Bont booted by UCI

It appears the UCI will not rest until the sport is dead in the water technologically, if a recent decision made by the organisation is anything to go by, writes Philip Gomes.

The UCI have just banned Bont Crono which would be OK....as long as you also ban aero helmets surely.....? NZ trackie Sam Webster

Yes Sam, you would think that but this is the UCI we're talking about, consistency and transparency have never been their strong suit.

So what is young Sam Tweeting about? Well just another example of free-form improvised decision making by the governing body of cycling - specifically, the summary execution of an innovative cycling product without a fair trial.

Australian based cycling footwear manufacturer Bont was informed by letter that its newly developed 'Crono' shoe was banned by the UCI on the basis of a complaint coming out of the March Track World Championships held in Apeldoorn.

We're left to guess who made the complaint because the UCI aren't telling Bont. Effectively it's a star chamber. There are judges but no jury, witnesses and seemingly no right to appeal. Just, no.

It begs the question. Was the complainant a rival manufacturer? I'd like to know.

In a wide ranging conversation with Cycling Central (in a segment to be seen on SBS ONE, Sunday 5PM AEST) , Bont CEO Steven Nemeth expressed his frustration in dealing with the UCI, an organisation that he has enjoyed a happy relationship with in the past.

His main frustration is as I've oullined at the top, the seeming uneveness and arbitrary nature of of UCI decision making and correspondence.

"We've had no warning, no comment on the fact they were looking at this. All we've had was a letter sent to the generic email address on our website," said Nemeth.

Unbelievably it appears the UCI made its decision not only on the basis of an as yet unidentified complaint but on a reading of the manufacturers website.

In correspondence that Cycling Central has seen, the UCI stated "...it is obvious that your Crono shoes are designed to influence the performances of the rider by reducing air resistance and improving the aerodynamic effect as you are explaining on your website."

Call me crazy, but making a product decision based on a website description may be fine for an EBay purchase but not fine for an organisation tasked with defining the technical legality of equipment.

The UCI alleges the shoe falls foul of one of its technical specifications (article 1.3.033) that states: "It is forbidden to wear non-essential items of clothing or items designed to influence the performances of a rider such as reducing air resistance or modifying the body of the rider (compression, stretching, support)."

Which is odd because just about every innovative cycling product of the last several decades has not only been marketed as influencing the performances of a rider but happily bought by millions who appreciate that fact.

And with those developments we've seen a corresponding growth of cycling as a sport and activity. There is no question that technology has been a driver in bringing new people into cycling at all levels - from the Pennyfarthing to today's carbon steeds.

It's a truism in cycling that wind is the enemy of a rider and just about every development in the history of the sport has been directed toward improving our efficiency against that beast. So I'm not sure why improving efficiency appears to be the enemy of the UCI.

I'm betting that if a manufacturer developed an anti-aerodynamic device, it would quickly be approved by the UCI because its Taliban approach to technology seems to be based on making the sport as slow and uninspiring as possible.

However with this move, and others, it appears the UCI will not rest until the sport is dead in the water technologically - a bland and un-interesting activity stifled by the grand burghers of Aigle.

Follow Phil on Twitter @Lycra_Lout