The professional cycling thread
Discussion
As a commercial gamble, Cav has paid off well.
On Cycling Weekly for instance, the format I see is a large main story, and then 2 wide down the rest of the page.
Cav is the main headline story, isn't in the first row of 2, but is then every row for the next 6 rows. That's great exposure, which is what it's all about.
I'm also pleased for him, seeing his smiling face is a lot better than his sad face too!
On Cycling Weekly for instance, the format I see is a large main story, and then 2 wide down the rest of the page.
Cav is the main headline story, isn't in the first row of 2, but is then every row for the next 6 rows. That's great exposure, which is what it's all about.
I'm also pleased for him, seeing his smiling face is a lot better than his sad face too!
During the Waalse Pijl, the Lithuanian Olivija Baleisyte went wrong somewhere and got off the course. Laurent Accou filmed her a little later on the ring of Brussels, 'between the cars':
https://wielerrevue.nl/artikel/449939/video-oeps-d...
https://wielerrevue.nl/artikel/449939/video-oeps-d...
Mastodon2 said:
The rules are stated in that article, and I thing they're pretty clear:Artcicle said:
The UCI regulations state: “The rider shall normally assume a sitting position on the bicycle. This position requires that the only points of support are the following: the feet on the pedals, the hands on the handlebars and the seat on the saddle.”
Everyone knows about this now, it's not a rule that has been put in place over night. I think a DQ is probably a bit harsh, but I think the message is pretty clear.I have small kids, and they love watching the video of Chris Froome on his frame on YouTube, but they're just about old enough to understand that it's too dangerous for them to try, and has now been banned. Not all parents will take the time to properly explain this to their kids, and not all adults are smart enough to properly assess the risks when they're racing a sportive either.
I see it a bit like the attitude a professional football player shows towards the referee. They have a lot riding on the referee's decisions some times, and a referee is paid too. If no one was watching I wouldn't care how they acted, but they are. When you see kids aged 7 or 8 playing their football games at the weekends and showing no respect to the referee, who isn't paid, it's not right. For the most part, they will have learned this behaviour from watching a professional player doing the same.
Maybe to a lesser extent, professional cyclists are role models. Most do a great job. A few don't. But I see this rule as being a way to remind them of their responsibility.
(All views are my own, not intending to attack your views, or anyone else's, etc etc.)
Oh I agree the rules were clear, it's just that it's a ridiculous rule.
Anyone that can't see the dangers inherent with doing a supertuck probably shouldn't be on a bike unsupervised, tbh, but that doesn't mean pros shouldn't be able to do it in races. It's like putting a top speed limit on an F1 car at 140mph or something arbitrary. People would laugh at that, yet there are people in cycling, no doubt themselves dreaming of working for the UCI, who are falling over themselves to see more absurd rules put into the sport. They'll be disqualifying riders for throwing bottles to the fans next.
That said, we keep hearing how doing a supertuck is taking your life in your hands etc , but I can't recall ever hearing about anyone having a serious accident from doing it either.
Anyone that can't see the dangers inherent with doing a supertuck probably shouldn't be on a bike unsupervised, tbh, but that doesn't mean pros shouldn't be able to do it in races. It's like putting a top speed limit on an F1 car at 140mph or something arbitrary. People would laugh at that, yet there are people in cycling, no doubt themselves dreaming of working for the UCI, who are falling over themselves to see more absurd rules put into the sport. They'll be disqualifying riders for throwing bottles to the fans next.
That said, we keep hearing how doing a supertuck is taking your life in your hands etc , but I can't recall ever hearing about anyone having a serious accident from doing it either.
Mastodon2 said:
Oh I agree the rules were clear, it's just that it's a ridiculous rule.
Anyone that can't see the dangers inherent with doing a supertuck probably shouldn't be on a bike unsupervised, tbh, but that doesn't mean pros shouldn't be able to do it in races. It's like putting a top speed limit on an F1 car at 140mph or something arbitrary. People would laugh at that, yet there are people in cycling, no doubt themselves dreaming of working for the UCI, who are falling over themselves to see more absurd rules put into the sport. They'll be disqualifying riders for throwing bottles to the fans next.
That said, we keep hearing how doing a supertuck is taking your life in your hands etc , but I can't recall ever hearing about anyone having a serious accident from doing it either.
It's not about the individual, it's about the potential for the individual to cause harm to others too.Anyone that can't see the dangers inherent with doing a supertuck probably shouldn't be on a bike unsupervised, tbh, but that doesn't mean pros shouldn't be able to do it in races. It's like putting a top speed limit on an F1 car at 140mph or something arbitrary. People would laugh at that, yet there are people in cycling, no doubt themselves dreaming of working for the UCI, who are falling over themselves to see more absurd rules put into the sport. They'll be disqualifying riders for throwing bottles to the fans next.
That said, we keep hearing how doing a supertuck is taking your life in your hands etc , but I can't recall ever hearing about anyone having a serious accident from doing it either.
Should we really be waiting for serious injury or death arising from pros adopting horrifically unstable riding positions before acting?
Mastodon2 said:
Is this banned as well - he's using the handlebars and saddle 
Mastodon2 said:
Oh I agree the rules were clear, it's just that it's a ridiculous rule.
Anyone that can't see the dangers inherent with doing a supertuck probably shouldn't be on a bike unsupervised, tbh, but that doesn't mean pros shouldn't be able to do it in races. It's like putting a top speed limit on an F1 car at 140mph or something arbitrary. People would laugh at that, yet there are people in cycling, no doubt themselves dreaming of working for the UCI, who are falling over themselves to see more absurd rules put into the sport. They'll be disqualifying riders for throwing bottles to the fans next.
That said, we keep hearing how doing a supertuck is taking your life in your hands etc , but I can't recall ever hearing about anyone having a serious accident from doing it either.
F1 has a very thick book of rules which lower their speed for safety reasonsAnyone that can't see the dangers inherent with doing a supertuck probably shouldn't be on a bike unsupervised, tbh, but that doesn't mean pros shouldn't be able to do it in races. It's like putting a top speed limit on an F1 car at 140mph or something arbitrary. People would laugh at that, yet there are people in cycling, no doubt themselves dreaming of working for the UCI, who are falling over themselves to see more absurd rules put into the sport. They'll be disqualifying riders for throwing bottles to the fans next.
That said, we keep hearing how doing a supertuck is taking your life in your hands etc , but I can't recall ever hearing about anyone having a serious accident from doing it either.
snobetter said:
Mastodon2 said:
Oh I agree the rules were clear, it's just that it's a ridiculous rule.
Anyone that can't see the dangers inherent with doing a supertuck probably shouldn't be on a bike unsupervised, tbh, but that doesn't mean pros shouldn't be able to do it in races. It's like putting a top speed limit on an F1 car at 140mph or something arbitrary. People would laugh at that, yet there are people in cycling, no doubt themselves dreaming of working for the UCI, who are falling over themselves to see more absurd rules put into the sport. They'll be disqualifying riders for throwing bottles to the fans next.
That said, we keep hearing how doing a supertuck is taking your life in your hands etc , but I can't recall ever hearing about anyone having a serious accident from doing it either.
F1 has a very thick book of rules which lower their speed for safety reasonsAnyone that can't see the dangers inherent with doing a supertuck probably shouldn't be on a bike unsupervised, tbh, but that doesn't mean pros shouldn't be able to do it in races. It's like putting a top speed limit on an F1 car at 140mph or something arbitrary. People would laugh at that, yet there are people in cycling, no doubt themselves dreaming of working for the UCI, who are falling over themselves to see more absurd rules put into the sport. They'll be disqualifying riders for throwing bottles to the fans next.
That said, we keep hearing how doing a supertuck is taking your life in your hands etc , but I can't recall ever hearing about anyone having a serious accident from doing it either.
I did see an assessment of what a de-restricted F1 car design could do with 300mph speed up the straights, 6G cornering and about 1/2 the laptime. Would lethal obviously.
I think focusing on the supertruck or similar is missing the biggest problem with descending which is the the courses. Much better section of courses and provision of soft barriers is necessary.
If there is one thing F1 can teach cycling it is that if there is glory you will be able to find someone willing to take virtually any risk. Which means that the organizers have a duty of care to protect the participants from themselves.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff