USAC Race Radios

[jmax22]

When USA Cycling made the decision to reintroduce radio contact between teams and their riders, board of directors president Bill Peterson said: "We have spent considerable time discussing this issue with many experienced racers, team managers and race organizers; we have yet to find anyone make a convincing case to eliminate race radios. Therefore we are allowing radios within the races we control, and I suspect many countries around the world will follow our lead."

Follow your lead? Epic Fail. Where did this guy come from?

Steve Johnson, USA Cycling CEO added: "While we remain convinced of the value of race radios with regard to their potential for increased safety for riders and spectators... we will respect the UCI's request to continue the ban of race radios in national calendar races and national championships."

Translation: Even though radios really don't impact safety, we tried to show the UCI who is boss by re-introducing them to the American peloton. Then we were swiftly *****slapped and so we flip-flopped faster than a cyclist's denial of a positive test.

 

[LugHugger]

Irrespective of which side of the argument you support, you have to wonder at the capabilities of the people running USAC firstly to make such a pompous initial remark and then to flip flop in such an apologetic manner.

 

[BroDeal]

Irrespective of which side of the argument you support, you have to wonder at the capabilities of the people running USAC firstly to make such a pompous initial remark and then to flip flop in such an apologetic manner.

I think you have to wonder why riders need radios for crits and the other crappy races they do in the U.S. I also wonder in what possible way radios affect the safety of the spectators.

 

[Astana1]

They look ridiculous. They should have at least stuck to their guns for a little while. McQuaid basically threatened them and they relented instantaneously.

 

[Master50]

Pretty silly given that pro continental and pro tour teams can't even race NRC events unless they are also UCI races and then radios would be banned anyway. The USA rulebook is hardly modelled after the UCI book so it has never complied and you won"t see the UCI make any more fuss about it now they rolled over on radios.
The connection to radios causing boredom is so far from a proven connection I am still amazed at how quickly the race fans have polarized on this argument.
I am coming to believe it is more to do with the perception by the IOC that radios are too tech for sport.
IOC says Ban and the UCI says how high.

 

[jmax22]

I think you have to wonder why riders need radios for crits and the other crappy races they do in the U.S. I also wonder in what possible way radios affect the safety of the spectators.

Yeah, not the greatest PR move by Peterson and this Johnson guy. Essentially USAC said they would allow radios specifically because it's a major safety issue for riders and spectators (although we can all agree that is B.S.), and now by caving to the UCI so quickly, USAC basically said "Oh, we don't give a crap about rider safety" by banning radios again. That also opens them up to significant liability if there ever was a crash that resulted in serious injury or death in which someone argues that a radio could have prevented it... They are on record as saying it's a major safety concen, and then decide to ban them anyway? Clearly the tail is wagging the dog here and someone needs to lead of get out of the way.

 

[131313]

I think you have to wonder why riders need radios for crits and the other crappy races they do in the U.S. I also wonder in what possible way radios affect the safety of the spectators.

I guess you don't actually know much about racing in the US. I realize this is an international board, so I guess you aren't located here. I probably did fewer than 10 crits last year? There are plenty of good races in the US, even if no one has ever heard of them.

Anyway, the more I read about "radios", the more I realize that "radios" have pretty much nothing to do with the actual subject at hand.

Personally, as a rider I'm ambivalent. They sure do help with mechanical issues and have a huge convenience factor. The main advantage is that they reduce the amount of time it takes when dropping back through the caravan, and this is where "safety" comes in. It's always dangerous back there, so the quicker you can get in and out, the better. On the other hand, I was crashed out once last year by a chain reaction crash which I'm almost certain was caused by some Euro talking in his radio.

Most of last season I raced without a radio, and life still went on. I'm still alive, if inconvenienced a little. It seems a memo went out to mention "safety" at every turn, but frankly this is really overblown. The real issue isn't lack of radios causing crashes, it's the difficulty in getting your junk fixed after a crash in their absence.

USAC's repeal really seemed short-sighted, and politically-motivated. Now they look really silly, as they should. If "safety" were really the issue, they'd have looked at communication alternatives, such as simply limiting communication from the team car to the riders. They didn't even propose this as a solution. The big DS's want total control. Total control of the riders, and, it seem, total control of the sport itself. I'm not really sure that's a good idea. Just because the UCI is a very flawed organization, doesn't mean it should be replaced by one which is potentially even more flawed, which is basically the idea being proposed. That's my humble take on it.

 

[joe1265]

As a US racer I can tell you radios have a huge safety affect.

First - never been to a European race, just watched on TV.

That said, I could never imagine putting together a course like I see in Europe on TV. The roads are awesome! Narrow, twisty, scenic, a road that it would be unsafe to drive a car on above 50kph.

In the US we have to string courses together over what pretty much are highways.

So, break goes, marshalls pull a car over. They wait 30 seconds (NOTE - an ETERNITY for a US driver) then they pull back onto the course right in front of 100 racers and behind the break.

Safety of the spectators?

Using the above situation, the breakaway comes up to an intersection, hill, whatever. If there's a marshall there, spectators tend to gather as well. Well, the marshall and the spectators won't be expecting a soccer-mom driven SUV to be in between the break and the pack.

Milan-San Remo they had radios and it was the most exciting edition in years. Attack, attack, attack. No pack sprint no team controlling everything. It was complete chaos! LOVED IT!!!!

 

[VeloFidelis]

So, Pat McQuaid feels like the UCI is being Black Mailed by the riders and teams by their threat to boycott the Tour of Beijing. I wonder what term he would use to describe his most recent interaction with USA Cycling:

The UCI objected strongly to the decision, sending a letter of reprimand to USA Cycling. Just what was in the letter is not known however. Given today’s decision, it was enough to sway opinion over the controversial issue.

"After consultation with the UCI, it is apparent that allowing race radios in domestic NRC races would negatively impact the UCI-registered teams and riders who would no longer be allowed to compete in these events," explained Peterson via statement a press statement.

"The absence of UCI registered teams and riders would have a highly detrimental impact, not only on the team sponsors, but also on the hard working NRC promoters and the sponsors and communities who support these races."

Obviously no political bombast here... just a rational and mutually respectful discussion. McQuaid is becoming quite the role model for statesmanship and astute political discourse. I can't think of what more he could do to galvanize the resolve of the anti-ban interests. But I am sure that he will come up with something.

 

[131313]

As a US racer I can tell you radios have a huge safety affect....


In the US we have to string courses together over what pretty much are highways.

So, break goes, marshalls pull a car over. They wait 30 seconds (NOTE - an ETERNITY for a US driver) then they pull back onto the course right in front of 100 racers and behind the break.

Safety of the spectators?

Using the above situation, the breakaway comes up to an intersection, hill, whatever. If there's a marshall there, spectators tend to gather as well. Well, the marshall and the spectators won't be expecting a soccer-mom driven SUV to be in between the break and the pack.

huh? how on earth would communication between the riders and the DS eliminate this as an issue? This is simply a matter of not having enough cars. It has nothing to do with radios, unless I missed the memo that radios are banned in the official's cars as well.

People pull out all sort of ridiculous scenarios and "what ifs", but the reality is that even from a safety perspective there are pros and cons to radios.

 

[ksmith]

So, Pat McQuaid feels like the UCI is being Black Mailed by the riders and teams by their threat to boycott the Tour of Beijing. I wonder what term he would use to describe his most recent interaction with USA Cycling:

The UCI objected strongly to the decision, sending a letter of reprimand to USA Cycling. Just what was in the letter is not known however. Given today’s decision, it was enough to sway opinion over the controversial issue.

"After consultation with the UCI, it is apparent that allowing race radios in domestic NRC races would negatively impact the UCI-registered teams and riders who would no longer be allowed to compete in these events," explained Peterson via statement a press statement.

"The absence of UCI registered teams and riders would have a highly detrimental impact, not only on the team sponsors, but also on the hard working NRC promoters and the sponsors and communities who support these races."

Obviously no political bombast here... just a rational and mutually respectful discussion. McQuaid is becoming quite the role model for statesmanship and astute political discourse. I can't think of what more he could do to galvanize the resolve of the anti-ban interests. But I am sure that he will come up with something.

Thats the laws of the Governing body, if you don't like it petition USA Cycling to quit.

 

[jmax22]

I guess you don't actually know much about racing in the US. I realize this is an international board, so I guess you aren't located here. I probably did fewer than 10 crits last year? There are plenty of good races in the US, even if no one has ever heard of them.

Anyway, the more I read about "radios", the more I realize that "radios" have pretty much nothing to do with the actual subject at hand.

Personally, as a rider I'm ambivalent. They sure do help with mechanical issues and have a huge convenience factor. The main advantage is that they reduce the amount of time it takes when dropping back through the caravan, and this is where "safety" comes in. It's always dangerous back there, so the quicker you can get in and out, the better. On the other hand, I was crashed out once last year by a chain reaction crash which I'm almost certain was caused by some Euro talking in his radio.

Most of last season I raced without a radio, and life still went on. I'm still alive, if inconvenienced a little. It seems a memo went out to mention "safety" at every turn, but frankly this is really overblown. The real issue isn't lack of radios causing crashes, it's the difficulty in getting your junk fixed after a crash in their absence.

USAC's repeal really seemed short-sighted, and politically-motivated. Now they look really silly, as they should. If "safety" were really the issue, they'd have looked at communication alternatives, such as simply limiting communication from the team car to the riders. They didn't even propose this as a solution. The big DS's want total control. Total control of the riders, and, it seem, total control of the sport itself. I'm not really sure that's a good idea. Just because the UCI is a very flawed organization, doesn't mean it should be replaced by one which is potentially even more flawed, which is basically the idea being proposed. That's my humble take on it.

Well said,

The week-long decision to use radios by USAC was NOT predicated on safety. They just used that to sell it publicly so it would be well received and people would think they were looking out for the best interests of riders. This was all about DSs putting pressure on USAC because they want that style of racing - easier for mechanicals, tactics, direction of riders, etc.... The safety issue is a very convenient and politically correct excuse to hide behind. If it was truly about safety, USAC would not take the risk to put their members in any situation that was dangerous, such as racing without radios.

 

[VeloFidelis]

The week-long decision to use radios by USAC was NOT predicated on safety. They just used that to sell it publicly so it would be well received and people would think they were looking out for the best interests of riders. This was all about DSs putting pressure on USAC because they want that style of racing - easier for mechanicals, tactics, direction of riders, etc.... The safety issue is a very convenient and politically correct excuse to hide behind. If it was truly about safety, USAC would not take the risk to put their members in any situation that was dangerous, such as racing without radios.

But wait... they just did!

I would love to know the source of this mysterious and omnipotent "pressure" that those evil DS's are suppose to have. Where does all this leverage come from? You can only bet that they wish they had all the clout that so many here think they do. Even if they did have that kind of power, to think they would wield it so unanimously in lieu if their differing competitive agendas, makes them sound like the forces of evil from some comic book series.

Figure it out. Racing is dangerous. The riders accept that. Racing with access to developing and contextual information during an event makes it less so. Limiting access to that information makes it more dangerous. What part of that basic truth is in dispute?

The USAC made an honest assessment of what the affects of radios are, and are not, and could come up with no compelling reason to support the ban.

Bill Peterson said: "We have spent considerable time discussing this issue with many experienced racers, team managers and race organizers; we have yet to find anyone make a convincing case to eliminate race radios. Therefore we are allowing radios within the races we control, and I suspect many countries around the world will follow our lead."

Now they have caved to pressure (Black Mail) from the UCI to conform to their misguided position. This issue is not going away. The riders have every right to be heard, and I am sure they will. The UCI, despite their public position is doing more to unite the anti-ban interests than they realize. McQuaid's skills as a negotiator and politician on behalf of the interests of the UCI are on full display... and it seems they are found to be terribly lacking.