So much has been said about the UCI's radio ban over the past few months, so I figured I'd join in the chatter. What I say will probably not be new to any well-informed fan, but hopefully it can bring to light exactly why the teams and riders are so against this ban.
But first some background info...
The radio ban that the UCI put into effect last year prohibits the use of race radio for all events 1.HC and lower. The ban is set to hit the Tour and other WorldTour races next year.
Sharp resistance from riders and teams has been on the rise since the start of this year, with perhaps the most notable example being in Mallorca in which the riders rode the race with illegal radios. Tyler Farrar won the race but the result was negated by the UCI. An even stronger protest was scheduled for last weekend's Omloop, but it was cancelled a few days beforehand due to UCI's threats to not insure the event and therefore cancel it. Certain riders like Jens Voigt have called for a boycott of the 2011 World Championships if the ban is not lifted.
Why?
The answer comes down to 3 simple points. Safety, Strategy, and Principle.
Safety
It's easy to state facts, but how about a few scenarios...
Scenario: Sometimes the rain in Spain doesn't just fall on the plain. In fact, sometimes the weather patterns in the mountains can just be flat out strange. If it is raining on one side of a mountain but not on the other, the riders ascending the climb have no way of knowing the road conditions on the other side without race radio. Take away the radios and you have the potential for the race leaders to be unknowingly flying down the side of a mountain at 70 kph right onto what is basically a giant slip-n-slide. Carnage.
Scenario: Especially in Europe, roundabouts are quite common in the stage towns and often come into play on the final few kms before the finish. Let's just create the example of a domestique-type rider who already did his turns at the front 20 kms ago, and now he is just cruising near the middle of the field. The final chase is in full throttle, and the peloton is traveling at speeds of around 60+ kph when they come up on a roundabout.
Normally, our faux domestique would have been alerted of this roundabout (because he really can't see it very well from the middle of the peloton) and he gets ready to make the split. But let's just say that there are no radios and maybe he is a bit tired or didn't really study his roadbook that well and he isn't quite ready when the peloton makes the swing. He clips the wheel of the rider in front of him and before you know it there's a pile of 25 free bikes for the spectators on the streets and a bunch of mangled and angry cyclists trying to chase them down. This problem goes from bad to worse if this crash happens outside of 3kms and there are team leaders or top sprinters involved.
Now these situations are 100% realistic, but maybe you are looking for an example a little more common.
Scenario: It's an everyday field sprint. Sprinter A is preparing to lead out Sprinter B to the line for the victory, but unfortunately the two have become separated. The lack of radio communication does not allow for the two to know where each other are, and maybe even is the cause for the initial separation.
If you've ever wanted to tick off a sprinter, there is no easier way to do so than to jump in his line. But introduce the possibility of multiple leadout sprinters scrambling to find their finisher and then the finishing sprinters trying to use another team's leadout and you have complete chaos. Sometimes it ends with nothing, other times a bit of shoving, and even the possibility of a crash.
Does this sort of thing occasionally happen even with the radios? Of course. But would it happen a lot more often without them? Absolutely.
And then there are the unpredictable aspects of pro cycling that cannot be found in any roadbook or said in any team meeting. Road obstructions, strong winds, animals and spectators on the track, misplaced signs, and poor road conditions are just a few examples of what can go wrong in a cycling race. When riders are alerted of them (by radio) then they are usually considered 'mishaps' but the word 'disaster' may also be used if the riders are not aware of the problems until they occur.
One can argue that riders got along fine before radios, and while this is true, the sport has developed around them ever since their introduction and especially in the last decade. The compact style of riding in the peloton as well as the extreme speeds used in the chase (partly because of better equipment) has always existed under radio guidance, and problems like the ones listed above will become more common when those radios are removed from the equation.
And that still may not even be the scariest part...
I read an article from a credible source saying that there has been talk of the riders communicating via text message if radios are banned. If the safety hazard in that doesn't become clear immediately, then there may be something wrong with everybody. The moral of the story is that if you make a rule against Plan A then the riders will move to Plan B, and by the time you pass a rule on that then they are on Plan C.
And this leads perfectly into the next point.
Principle
The UCI and the riders/teams under it shouldn't always have to be at loggerheads with each other.
Perhaps the thing bothering the teams/riders even more than the radio ban itself is how little they have been consulted in the matter. Never once were they offered a vote in the decision or a compromise on the result.
Until the UCI makes the effort to work with the riders/teams on this issue, the protests will likely only grow in proportion. These guys are hell-bent on keeping this radio ban away from the Tour, and it would be bad for everyone if the world's greatest race is postponed/tarnished because of this dispute.
But the biggest and most simple question of the entire situation is...
Why even enforce a rule meant to "better the sport" if it is hated by so many of the parties it involves?
The only parties that will really be effected by this radio ban are the riders and teams. It is their sport, and they should be given more influence on how it is run.
Strategy
The claim is that the races will be more interesting for the fans if the team aspect is removed (or at least lessened). From a fan's perspective, cycling will be interesting whether or not radios are involved, so the impact from that standpoint will be minimal.
The claim is that radios give certain teams the advantage over the others. Simple answer: Everybody has the equal opportunity to use them. The knowledge of the gap length can be just as valuable to the breakaway up the road as it is to the peloton trying to catch them. The whereabouts of the yellow jersey in the field are just as important to the teammates trying to protect it as they are the opponents trying to attack it.
The claim is that radios make it impossible for breakaways to succeed. Response: Since when does a little earpiece have any effect on your legs? If a breakaway is good enough to stay away, it shouldn't really matter whether or not radios are in use.
Bottom Line
The UCI is a fine organization and they do a respectable job governing the sport as a whole, but this is something that they really didn't think well enough through and probably will have to revisit.
By no means have we heard the last of the great radio debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment