For some time now there's been a raging debate over whether the UCI are right in banning radios from pro cycling. I've lost count of the number of articles i've read where riders have either been for or against the ban and the odd one where they can't seem to make their minds up (Dan Martin in this month's Pro Cycling rider diary).
So, what do I think?
I think it's a pathetic attempt for the UCI to try to recapture the "glory" days of years gone past. I think that it's easy for anyone to look back with rose tinted glasses and assume that modern technology has ruined the sport of cycling. I hear it all the time from the elder males in my family when it comes to football. "Footballers were tougher back then" or how great players from the past generation were. I'm sure Pele was an amazing footballer but he wouldn't go the distance in a modern Premiership game. Whenever I hear great things about football from yesteryear, it reminds me of the classic chant from Fantasy Football League, "Old football was shit but not as shit as Andy Cole....."
Was cycling in the past that great? It's easy to remember classic victories from Merckx but we've seen our fair share of exciting races in recent, modern times.
Once again, it just appears that the UCI are stuck in a time warp and refuse to accept the future of cycling and the technology that it brings. I just can't see the advantages of racing without radios. The only thing I see it creating is danger and confusion. If that's what the UCI want to achieve, why don't they release a herd of cows into the peloton at random intervals during a race?
All I think will happen is that the odd breakaway will stay away when the sprint teams misjudge a gap through lack of information or the road book is wrong or the poor domestiques amongst the teams will be forced into visiting the team car more often, in addition to the usual water carrying duties. Are people really naive to think that pro cyclists can't make decisions for themselves? Do we think that riders like Alberto Contador are puppets and can only attack when race directors tell them to?
When I look back to my favourite races in recent years, I can only think of one race where radios were really significant and that was the one beautifully captured in Chasing Legends where Columbia HTC ripped apart the peloton during a windswept stage in the 2009 Tour de France. Did radios ruin the stage? I think they had the opposite effect and spiced up a stalemate of a situation.
It's important to remember that cycling in the past is exactly that, it's in the past. An era when technology may not have been present but widespread doping was. Were races more exciting for those reasons rather than the technological advances that we have become accustomed to?
Is it our fault? As cycling's popularity has increased and coverage is at the best it's been for years, are we the reason that races have become less aggressive? Do we expect too much? Is cycling the victim of it's own success and has TV killed the radio star?
No comments:
Post a Comment