed them before unilaterally enforcing this new rule. It just makes it more difficult for all the parties involved. Not to say the teams are being honest about their motives, but many if not all their concerns could have been addressed in a variety of ways (one-way radio communication between riders and directors, or whatever) that apparently haven't been explored by anyone but the mortal enemies of the UCI: forumites and bloggers.

 

[fujisst]

Racing fans who favor throwing the radio/remote controls in the garbage get organized and protest the races and the companies that support the racing. This thing could go viral - and it could start right here.

The money controls the racers, the racing - everything and everyone involved. Period. Interrupt the money, and you'll get the attention of all involved.

No revelation, of course. But it needed saying...

 

[Mellow Velo]

Some valid observations on today's debacle:
http://theinnerring.blogspot.com/2011/02/majorcan-farce.html

 

[Master50]

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.

 

[skidmark]

It seems simple: I would like to see no radios, as a fan, to have a bit more unpredictability/'gut instinct' in racing. I think most fans would agree.

The UCI would like this as well, for whatever reason (they're not real upfront about sharing truths behind decisions).

The riders and teams would not like this, because of safety concerns and stuff like someone getting left behind by an unfortunate mechanical.

The latter 2 bodies should think about all of those perspectives and come up with something mutually satisfactory. What about 2-way pagers that can tell riders to drop back for advice/warning, or tell the DS car about problems? Whatever, there just needs to be discussion.

But it doesn't seem like this will ever happen, because the UCI just wants to smash it's fist on the table and determine what will happen without being accountable to anyone or anything. Yeesh.

 

[Furbo_]

I would like to see how many of those pro-radio cyclists usually train helmetless.

By the way, they rode without judges. Pretty unsafe, it you ask me.

 

[lean mean &green]

The UCI would like this as well, for whatever reason (they're not real upfront about sharing truths behind decisions).

the only thing i can think of is that they want to make bike races more interesting. it's scary to think they may actually be on the right side of an issue for once but it looks to be the case that their interests just happen to match up with those of spectators this time. the problem again is what you've suggested. stubbonness and poor communication with teams and fans as to the why they'd like to see radios eliminated. the only explanation i can think of is that they see having to explain themselves as a sign of weakness or as admitting defeat. ironically, they're actually helping to create a stronger union between teams and weakening themselves with this approach.

 

[Chuffy]

I do think it is more about the DS's than the riders - but it has exposed some genuine problems within the sport.

To the OP - yes, there are more pressing issues facing the sport but riders safety and welfare should always be paramount.
Even if my preference is to see 2way radios removed if there is a genuine safety concern then it should be addressed, not ignored.

The difficulty here is that the UCI have set a rule with no input from the other stakeholders who have revolted. As much as I have little time for the UCI, the rules they set should be adhered to and enforced and those that ignore the rules punished accordingly.

This is a 2way street- the riders and teams (& organizers) need to have proper representation which must be recognized by the UCI, but any representation need to accept and abide by the rules that ultimately set.

This why the quotes from JV intrigue me - it clearly suggests a disconnect between the riders and the UCI. My interest is in how that affects attitudes re: doping and drug testing. My gut feeling is that the riders have little faith in the UCI and are wary of how it deals with the test results and the rider(s) affected, which goes some way to explain why they don't just line up to put the boot into Rider X when he gets busted. If the riders have no faith in the fairness of the system then they have little incentive to support it.

I agree that the rules are what they are, but that doesn't preclude the riders protesting and if it brings other, deeper, grievances to the boil then that's all to the good.

 

[VeloFidelis]

I agree that the rules are what they are, but that doesn't preclude the riders protesting and if it brings other, deeper, grievances to the boil then that's all to the good.

Spot on! Despite all the colorful conspiracy theories espoused here within the collective wisdom of the Forum. It is a riders protest. They have more skin in the game than anyone else. Their opinion should have the most weight.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Some valid observations on today's debacle:

Some, but some not as well.

"I appreciate the teams and their umbrella group the AIGCP don't like the new rule, nor do they like the way the rule has been introduced: suddenly and without proper consultation."

Suddenly? This topic has been in discussion for several years, and successfully tested in previous pro races, such as last year's World's.

He is however right when he says:

"if the UCI retreats on the radios, then soon it might find the teams are calling a lot more shots." and that they are acting like teenagers. Or cry babies.

As I said before, many times, it's not so much communication between riders and DS's in cars that's the issue, it's the availability of information. Information from broadcasting and the net, plus wattage, HR and perhaps most important, time splits should not be available to the team cars. That's where the problem lies because it puts the strategy almost entirely in the team car. The DS's know who is where on the road, who might be tired, who isn't, when your riders need to chase, or not, and they call the shots. That's what's hurting racing. That's what's changed the scope of the game.

Go back and read Hinault's quote from the other year. He was right.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Spot on! Despite all the colorful conspiracy theories espoused here within the collective wisdom of the Forum. It is a riders protest. They have more skin in the game than anyone else. Their opinion should have the most weight.

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

This why the quotes from JV intrigue me - it clearly suggests a disconnect between the riders and the UCI. My interest is in how that affects attitudes re: doping and drug testing. My gut feeling is that the riders have little faith in the UCI and are wary of how it deals with the test results and the rider(s) affected, which goes some way to explain why they don't just line up to put the boot into Rider X when he gets busted. If the riders have no faith in the fairness of the system then they have little incentive to support it.

I agree that the rules are what they are, but that doesn't preclude the riders protesting and if it brings other, deeper, grievances to the boil then that's all to the good.

I have no problem with the riders (or teams or organizers) protesting but as I said earlier if all the stakeholders had proper representation within the UCI then it would not require public protests.

 

[will10]

I would like to see how many of those pro-radio cyclists usually train helmetless.

By the way, they rode without judges. Pretty unsafe, it you ask me.

Lack of helmets doesn't cause accidents, lack of radios might prevent them.

 

[Christian]

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).

Where did you read or find this? In this article from cyclingnews they quote the same survey but with completely different figures:

Last week the Cyclistes Professionels Associés (CPA) announced that it had canvassed opinions from the pro peloton, with some 344 riders from across Europe questioned on the matter. Only 40 backed the decision to ban radios

That would be around 88% against the ban and 12% for the ban, which could be qualified as an "overwhelming majority"