Armstrong patiently waited until Ullrich cracked in 2001, thanks to faking fatigue early on in the stage
There has been much debate recently as to whether cyclists should be allowed to communicate with their teammates and directors via radio during races. Everyone has their own opinion on the matter, and the issue of race radios seems to spark the cycling fan's passion like few others can. Although there are arguments for both sides, it seems increasingly obvious that if cycling wants to become less formulated and predictable, it should reduce the use of radios in the sport, at least for select races.
I ascribe to the old school, so there is no doubt that I would like to see radios banned altogether. However, in today's cycling climate, that is very unlikely to happen. So, being the easy going type, I am willing to compromise. I suggest that one team member be allowed to wear a radio to communicate with his director behind in the race caravan. By reducing the amount of radios each team has, profound changes would occur with respect to race tactics.
Without every team member being wired for sound, you would have a more nervous, skittish peloton. Each team would need to remain hyper vigilant in regards to breakaways and attacks. Using team Astana as an example, Alberto Contador would need to have at least one of his top lieutenants at the front of the race early on so that they could join any early breakaways. More importantly, once in the breakaway, the Astana team member would have very little knowledge of what was going on behind. Sure, they would have time gaps, but besides that, not a lot. No more would a teammate know whether his team leader was feeling good or whether they were suffering. Instead, the rider in the break would have to hope that their guy was going well, or choose to take their own chance for victory.
Taking the argument a step further, teams would no longer be able to keep checks on other top riders. In the 2001 Tour de France, Lance Armstrong famously feigned fatigue on the way to Alpe d'huez, eventually dropping Jan Ullrich after the German had used up all his teammates. It was a classic example of race radios changing the tactics of a race, as Armstrong was able to trick Ullrich into isolating himself, before riding away for the overall title.
A few cyclists today race without radios, among them "The Killer," Danilo Di Luca. Di Luca has been able to take impressive wins in both one day and grand tours, proving that racing with a radio is not a requirement for victory, even when everyone else is wearing one. So perhaps cycling's authorities will take a chance and reduce the use of race radios. If so, cycling fans can expect more long range attacks, higher drama, and fewer bunch finishes. When one examines the idea, the only correct choice is to curtail race radio use for 2009 and beyond.


4 comments:
bruyneel had a great perspective and provides some clarity on the use of race radios in his recent book...worth the read. given that cycling is one of the most unique and beautiful sports in the world, its difficult to compare to other sports. however, nearly every sport i can think of relies on contact with teammates and coaches during competition. football, soccer, volleyball, baseball, etc. even non-field sports like formula 1 would be lost without communication. its a good debate in the press but is anyone in any governing body considering it too?
I like your idea of only one radio per team. I think the TdF said that they were going to restrict radio usage in 2009 - none in the high mountains, I believe.
For anyone who wants to eliminate all radio usage, I simply have these words for you "health and safety". I believe if we want to eliminate the tactics of the race being dictated by the managers using the race radios, we would centralise the system so that only the race organisation can transmit to the race radios. That way any obstacles, hazards, accidents can be communicated to the peloton.
John, great comment, duly noted. Race radios for safety, not tactics.
Post a Comment