This Quick Step jersey wasn't popular with the UCI before the start of the race.

[free[*+ ]Ast]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2...?id=/photos/2009/apr09/rvv09/rvv_20090405_002
93rd Ronde van Vlaanderen - ProT, Belgium, April 5, 2009

This Quick Step jersey wasn't popular with the UCI before the start of the race.

can anyone explain what's the meaning? thanks

 

[nicholaaaas]

i think it's ridiculous. i was always amused and found it fun when Mario would wear whatever he wanted to. and the uci would get mad and fine it. it's the kind of thing that makes cycling fun. but the way the uci handled it today is just another reason they aren't popular

 

[180mmCrank]

Vintage Top!

Apparently this is a vintage quick step jersey not really sure what's vintage about it - it's not exactly retro or classic. Anyway it was enough to raise a fuss with the folks at UCI.

I rememeber a guy in a race getting told to remove his socks for some similar reason. You think they would have more important things to fuss about than this. Oh well gives us all something to write about I guess!

 

[St. Elia]

What is the UCI thinking???? What difference does it make that a team chooses to change their colors. I can understand that yellow shouldn't be worn in the tour or pink in the giro but this is just the stupidest thing I have ever heard. The vintage look is huge in N.A. sports like Hockey and American foot ball. and pays respect to the heritage of the sport, isn't that important?

This is almost as stupid as the weight limit on bikes, I mean really 15 lbs?

 

[180mmCrank]

The idea is that teams are expected to register their team uniforms so that we the punters, the race officials, the media etc can tell who is who. This is fairly standard in most organised team sports - and prevents a certain amount of anarchy. Quickstep would have expected to have been fined for wearing an unsanctioned variation in their colours but I think they were surprised to be threatened with ejection from the race.

The minimum weight is also common in equipment based sport where weight impacts performance. It is there to keep costs under control and obviously to try to keep a level playing field for competitors.

All very sensible really

 

[Anonymous]

personally i like it.. and the mix of white and blue shirts in the pelaton this year is a headache for us poorly sighted people...

 

[Power13]

The minimum weight is also common in equipment based sport where weight impacts performance. It is there to keep costs under control and obviously to try to keep a level playing field for competitors.

All very sensible really

Umm...no. The weight limits were established in 98 or 99. technology has improved substantially since then, costs have been lowered and a sub 15 lbs bike can be easily developed and ridden with no safety issues. Likewise, the cost of these bikes have been reduced considerably.

So the old UCI weight limit is, in effect, archaic.

As for the jersey issue, seems to me no one had a problem in the past tracking Saeco whenever they broke out their special team kits (Roman, Peace in Ireland, Convicts of the Road, etc), so if the whole QS team was gonna ride that jersey design, what is the issue.

Once again, the UCI fooks up something that is relatively simple.

 

[TrapperJohn]

Anyone who can't tell that jersey is from the quickstep team probably needs to visit an optomotrist, quickly.

Of course, given how well the UCI has monitored other aspects of the sport, this probably shouldn't come as a surprise.

It's not like they showed up wearing a toga... ah, I miss Mario.

The idea is that teams are expected to register their team uniforms so that we the punters, the race officials, the media etc can tell who is who. This is fairly standard in most organised team sports - and prevents a certain amount of anarchy. Quickstep would have expected to have been fined for wearing an unsanctioned variation in their colours but I think they were surprised to be threatened with ejection from the race.

The minimum weight is also common in equipment based sport where weight impacts performance. It is there to keep costs under control and obviously to try to keep a level playing field for competitors.

All very sensible really

 

[180mmCrank]

Ok

Yes I agree - officiating bodies (UCI included) can be over officious and pedantic. We have seen this quite a bit in cycling recently.

And that doesn't change the fact that lines are commonly drawn by the officiating body of a sport - they set the parameters of a sport - it's their job.

And we might all have a view about where the line is drawn but there needs to be a line.

So for example...

We may both agree the minimum weight may be too high but there are good reasons why we would still want there to be a minimum weight. We want the sport to be predominantly about the riders and not the bikes they ride on.

This is obvious isn't it?

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

There is a safety issue with weight, and one of the reasons for a limit is that at sub 15lbs there are instability issues when it comes to descending large cols at 80Kph, especially for the smaller Tour riders that weigh no more than a 14 year old.

 

[Graham]

So, if Man Utd came out for a game at Old Trafford wearing a jersey that hadn't been approved by the FA, you wouldn't expect anything to be done? For me, the only mistake that the UCI did here was be overly tolerant towards Cipollini in years gone by. What they did on Sunday is what they should always do.

OK, in this instance, the jersey doesn't appear too similar to anyone else's jersey. But who decides that? What if Quick Step had decided to turn up in a (heaven forbid) lime green jersey with blue flashes? Who decides if that is different enough to the Liquigas jersey to be allowed? At what point does it become different enough? You can't ask a commissaire to make that decision on the morning of the race because it is always going to have to have a proper review since their will be some subjectivity as to whether or not it is too similar to a rivals.

Commissaire's should be able to rule where something is non-subjective, and their refusal to do so (such as in the case of approving equipment) is an issue. But, the only thing that they should have to do regarding uniforms is agree whether or not it appears to be the one that has been pre-approved. If it isn't, you don't get to race in it.

Graham.

 

[Power13]

So, if Man Utd came out for a game at Old Trafford wearing a jersey that hadn't been approved by the FA, you wouldn't expect anything to be done? For me, the only mistake that the UCI did here was be overly tolerant towards Cipollini in years gone by. What they did on Sunday is what they should always do.

OK, in this instance, the jersey doesn't appear too similar to anyone else's jersey. But who decides that? What if Quick Step had decided to turn up in a (heaven forbid) lime green jersey with blue flashes? Who decides if that is different enough to the Liquigas jersey to be allowed? At what point does it become different enough? You can't ask a commissaire to make that decision on the morning of the race because it is always going to have to have a proper review since their will be some subjectivity as to whether or not it is too similar to a rivals.

Commissaire's should be able to rule where something is non-subjective, and their refusal to do so (such as in the case of approving equipment) is an issue. But, the only thing that they should have to do regarding uniforms is agree whether or not it appears to be the one that has been pre-approved. If it isn't, you don't get to race in it.

Graham.

The UCI does not approve overall jersey designs as they relate to other teams. if they did, we would not ahve had the rash of blue and white kits over the last few years where you couldn't tell one team from another in overhead shots.

What the UCI was enforcing was the rule that there is one team kit and one team kit only. It is an idiotic rule....if a team wants to change their look for certain races, big deal. As long as all the team members are riding the same kit, and the sponsors approve, the UCI really shouldn't object.

 

[AlHooKoo]

The idea is that teams are expected to register their team uniforms so that we the punters, the race officials, the media etc can tell who is who.

These people should have been able to determine from looking at the "retro" jersey was Quickstep and not confuse them with another team.

 

[180mmCrank]

So for anybody that is interested the rules are...

Teams registered with the UCI

1.3.035 Each team may have only a single design for clothing (colours and layout) which may not be altered for the duration of the calendar year.
1.3.036 UCI ProTeams and professional continental teams must submit a specimen of their clothing to UCI headquarter no later than December 31st before the year in question. Other entities shall lodge, within the same deadline, a specimen of their clothing at the headquarters of the national federation of the team.
1.3.037 Riders' clothing shall always be identical to the specimen lodged.

So the UCI don't approve kit but they do require registration of a design.

Interestingly in the next para they talk about allowable variations in sponsor names and logos which would seem to slightly contradict the above. I guess no surprise that as governing body they have the last word on this.

 

[nightfend]

Except last year for instance, Team Columbia, changed their team kits three times. From black High Road, to white High Road (just before the classics started), to the Blue Columbia kits for the TdF.

Also, as I recall, Discovery channel wore different jerseys during the TdF than they did the rest of the year during Lance's last tour.

In the U.S. for instance, Rock Racing changed their kit at virtually every race last year. Oh, and CSC/Saxo, and Slipstream also changed their kits twice last year.

There are probably a number of other mid-season team kit switches as well that I just didn't catch. The point is, that the UCI once again is arbitrary with their rules. Ignoring the rules at certain times, and enforcing them at others. That's the biggest grievance people have with the UCI. Just be consistent with the rules.

 

[ridelikethewind]

UCI, Man U, Sweet FA

So, if Man Utd came out for a game at Old Trafford wearing a jersey that hadn't been approved by the FA, you wouldn't expect anything to be done? For me, the only mistake that the UCI did here was be overly tolerant towards Cipollini in years gone by. What they did on Sunday is what they should always do.

OK, in this instance, the jersey doesn't appear too similar to anyone else's jersey. But who decides that? What if Quick Step had decided to turn up in a (heaven forbid) lime green jersey with blue flashes? Who decides if that is different enough to the Liquigas jersey to be allowed? At what point does it become different enough? You can't ask a commissaire to make that decision on the morning of the race because it is always going to have to have a proper review since their will be some subjectivity as to whether or not it is too similar to a rivals.

Commissaire's should be able to rule where something is non-subjective, and their refusal to do so (such as in the case of approving equipment) is an issue. But, the only thing that they should have to do regarding uniforms is agree whether or not it appears to be the one that has been pre-approved. If it isn't, you don't get to race in it.

Graham.

If Man Utd came out for a game at Old Trafford wearing a jersey that hadn't been approved by the FA and they were drawing at 90 minuites, but really needed a win the FA would insist that the game continued until Man Utd scored the winning goal. Only then would the game be over.

 

[53x11 in DC]

If Man Utd came out for a game at Old Trafford wearing a jersey that hadn't been approved by the FA and they were drawing at 90 minuites, but really needed a win the FA would insist that the game continued until Man Utd scored the winning goal. Only then would the game be over.

At least Man U has an upstanding and well-respected sponsor!!!

 

[Power13]

Except last year for instance, Team Columbia, changed their team kits three times. From black High Road, to white High Road (just before the classics started), to the Blue Columbia kits for the TdF.

Also, as I recall, Discovery channel wore different jerseys during the TdF than they did the rest of the year during Lance's last tour.

In the U.S. for instance, Rock Racing changed their kit at virtually every race last year. Oh, and CSC/Saxo, and Slipstream also changed their kits twice last year.

There are probably a number of other mid-season team kit switches as well that I just didn't catch. The point is, that the UCI once again is arbitrary with their rules. Ignoring the rules at certain times, and enforcing them at others. That's the biggest grievance people have with the UCI. Just be consistent with the rules.

Not certain how they handled the High Road change, but I would imagine that there is clearly a mechanism in place for kit alterations based on the addition / loss of sponsors.

In other cases (Rock), the teams were fined for wearing non-conforming kits. ow consistently? Dunno....

Disco changed their kit for the Tour in 2007, when they added the strip of green to show how enviro-friendly they were. Additionally, T-Mob added the Unicef blue stripe one year for the tour (although that may have been covered under the sponsoship execpetion...dunno).

Agreed with your last 2 sentences.....

 

[Anonymous]

1.3.036 UCI ProTeams and professional continental teams must submit a specimen of their clothing to UCI headquarter no later than December 31st before the year in question.

so nobody saw the press reports last autumn that quick step where having a retro kit this year then..?

i remembered and when we where discussing kits a few weeks back i brought it up but could not for the life of me remember which team it was...
if there was a press release about it, im pretty sure the uci must have been informed...

im not sure how the uci have approved what seems like ten teams this year to wear white and blue.. as prevously mentioned us half blind people are struggling with helecopter shots to tell who is who..

 

[Anonymous]

In the U.S. for instance, Rock Racing changed their kit at virtually every race last year.

and several times just during the tour of britain..

 

[St. Elia]

I understand the idea behind keeping the team kit the same but was it really that different? I mean surely they have better things to do.

As far as the bike weight is concerned, my question is why 15lbs? most of the pros have bikes that weigh less then that and have to add things to their bike? my point is the rule is out dated. If a joe like me can have a bike that is 15 lbs then it time to change the limit of the pro bikes. If I bought a new set of wheels my bike would not be sanction by the UCI now that is freaky.