UCI criticizes Bruyneel for unprofessional behavior

[Captain_Obvious]

Johan Bruyneel:

So now the UCI criticizes me for unprofessional behavior. I suggest a poll amongst all riders, mechanics and directors. Then revisit.

Can anyone tell me what this is exactly about?

I know it has to do with the TTT yesterday but I cant seem to get a full story that makes sense.

 

[Lanark]

Johan Bruyneel:

So now the UCI criticizes me for unprofessional behavior. I suggest a poll amongst all riders, mechanics and directors. Then revisit.

Why not among fans?

 

[thehog]

Johan Bruyneel:

So now the UCI criticizes me for unprofessional behavior. I suggest a poll amongst all riders, mechanics and directors. Then revisit.

Can anyone tell me what this is exactly about?

I know it has to do with the TTT yesterday but I cant seem to get a full story that makes sense.

Saddle rule being applied 38 seconds before the TTT. The Hog spat the dummy and they fined him 200 francs.

The Hog has had enough. He might as well put the UCI in the gutter by telling them about all the payments made on behalf of Lance.

 

[Midnightfright]

Why not among fans?

Everyone including the ever gracious Johan understand that because he his held in such high regard by fans that asking there opinion would just result in glowing praise and adoration of him.

 

[Captain_Obvious]

Saddle rule being applied 38 seconds before the TTT. The Hog spat the dummy and they fined him 200 francs.

The Hog has had enough. He might as well put the UCI in the gutter by telling them about all the payments made on behalf of Lance.

I see.

The UCI isnt helping themselfs with such an action. It comes off as childish and down right bullying. Would still like to hear their side of the story though...

 

[roundabout]

There's being unhappy with the application of the rules and then there's having a gigantic ego and continuing to be a 'female dog' about it.

 

[spanky wanderlust]

johann is right on this one.

what does the uci have stuck in their chamois about saddle flatness anyway? i don't understand this rule.

and what was wrong with the previous system where they could be "flattish"? why are they choosing now to get out the levels?

if this has been discussed elsewhere, i apologize. please link thread. thanks

 

[Captain_Obvious]

There is some sort of clinic thread.

 

[Willy_Voet]

UCI continues to be an organization of idiots. WTF does it matter if the saddle is tilted or not...it's the riders' decision how they want their balls to sit!

Maybe the UCI will conduct "undercarriage" checks to make sure no chamois shims are installed too far aft to get the same effect. Should have to give the riders a "happy ending", though.

 

[sometriguy]

UCI continues to be an organization of idiots. WTF does it matter if the saddle is tilted or not...it's the riders' decision how they want their balls to sit!

Maybe the UCI will conduct "undercarriage" checks to make sure no chamois shims are installed too far aft to get the same effect. Should have to give the riders a "happy ending", though.

The UCI claims that a drop in saddle height allows you to apply more power... I'm calling BS on that.

Kind of funny, I always heard that tilting your saddle gave comfort at the cost of power.

Where is the sportsscientist when you need him

 

[Zweistein]

The rules are the rules. You know what happens if you don't verify that someone didn't change their bike just before the event, they violate the rule after they made it through the initial check. This isn't rock science. They have every right to recheck and the Bruyneel is an ******* for mistreating the officials for making a follow up check. I dare say that if the UCI was headed up by some of you posters, it might be even more incompetent.

 

[icefire]

Commentators were joking about some riders carrying their bottles over the downtube despite the bottle carriers they had at the back of the saddle.

 

[rhubroma]

It must be a ball obsession.

 

[Willy_Voet]

The rules are the rules. You know what happens if you don't verify that someone didn't change their bike just before the event, they violate the rule after they made it through the initial check. This isn't rock science. They have every right to recheck and the Bruyneel is an ******* for mistreating the officials for making a follow up check. I dare say that if the UCI was headed up by some of you posters, it might be even more incompetent.

The rule is stupid. There is no reason to not let riders tilt their saddle a few degrees to help with power, numbness or whatever.

You can cut part of the rear of the saddle off to get the same effect. Saddles have different curves, lengths and stiffness. You could make the front of the saddle soft and the back hard, you would achieve the same effect as tilting a saddle.

Once again the UCI has come up with an arbitrary rule that has no basis in 1) keeping costs down to help Nigerians (mondialisation or whatever) or 2) keeping riders safe.

Edit:

Please find the flat line on this saddle:

 

[Zweistein]

The rule is stupid. There is no reason to not let riders tilt their saddle a few degrees to help with power, numbness or whatever.

You can cut part of the rear of the saddle off to get the same effect. Saddles have different curves, lengths and stiffness. You could make the front of the saddle soft and the back hard, you would achieve the same effect as tilting a saddle.

Once again the UCI has come up with an arbitrary rule that has no basis in 1) keeping costs down to help Nigerians (mondialisation or whatever) or 2) keeping riders safe.

Fight the rule not the enforcement. Contador tilts his saddle and I beleive he picked this up at radioshack. A lot of guys on Radioshack tilt their saddle down because to rotate their pelvis and this allows them to be lowing in the front at the expense of having to hold themselves in place with their arms. It is a poor mans way of getting around not having a flexible back.

 

[Captain_Obvious]

One thing to apply - an arguably stupid - rule, but doing it 38 seconds before the TTT ( as the post before claims), thats different.

 

[Michele]

Cyclingnews article reported that UCI sent an expert to Dauphine who was there to explain the details of the new rule which was gonna be applied at this year Tour.
But by the expert's report, no one team contacted him at all.

I don't like this rule cause you can force everyone to have same position of saddle (too personal, like talking of shoes position), but if what UCI report is true then they had time to adjust it beforehand (somehow).

 

[thehog]

Cyclingnews article reported that UCI sent an expert to Dauphine who was there to explain the details of the new rule which was gonna be applied at this year Tour.
But by the expert's report, no one team contacted him at all.

I don't like this rule cause you can force everyone to have same position of saddle (too personal, like talking of shoes position), but if what UCI report is true then they had time to adjust it beforehand (somehow).

It's not a new rule. It's been in force since day 1. Why attempt to apply it 30 minutes before the biggest TTT of the year?

And what's an expert? A saddle expert? A spirit level expert?

Don't be daft.

 

[Michele]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-fire-back-on-saddle-issue

I agree that the rule as mentioned by McGee about saddle position being "flattish" was fair enough.

 

[Captain_Obvious]

"there's no other function of the UCI rule book than to lay down the rules that must be respected"

Not even in actual law, are rules applied that strictly. Rules have a function and a reasoning behind then, they’re interpreted, there are precedents and more importantly, customs develop. Those are all part of the rule.

 

[Swabian Lass]

Even if the rule made sense (which I don't think it does, but ho hum) why pick that time to apply it rigorously? BTW I've only heard about the Radioshack checks. Did they check any other teams?

 

[Race Radio]

The rules are the rules. You know what happens if you don't verify that someone didn't change their bike just before the event, they violate the rule after they made it through the initial check. This isn't rock science. They have every right to recheck and the Bruyneel is an ******* for mistreating the officials for making a follow up check. I dare say that if the UCI was headed up by some of you posters, it might be even more incompetent.

If the rules are not being applied correctly then it is correct to protest.

The UCI drops its jig in the dirt, it was not even level. Their solution was to prop up the tire track with a pebble.

 

[Captain_Obvious]

I've justbeen browsing through the UCI rule book; this stuff is pretty messy. Quite vague and a little unprofessional*. I would actually like to start a project on dissecting and evaluating these rules through the lens of actual legal princples and methods. Provided there is enough amino and help…

I find the whole concept of sports rule like these fascinating. Food for thought.


*a little example of a pretty straightforward rule (if not the most straightforward): 1.3.019 b) Weight
The weight of the bicycle cannot be less than 6.8 kilograms.

Comments on Article 1.3.019:
The minimum weight of the bicycle (in working order) shall be 6.800 kg, considered without on-board acces-
sories in place, that is to say those items that may be removed during the event.. (the dubbel dot is from the original document, christ...).

so, what exactly are on-board accessories that may be removed during the event? A whole bunch of wiggle room in that there interpration of such a simple rule.

They need to actually define things, instead they consistently use vague language to interpret generic terms.

Facepalm.

 

[Altitude]

The rules are the rules. You know what happens if you don't verify that someone didn't change their bike just before the event, they violate the rule after they made it through the initial check. This isn't rock science. They have every right to recheck and the Bruyneel is an ******* for mistreating the officials for making a follow up check. I dare say that if the UCI was headed up by some of you posters, it might be even more incompetent.

You mean rocket science?

 

[mr. tibbs]

You mean rocket science?

No, I think Zweistein meant rock. Did you see RR's picture a few posts up? It's a perfectly accurate description of the type of science involved.