The much needed UCI loller thread

[CyclistAbi]

Moral of the story is that De Bondt is a dumbass.

Nah, moral of the story is this is just another spoon feed for the mob. The main message IMHO is being presented as it's OK if you do it, just don't be "dumb" and say it out loud. And now the mob gets to say for the X times on how dumb somebody is, basically suggesting we, the mob, we would never say it out loud.

Anyway.

 

[Potomac]

No it isn't hypocrisy, they simply can't do anything when there's no proof. In this case there is literal proof, cause on of the 2 actors has admitted doing it like the moron he is. I honestly do not understand what people want. What do you want the UCI to do here? Ignore it and give the message that it is completely fine to try to "bribe" riders from other teams (what EF does is worse than De Bondt "accepting" it)? It's completely unacceptable in any serious sport and for some reason in cycling fans are fine with it. Why?

The fact that De Bondt thought it was normal to just openly speak about it already says enough. It's a problem and they all think it's completely ok to do. At least the UCI makes a statement now that it is against the rules (like it should be hello?). Will it stop now? Of course not, but maybe some teams will think twice before doing it cause you never know if you're colluding with a complete utter moron who's gonna tell the press he's doing it.

Moral of the story is that De Bondt is a dumbass. He was a good enough rider to get a contract somewhere else without any problems but he now isn't just risking a punishment, but also has showed to teams that he's not trustworthy, which is definitely more harmful. That being said, enough decent teams who would beg for a rider like him in their team so he will still find a contract.

Is it a bribe if a gc rider tells a rider on another team he can have the stage win if he helps me gain on GC?

 

[Samamba]

Is it a bribe if a gc rider tells a rider on another team he can have the stage win if he helps me gain on GC?

No cause you both ride for your own or teams best result that way. Not even remotely the same and you know it. Stop with the whataboutism. There's isn't a single precedent for this case. So don't start with Thomas-Cav or Ganna-Milan or whatever cause even these cases (even tho I'm not really a fan of it myself and technically that is also against the rules) aren't similar.

Nah, moral of the story is this is just another spoon feed for the mob. The main message IMHO is being presented as it's OK if you do it, just don't be "dumb" and say it out loud. And now the mob gets to say for the X times on how dumb somebody is, basically suggesting we, the mob, we would never say it out loud.

Anyway.

This is literally the case for EVERYTHING in life when someone breaks the rules or laws lmao. You can't do anything if there's no proof. How is that so hard to understand. What's worse for a sport, that people do it behind the scenes from time to time knowing it's actually the wrong thing to do or that everyone thinks it's completely fine to pay people off/being paid off and just says it publicly they pay people off or are being payed off and everyone thinks it's fine. What a joke of a sport it would be.

 

[Potomac]

No cause you both ride for your own or teams best result that way. Not even remotely the same and you know it. Stop with the whataboutism. There's isn't a single precedent for this case.

Isn't it against the rules?

 

[Samamba]

Isn't it against the rules?

No. There are other cases that are technically against the rules (helping a friend for example), but even those aren't similar cause there is no reward promised (well not that we know off of course). Again not a single precedent of a rider being asked to help a different team in return for a potential contract and doing exactly that AND admitting to it. And people are expecting the UCI just looks the other way lmao. In any other sport both Vanmarcke (way worse) and De Bondt would be hated for something similar.

 

[awavey]

The important point would be no case that you know of. Not that I can cite one either but I dont have an encyclopedic knowledge of every stage race ever, no one does, so you can't categorically state its never happened, just never happened that we know of.

As surely any rider in a break is helping another team to success and deals are made all the time between teams with uncontested sprints and stage wins handed to each other.

Just last week in the Dauphine stage 1, Buitrago was in the breakaway, helping the other teams, when the sprint came just sat up and rolled in 18th.

 

[CyclistAbi]

I didn't delve into it but this is on how i understand on what happened. A rider will get sacked by his current team and he started sending out his CV, trying to impress potential future employer, AFAIK not doing that at the expense of his current team. Now IMHO this happens all the time and hence the only "crime" here was a rider was honest about it.

So the main message sent here was don't be so honest.

On what would deserve a disciplinary action, IMHO, if there would be some sort of systematic bribing ongoing or involved, on where one team would have riders in the other team on their pay list, them doing them favours, that indeed would be rather nasty.

So in the end and the way i see it much ado about nothing. I won't blame a person for being honest. Landa rode for Kuss too, who cares, it's their prerogative.

 

[Samamba]

The important point would be no case that you know of. Not that I can cite one either but I dont have an encyclopedic knowledge of every stage race ever, no one does, so you can't categorically state its never happened, just never happened that we know of.

As surely any rider in a break is helping another team to success and deals are made all the time between teams with uncontested sprints and stage wins handed to each other.

You are literally just saying what I'm saying. No, indeed, not one that we know off cause no one is stupid enough to go to the press and say what exactly happened. When there's no proof the UCI can't punish a clear breach of the rules, when someone gives them the proof, they can, and that's exactly what happened; The fact that it happens all the time behind closed doors, doesn't change the fact that Ken Vanmarcke and Dries De Bondt did something that's against the rules. And not just any rules, they colluded. Ken Vanmarcke offered De Bondt a potential monetary reward if he did something for them that he normally wouldn't do. In what world is that fine?

Would you and others have the same energy if UAE for example would just be paying or promising contracts to other riders to ride for Pogacar when he's finally in some throuble at some point in this Tour? I doubt it.

Just last week in the Dauphine stage 1, Buitrago was in the breakaway, helping the other teams, when the sprint came just sat up and rolled in 18th.

You can't seriously think this is a good example of somthing similar? Like what? At least use another example of someone clearly being promised something, there's plenty, no one is denying that.

Buitrago jumped towards that group and relayed cause he's a GC rider wanting to get some seconds on others or because he wants to get a good result. Absolutely nothing dodgy about that. The fact that he goes early to try to surprise others and as a result as the only one of that break gets caught by the peloton doesn't change anything.

I didn't delve into it but this is on how i understand on what happened. A rider will get sacked by his current team and he started sending out his CV, trying to impress potential future employer, AFAIK not doing that at the expense of his current team. Now IMHO this happens all the time and hence the only "crime" here was a rider was honest about it.

No dude, the crime is him being "bribed", not that he admits to it. If someone kills something and later admits to it his crime isn't admitting to it but the fact that he killed someone. Like what are we even doing here. The fact that people get away with something cause no one can prove it happens, doesn't mean something is ok and the UCI can just look the other way when there's proof.

I get what you're trying to say. If De Bondt kept his mouth shut no one would've cared and everyone would've forgot, but that doesn't mean the UCI can just let it slide when someone openly admits to colluding and being bribed. It would be a slippery slope with more and more riders and teams doing it cause the UCI has then sent the message that it is completely fine to do. Which would make a mockery out of this sport.

All the examples of riders working together in breaks are just not the same, at all. There's almost every time (yes not always) a normal reason why they would do it.

 

[CyclistAbi]

@Samamba

Bribed in what way. Did he get money for it or a job position, or something? To my knowledge he just sent out his CV and tried to impress potential future employee. I consider that to be rather normal, knowing you are getting sacked by your current employee, and not criminal behaviour.

Family in the end has to eat, UCI won't pay the bills?

 

[Samamba]

@Samamba

Bribed in what way. Did he get money for it or a job position, or something? To my knowledge he just sent out his CV and tried to impress potential future employee. I consider that to be rather normal, knowing you are getting sacked by your current employee, and not criminal behaviour.

Family in the end has to eat, UCI won't pay the bills?

De Bondt indeed "sent his CV" to a lot of teams, but Ken Vanmarcke (EF DS) went to him before the start and said something along the lines of "if you help us, there could be in it for you" (I don't remeber the exact words anymore) and De Bondt said that's why he did what he did. That is simply against the rules (something being criminal or not doesn't even matter here)

Ok, but the whole family thing is just irrelevant. At that point we can just be fine with stealing too. Also De Bondt would've gotten 0 problems getting a pro contract for 2026, plenty of teams who would like to have a guy like him.

I am also not saying that I really blame De Bondt for doing it btw, I am not someone who acts his morally better than others. Maybe I would do the same, but that doesn't make it ok.

 

[CyclistAbi]

@Samamba

Thanks for explaining it further. Verbal contracts are enforceable, i will keep an eye on transfers, De Bondt to EF, otherwise IMHO De Bondt can take legal actions. A gag order on UCI is IMHO warranted too, gutting such small fishes, perfect food for mob. Anyway, yesterdays news.

 

[search]

ah, I wondered where this was discussed. Should obviously come with a severe penalty for both, and Vanmarcke having to leave the sport for a year or two.

 

[Samamba]

@Samamba

Thanks for explaining it further. Verbal contracts are enforceable, i will keep an eye on transfers, De Bondt to EF, otherwise IMHO De Bondt can take legal actions. A gag order on UCI is IMHO warranted too, gutting such small fishes, perfect food for mob. Anyway, yesterdays news.

That's not a verbal contract haha, it's a DS who said it. It doesn't mean anything apart from some sort of "promise". He's definitely not going to EF, as he has thrown them under the bus. Ken Vanmarcke, the DS, is probably in even more trouble than De Bondt. Like I said, the UCI actually enforcing something for once isn't a bad thing, even tho a lot of cycling "fans" think it's ok to do apparently. And I feel bad for Vanmarcke cause I know he's not the only one doing it, but maybe this actually at least sends a message to other people in the sport that they maybe should be a bit more careful. Hey maybe, we see less of it, which to me would be a good thing.

 

[CyclistAbi]

That's not a verbal contract haha, it's a DS who said it. It doesn't mean anything apart from some sort of "promise". He's definitely not going to EF, as he has thrown them under the bus. Ken Vanmarcke, the DS, is probably in even more throuble than De Bondt.

Just deny it and say you were drunk, after sign the papers with the new employee. Anyway, talk to the lawyer, peanut case.

 

[Samamba]

Just deny it and say you were drunk, after sign the papers with the new employee. Anyway, talk to the lawyer, peanut case.

Yeah Vanmarcke will probably deny, which would help in a court, but the UCI ethics commission isn't that. Anyways I don't think they will get punished so harshly.

ah, I wondered where this was discussed. Should obviously come with a severe penalty for both, and Vanmarcke having to leave the sport for a year or two.

That's a bit too harsh imo, and more importantly I don't think that's possible without actually getting an actual legal battle. Vanmarcke would just deny and say that De Bondt misinterpret his words or something. UCI will try to make a statement by punishing them, but not too hard so that they don't get a legal mess.

 

[CyclistAbi]

Yeah Vanmarcke will probably deny, which would help in a court, but the UCI ethics commission isn't that. Anyways I don't think they will get punished so harshly.

Of course they won't, both have bigger fishes to fry, foremost bikeshedding not one of them.

 

[CyclistAbi]

'It was a bit dangerous' - Lorena Wiebes criticises UCI's new handlebar width rule highlighting safety concerns at Copenhagen Sprint

'I’m a bit annoyed' European Champion points to road safety over handlebar width after three impactful crashes

www.cyclingnews.com

Riders do seem to understand that UCI is currently not taking their safety seriously and the measures taken are mostly smoke and mirrors.

 

[Zoetemelk-fan]

'It was a bit dangerous' - Lorena Wiebes criticises UCI's new handlebar width rule highlighting safety concerns at Copenhagen Sprint

'I’m a bit annoyed' European Champion points to road safety over handlebar width after three impactful crashes

www.cyclingnews.com

Riders do seem to understand that UCI is currently not taking their safety seriously and the measures taken are mostly smoke and mirrors.

Well tbf this one is for the race organizer's. Humiliating debuting a race at this level when amateurism pops up from the surface.
UCI could relegate this senseless sprint at near monument distance, but silence is apparently their sharpest "weapon".

 

[CyclistAbi]

@Zoetemelk-fan

At least they are taking safety measures.

 

[awavey]

You can't seriously think this is a good example of somthing similar? Like what? At least use another example of someone clearly being promised something, there's plenty, no one is denying that.

Buitrago jumped towards that group and relayed cause he's a GC rider wanting to get some seconds on others or because he wants to get a good result. Absolutely nothing dodgy about that. The fact that he goes early to try to surprise others and as a result as the only one of that break gets caught by the peloton doesn't change anything.

no i never said it was a good example, remember not encyclopedic knowledge, i used it as a recent example where a rider contributed to a breakaway group, but when the finale sprint happened took a complete pass of riding to their full potential to the benefit of their team, and no one said a thing. In a horse race that would have prompted a stewards enquiry.

Of course he had no chance of winning a sprint against the riders in the break, but all he had to do was keep turningthe pedals a bit faster, not just sit up, and his purpose of gaining GC seconds and positioning would have been better delivered

But he didn't and infact hindered the 2nd group sprinting in doing so.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Riesebeek becomes (I think) the first rider to incur a suspension under the yellow cards rule, with 2 cards during the Belgium Tour. A 7 day suspension isn't going to hurt him that much (a bit less help for Del Grosso in the Nationals?)

 

[RedheadDane]

Riesebeek becomes (I think) the first rider to incur a suspension under the yellow cards rule, with 2 cards during the Belgium Tour. A 7 day suspension isn't going to hurt him that much (a bit less help for Del Grosso in the Nationals?)

I think the effects from his crash might have hurt more...

 

[Unchained]

@Zoetemelk-fan

At least they are taking safety measures.

The UCI is doing a bunch of lip service, mostly in French!! Making broad brush changes to handlebar widths is based on one or all of three things, opinion, pseudo science, or no science at all. Where is the data set for anything? 10 tooth cogs are dangerous?
Who is riding @65s? So if you are doing a mostly downhill criterium in a hurricane, disc wheels or 65mm profile likely unstable and dangerous, thanks for the rule change, said nobody, because nobody was doing it!!
Narrow handlebars are likely a factor but not the root cause of crashes. Road and track riders much prefer bumping arms and elbows vs handlebars, just sort of accepted for centuries of racing,
Do narrow bars give riders a feeling like 1 more sardine will fit in the tightly packed bunch? Probably. But it's only certain types of riders that enjoy rubbing arm hair at @60-70k an hour anyway.. And most of them will not be affected by @38-40 because shoulders are close to that width being OK.
Eddy Merckx was 6ft tall and in his day rode 38s..so narrow was a thing back when.
For female riders ,smaller folks, bike fitters, sports medicine specialists, making people ride a bike that doesn't fit isn't safe, it's stupid.
Industry and sport always fragile at best, asking developers and manufacturers to turn on a dime with arbitrary rule changes , that's dangerous, possibly putting people out of business and physically in pain, possible long term or permanent injuries from riding wrong bike, especially at pro volume for training and racing..if you are on your bike @22-35+ hours a week and it's got a funny fitting something is going to go wrong. People who pushed for changes look like a limited bunch.. And rumors are Marc Madiot , was big contributor to opinion.
Need some transparency not mad scientists doing experiments.. Real life has female and smaller racers asking how come? And qualify their questions, with data, personal observation about why riding wrong bar and stem length is a bad thing, no response from UCI, and public kick around, nobody can figure out who the UCI asked about handlebars or cog size before rule changes..
If they called me and asked for science, some real life stuff I know works, 25-30 wheel profile and 32 spoke minimum, tire weight and diameter will slow things down. But instead UCI think aero helmets are a major culprit in safety, not for not protecting riders, but because they make you go too fast!! It's like Peewee Herman advised UCI safety team!!
After listening to dozens of ex pros, recently exited racers, everyone is stronger, better, faster, tactics are faster, races are faster through philosophy.. Teams are racing hard all the time.. There is no slow, relaxed, safe pace anymore..

 

[CyclistAbi]

@Unchained

I don't actually mind if UCI sets such technical rules, somebody has to set some perimeters, for as long as there is some level of agreement involved. Just don't try to sell them as safety measures and claim you actually have done something meaningful in the sense of that it will actually improve riders safety. They only done this for PR purposes, sold it as new safety measures taken, as they don't have anything else to show for. And that is IMHO not acceptable.

They need to do much much more in terms of improving rider safety.

 

[Unchained]

@Unchained

I don't actually mind if UCI sets such technical rules, somebody has to set some perimeters, for as long as there is some level of agreement involved. Just don't try to sell them as safety measures and claim you actually have done something meaningful in the sense of that it will actually improve riders safety. They only done this for PR purposes, sold it as new safety measures taken, as they don't have anything else to show for. And that is IMHO not acceptable.

They need to do much much more in terms of improving rider safety.

I think most people agree with you. But the obvious issue immediately is race design, participant levels. If races are @35-45 k per hour for extended periods and riders are packed in 8-12 across, curb to curb because of parity in conditioning, lots of people capable of going fast, no easy solutions, starting races in front of a @10k @10% climb would thin things out, but we all know that can't, won't happen.
Technology has touched everyone, everything in our lives, better life through science.
Now science is applied to an old school sport and people, rules can't keep up. Unless they can figure out a way to make everyone go slower, not much to be done. Could do it at team level, can only have @2-3 skinny, fast,fit guys and require that supporting riders ride heavier bikes and gain weight, train less, if UAE is too dominant, @4-5 riders required to get polluted night before and ride with hangover to slow things up!! Making women ride incorrectly fitting bikes can't be part of the answer. UCI thinking they fixed a problem, created 4,5 more!!