Different battlefield, different weapons

03 March 2011 | 0:00 - By Anthony Tan

In the heat of the moment, many within the sport now view cycling as a war among many. Anthony Tan finds one former protagonist who argues because of it, radios must stay.

It was impossible that the ad-hoc situation of whether to race with race radios or not would continue. After incessant infighting between the teams, race organisers and the UCI the past two months and much vitriol exchanged, the subject appears to be up for rational discussion in Thursday’s AIGCP (International Association of Professional Cycling Teams) meeting in Paris with UCI president Pat McQuaid and the rider representatives, spearheaded by its president and Garmin-Cervélo CEO, Jonathan Vaughters.

The crux of the argument is this: cycling’s governing body, in particular, is of the belief that the proliferation of radios has led to a lack of spontaneity and decision making on behalf of the riders; the majority of the riders argue that the rejection of radios is a major safety concern, and that radios are not the reason behind the more controlled form of racing we see today.

Former pro, CSC and Team Sky sport director Scott Sunderland most definitely sits in the latter camp.
And his reasons are compelling.

“It’s just got out of hand, mate. It’s just got out of hand with it all,” he says on the phone Wednesday, from his home in Inverell, New South Wales.

Two years ago at the same meeting Sunderland said he broached the issue with the UCI prez, who informed the AIGCP board of his intentions to filter out radios at certain events (at the 2009 Tour, if you remember, organisers ASO proposed that radios be banned for Stages 10 and 13; a protest eventually saw the latter stage overturned in favour of the riders/teams), and claims he was met with a “We’re going to do it anyway,” response.

“That’s their attitude,” he tells me.

“They’re saying the racing’s not exciting anymore.”

But Sunderland argues the milieu that the modern-day pro finds himself in does not allow for the type of racing the UCI, race organisers like ASO, and to be honest, many cycling fans long for. Those daring breakaways like Charly Gaul’s 100-kilometre breakaway in the Alps in the ‘58 Tour that put himself back into contention from a seemingly lost position, before Gaul went onto win the final time trial and the Tour to boot. Or later on in the ‘90s, Claudio Chiappucci’s suicidal moves that often did more damage to himself than the peloton, spectacular as they were, but nevertheless netted the audacious escape artist three polka-dot jerseys in La Grande Boucle.

“Years ago, you had teams for specific races: Italian teams for Italian races, French teams for French races, Belgian and Dutch teams for Classics, and Spanish teams oriented around the Vuelta. Of course, you had your [Eddy] Merckxs or [Joop] Zoetemelks who could go off and do something outstanding. They were also doing many more days’ racing: when I turned pro, we were still racing 130 days a year. Now, they’re doing between 75 and 90. I mean, 90 is a big year – 70 is about the norm now.

“Now,” Sunderland asserts, “the teams have become so much broader, so much more even across the playing field, so of course the races are more locked down. You come into any big race, you have half-a- dozen sprinters [who can win]; you come into a mountain race, you have half-a-dozen riders who can do a top GC. So everybody’s a lot more competitive. People aren’t just turning up to a race and saying, ‘Oh, I can’t be bothered today, I’ll just let the break go’ – they don’t do that anymore. You go to a race to race; you don’t go for training anymore, and that’s what it used to be years ago.

“So they haven’t understood the concept and the growth of modern cycling and modern teams,” he says.

What about this idea?

Okay, I say, I take your point. But if removing race radios presents a safety issue, what about keeping the radios, and allowing only communication between the riders and race radio; so, within the radio vehicles, basically having people appointed to inform the entire peloton of upcoming obstacles, and having this posse also informing the teams of any servicing required, be it food, water or mechanicals?

“That’s one way you could do it,” he concedes. (Warning: rude analogy coming up; anyone below sixteen should seek parental consent before continuing.)

“But these organisers, I’m not sure whether they realise what’s it’s like to be in a car when you’re trying to get your rider. He’s getting paid X-hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, and he needs food or service and you need to know. You’ve got a massive investment there; you’ve got sponsors who you need to deliver things for – and [without radio communication] you’re standing there with your dick in your hand.

“Look at Andy Schleck: he dropped his chain [on Stage 14 of last year’s Tour], his car wasn’t there... Imagine if that was through radio fault, or the car was there and they stopped for a piss, or they decide they can’t do anything anyway because they don’t know what’s going on.

“That’s a whole Tour de France lost through lack of communication.”

Because multiple teams and riders are so evenly matched – the first months of racing this year are a good example; so far, no one team has dominated – Sunderland says you can only fit so many riders across a road in a race like say, the Tour of Flanders, that the constant jostling for position by large groups inevitably leads to more crashes.

“And hence, once again, we need to have that communication. You’ve got a two-million dollar rider laying on the ground from a crash in the Tour of Flanders, you need to service him – he’s losing the race right there. Tom Boonen, he earns eighty percent of his salary on what he does in Flanders and Paris-Roubaix. I’m just wondering if they really understand and can fathom the effect of what they want to do here. There’s also the security of the team cars – I’ve felt that first-hand – coming up at the wrong moment.”

With the 2007 Paris-Roubaix top of mind after last weekend’s absorbing behind-the-scenes documentary on Cycling Central, I ask Sunderland about the importance of having radio contact with Stuart O’Grady when he punctured in the Forest of Arenberg 100km into the race, and by consequence, lost contact with the lead group.

“He said: ‘I’ve punctured, I’ve punctured... I’m not with the [front] group anymore – what do I do? Chase back on or wait?’ I said: ‘You wait – drink, eat, wait, and relax.’ And that’s what he did: he peed, he had time to eat a full [energy] bar, he drank a full bottle, and when the group with Cancellara came, he said it was just like starting the race again.”

We all know what happened after that.

The next step: SMS via cyclo-computer

Sunderland fears the discarding of radios – which, now that every ProTeam has them, creates a level playing field – could lead to the balance tipped in favour of those teams with the technology – and largesse – to communicate via their cycling computers, which in turn, creates a potentially far more serious safety concern.

“That’s the next step. You see the new Garmin 800s or whatever: it’s so easy now – it’s just a small modification; they [can] text-message anything they want. But what would you prefer to see? Someone who’s fully attentive – looking at every which way and direction, watching what’s going on, [and] listening to an earpiece – or looking down at his computer, trying to read what the sport director’s typing through to you and looking [down] every 15 seconds, waiting to see if there’s something new?

“The technology’s there. It’s even on the inside of your glasses, where you can type it through; they do it for fighter pilots.

“And once again,” Sunderland says, “not all teams are going to have that. It’s going back to 10 years ago, when not all teams had radios and you have disadvantaged teams.”

Puppets on a string?

Does he feel, though, that by having constant feedback through one’s ear, riders are less inclined to think for themselves, leading to what many believe are puppets on a string, and thus degrading the worth of a rider and their achievements?

“A lot of the tactics and analysing the race and how it will go – for example, the year that Stuart [O’Grady] won [Roubaix] – my decisions and tactics come into that. But through the events of the day, they knew where they needed to go and I was just giving them information – time gaps, whether they need to go a bit quicker or slower. They still need to make so many decisions: riding in the wind or out of the wind, what gears they’re pushing... No, they’re not puppets on a string.”

The explosion in number of vehicles on a parcours at any given event, be it a one-day or stage race, also necessitates the need for radios, says Sunderland.

“You got so many more VIPs than you had years ago; you’ve got so many more guests; you’ve got so many more teams who are part of the race. Years ago you only had two, maybe three, teams that were trying to get up to the riders. Now, everybody wants to be up there because they’ve all got a chance to win. You’ve got a lot more traffic in the ‘mosh pit’ than what you had before; you’ve got a whole bloody scrum behind the peloton. And years ago, we didn’t have any of that road-furniture: we didn’t have all the bloody traffic islands, we didn’t have all the speed bumps, we didn’t have all the roundabouts...

“The circumstances have changed,” he says.

“This idea of going back in time is ridiculous. We’re playing on a different battlefield now, we’re using different weapons.”

Share article: 
top

Comments (8)

06 Mar 2011 20:21 AEST

PETER WALSH

From: CASINO

--

With all the problems with drugs in the sport, does anyone think that this latest reaction to radios is just a blind by the UCI. I would have thought for the riders the proliferation of the team cars is a far bigger danger than any radio being used by the riders. If they get rid of the radios, then the riders will be on phones. Please just start the racing !

Agree (1 people agree)    Disagree (2 people disagree) Report this
 

05 Mar 2011 13:55 AEST

Leo

From: Manly Vale

--

@il Parata You remember Charly Gaul's breakaway in 58. You go back that far? And all this time I thought you were a vibrant young intellect with the world at his feet.

Agree (0 people agree)    Disagree (0 people disagree) Report this
 

04 Mar 2011 0:39 AEST

il Pirata

From: Melbourne

--

Ah, the good ol‘days. Charley Gaul’s legendary breakaway in ’58 is remembered fondly, though his propensity to use “la Bomba” to fuel his efforts isn’t. He and FLandis’ rides are not that different, all things considered. It seems all would agree that race radios are a useful safety implement as well as a tactical aid. From a safety stand point, I can’t think of many professions that would ban a tool that makes a practitioners job easier and safer. The peleton will adapt to change, of that there is no doubt. But are those possible changes a positive? I can’t see team leaders being left with less than a full compliment of riders given the risks of mechanicals, punctures and accidents. My fear is that the racing would become more conservative or less organised, or heaven forbid both. Of all things to tackle in a sport with an endless “to-do” list, blinding the peleton by cutting off their ears seems rather an odd idea. Does anyone see the humour in the UCI wanting to ban communication? Apparently, listening is unnecessary in all facets of the sport. Fri 4/03/2011 12:30am

Agree (22 people agree)    Disagree (0 people disagree) Report this
 

03 Mar 2011 23:53 AEST

Dave

From: Melbourne

--

@ Tigerion, if the teams and riders CHOOSE to go with technology that enables them to send texts (which will be cheating since the point is to stop step-by-step instructions being given) and riders reading those texts creates an unsafe environment for those riders and others who AREN'T cheating, then WHO is to blame for that? Imagine how you would feel as a rider caught up in a crash b/c the idiot in front of you had his head down looking at his computer. That's right, it'll be the teams and riders who try to use that technology who are causing the accidents, and receiving the fallout. Race neutral radio with an emergency button for immediate assistance (to be relayed to the team car) sounds like it would be the best solution.

Agree (3 people agree)    Disagree (0 people disagree) Report this
 

03 Mar 2011 13:22 AEST

Tigerion

From: Melbourne

--

Someone who’s fully attentive – looking at every which way and direction, watching what’s going on, [and] listening to an earpiece – or looking down at his computer, trying to read what the sport director’s typing through to you and looking [down] every 15 seconds, waiting to see if there’s something new? This has made the most sense of any argument that I have heard to date. Where there is a will there is a way and if that way makes accidents more likely then it is not something we want to see. After all this isn't nascar we are talking about here. Some teams will find a way and I agree with Sunderland that having some teams with the tech to talk with their riders and new/smaller teams unable to is not going to give the benefits that they were looking for

Agree (6 people agree)    Disagree (1 people disagree) Report this
 

03 Mar 2011 12:22 AEST

Nick

From: Perth

--

So "Those daring breakaways like Charly Gaul’s 100-kilometre breakaway in the Alps in the ‘58 Tour " do not happen now in the times of radio. So Landis Stage 17 2006 Tour did not happen. And the radios controlled everything perfectly Stage 13 2006 Tour and Stage 11 2010 Giro

Agree (2 people agree)    Disagree (12 people disagree) Report this
 

03 Mar 2011 12:04 AEST

BikeAddict

From: Melbourne

--

Good perspective from Scott Sunderland a former rider and sport director! It's interesting from the point of view of some of the key people involve with pro cycling: Sponsors, Governing body, Organisers, Teams Cyclists and Fans. Especially their objectives/agendas/etc. Everybody wants cycling to be exciting, safe, popular and longevity. Sponsors want exposure and ROI and without them cycling would suffer and pro cycling may not exist. Riders want be the best, win and make money so they need technology for continuous improvement. The governing body regulates the sport to ensure its success and longevity and they will try different things and test the water at times to achieve their goals. The fans are the most difficult lot to regulate but they are probably the most important link in the chain. Fans watch, attend, subscribe, buy, ride, etc, generate money for the sport. The radio situation is about making cycling more unpredictable, exciting to attract more people and thus generate more business??? If this is the case I think the governing body lacks leadership and proper process. It should be dealt with it behind close door with all the relevant parties rather through the www.debate.com. But maybe it’s their intention to gauge public opinion…

Agree (10 people agree)    Disagree (0 people disagree) Report this
 

03 Mar 2011 11:45 AEST

Jerry

From: Phoenix

--

It seems everyone but the riders want to see racing without radios. The product had become stale and the doping was smothering a stale product. The Rosetta response? Stick their heads in the sand. That's a sure way to make more money

Agree (5 people agree)    Disagree (33 people disagree) Report this
 

Join the discussion

You have characters remaining.
Validation (
) :
This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots.

PLEASE NOTE: All submitted comments become the property of SBS. We reserve the right to edit and/or amend submitted comments. HTML tags other than paragraph, line break, bold or italics will be removed from your comment.