Why not just have the Olympic host supply the same bike model to every participant rather than having each rider bring their own bike?
the olympics is only one event, and only happens once every four years. the rest of the season, that happens every year, is much more important and doesn't have an olympic host to provide bikes. so there needs to be some procedure that catches motor doping at all the races, not just one infrequent race. The olympics is just going to follow the same procedures that are used for all the rest of the worldtour level races. and while the olympics might not care about keeping the rider's bike sponsors happy, the rest of the races do.
if riders weren't out there promoting bike brands and riding bikes provided by their sponsors, pro bike racing wouldn't be a thing.
Therein lies an answer - change the disincentives - instead of banning cheating riders, ban all of the sponsors of those riders for a time. Now the onus is on the sponsors to discourage cheating.
Jumbo Visma is the same team as Visma Lease a Bike. They have the same riders, managers, athletic director, staff, etc. Just a different name on the jersey.
As for how a team is banned: you simply ban them. In most of cycling you need to be a member of a team (professional) or club (amateur) to even enter a race. Your racing license will name your team/club. If your team is banned you may not register for the race.
Also, at the World Tour professional level, your team would have several cars driving within the race to support riders with food, bottles, and mechanical assistance. Since the race will be on a closed course, only official vehicles can drive with the riders. Even if started the race, you would be at a serious disadvantage to race with no team support.
Unfortunately, the UCI usually reissues the license if the team pinky promises not to dope again.
Team Astana signed Lance Armstrong in 2009 and we all know how that went.
The name change from Jumbo Visma to Visma | Lease a Bike didn't happen between the Giro and the Tour, it was a lot earlier. I would say, but I'm not 100% certain of this, that the name change happened between the 2023 and 2024 seasons. I think teams have to register their name with the UCI, and can't change it during the season.
For example here is a photo of Jan Tratnik finishing first in Omloop Het Nieuwsblad on 2024-02-24, long beclearly wearing a Visma | Lease a Bike shirt.
The team did change the design of the shirts before the Tour, because their old shirts had a lot of yellow which conflicts with the yellow jersey of the GC leader. Maybe that's what you were thinking of?
Tons of teams are still run by folks who were heavily involved in the 1990s and 2000s doping scandals. They all claim they're all clean and reformed but most of them were never really punished.
WADA's budget is something like $50m. The likes of Ineos & Red Bull have sports marketing budgets well into the billions.
Well, either that or it would triple sales overnight. "Hey, this stuff really DOES give you wings!"
I don't think their target market is that susceptible to reason.
At least as far as the Federal Trade Commission is concerned that’s not an issue.
Individual riders/teams are motivated to win and get sponsor dollars, so may resort to cheating. They know they will lose sponsors forever and be banned if caught, so they try to hide it from sponsors and officials. Basically: the same disincentives exist today. They just need to catch folks. It's just doping v2.
Everything-goes sounds fun in theory but in practice it'd just kill the athletes (and the sport, by extension)
Not to mention, every person responds differently to doping protocols.
What if you're a C rider who becomes an A+ rider when doped? And you race against a B+ rider who becomes an A minus rider when doped. Still not an even playing field.
This is effectively what lance did. He had record levels of hematocrit naturally, and an extremely high vo2. It meant he had a magnified sensitivity to doping protocols that the other riders didn't. So his doping advantage actually increased his relative abilities even -higher- than his also-doped competitors.
Not to mention kids coming into the sport. Would be a massive mountain to climb to go from a prodigy 16 year old against doped pros.
100 die of the drugs during childhood
700 suffer the rest of their shortened lives from consequential medical issues
perhaps its easier to just throw the 'failed' 990 into a meat grinder to ensure there is no controversy later
but sure, its fun to watch the 10 athletes at the peak of their game!
east germany
Notably, this is probably part of why the Olympics doesn't have bodybuilding, powerlifting, or strongman on the program, as sports need to have a WADA-approved antidoping program to qualify.
Also, the Olympics itself from the 50s to the 80s basically was what you're asking for. This is the time between when synthetic steroids were first widely available and when tests for them became possible. In the meantime, with no way to catch anyone, it was anything goes. I wouldn't say that led to pretty outcomes. Records that stood for 40 years, sure, but eastern bloc nations with mandatory athletics camps were injecting 12 year-old girls with testosterone and telling them it was vitamins. At a reasonable dose, most performance enhancing drugs are fairly safe for men but virtually none of them are safe for women because of the masculinizing effects. The changes to a female body are permanent.
That would be a bonus.
cycling is getting there, a lot of the big teams have petrostates or oil companies as sponsors now, but the bike brands are still too important to cut out.
It is the teams that are begging for money, all the teams need sponsorships for bikes and everything else. Teams in cycling have no home stadium and have no place they own and can sell tickets. They aren't in control of TV rights or anything like that for races that are big enough to be televised.
It's one of the unique things in cycling. Even at the grassroots levels clubs were often volunteer but race organizers might have been or are for-profit. Even at the grassroots level the organizer charges entry fees.
Would it make for more equal footing if everyone had the same model? Yeah, probably, but does that happen elsewhere in the Olympics? Does the host supply skis, shoes, bows, bobsleds, etc.?
Therefore, since we can't all have exactly the same bikes, we need to come up with a definition of what is "fair" to adjust for the bike that someone races on. Sure, this allows for some degree creative engineering, but is that really a bad thing so long as money doesn't become the determining factor of who wins? It pushes the science of bikes forward and eventually that new tech will make its way to everyone, including amateur cyclists.
This is not backed by fact.
Most world tour riders have very little choice on their equipment, nor do they choose the team sponsors. They have some leeway on a few third party components of their choice and can usually which frame model they use among a tiny selection of less than 3 models but that doesn't change drastically how the bike ride really as long as the bike fits. You could totally make a race where everybody ride the same kind of bike, and riders would be able to choose the frame size, saddle, stem and handlebar size, and possibly clipless pedal models that would make everything more standard.
Actually in Japan they do something similar in keiring. All frames are built with steel tubes, they use old styles of pedals with clips, and only parts stamped by NJS, following design and construction principles of track bikes of the late 70's, are approved. Sometimes regular olympic track racers spend a few months in Japan in the off season to get some additional money, they swap their high end carbon bikes prototypes to what looks like vintage track bikes of the 70's, you can actually see the bikes bending under load, yet the best riders with the best strategy of the day still win.
As far as restricting technology, stopping at 70s tech seems really arbitrary. There are already rules and regulations for what you can use.
One final note: I’m pretty sure UCI would get a big lawsuit if they mandated one bike from a particular manufacturer due to antitrust concerns.
I don't think so. It happens all the time in lower series of Motorsport and even the highest for tires. Formula 1 and Motogp are working respectively with Pirelli and Michelin if my memory is correct.
For esport world championship the UCI used Zwift in the early years and now it is their competitor MyWhoosh.
The keirin regulation using 70's tech was just an example to illustrate that controlling specs is possible. Same could be done but with a single make of bikes and just various frame sizes available for world tour. The issue is mostly that team would lose sponsorship so nobody has anything to gain. In the grand scheme of things, the difference between pro bikes is rather marginal and doesn't decide the outcome of the races.
I'm not saying it's not a good goal to have, just you kind of have to view it as an inherently unsolvable problem to get anything productive out of it.
https://assets.ctfassets.net/761l7gh5x5an/6cmP3f8KY4mTfI6hAY...:
“Equipment shall be of a type that is sold for use by anyone practicing cycling as a sport.
Any equipment in development phase and not yet available for sale (prototype) must be subject of an authorization request to the UCI Equipment Unit before its use. Authorization will be granted only for equipment which is in the final stage of development and for which commercialization will take place no later than 12 months after the first use in competition. The manufacturer may request a single prolongation of the prototype status if justified by relevant reasons”
So, that gives manufacturers an incentive to innovate, but won’t give teams an advantage for long.
Other sports have similar regulations.
For example, the quality of basketball, soccer, and baseball you find in the pro leagues is all MUCH better than in the Olympics. Track & Field has a regular annual season that's already international (Diamond League), plus many standing invitationals, any of which are as likely to see records broken as the Olympics.
It's not like we just have naked people wrestling each other these days. The equipment is a part of the package now.
Yes, sailing. I believe all but Formula Kite are one-design classes (Laser, Laser Radial, IQFoil, Nacra 17, 49er, and 470). A few have options between licensed manufacturer (but to same spec) and a few are true one-make (Laser, Laser Radial), not sure about the others.
Single-design classes are standard in sailing, so the olympics uses them also. They are not standard for cycling, and it would be a huge deviation from conventions of competitive cycling for the olympics to demand them.
That doesn't mean they can't or that it wouldn't possibly be worth while. But there are huge costs to doing that, like possibly few or none of the major competitive cyclists competing.
I’d love to see track cycling get more standard equipment. As it is today, some nations pump a ton of money into aerodynamics and RR to substantial advantage. More so than the difference between a Cannondale or Specialized road bike. Or so it seems to me.
The Olympics (or, perhaps more generally, national team cycling events) _do_ make a huge deviation from the conventions of competitive cycling already: no team radios. One of the reasons they are so fun to watch :-)
Another exception is that the Olympics and world and continental championships are ridden with national teams instead of the various commercial teams. That makes quite a difference too.
All the real improvements in bikes have been banned for a very long time and pro racing is used these days to sell all kinds of things which have been sideways moves at best.
In track racing, the bikes are required to have fixed gearing.
The earliest Tour of France required riders to be self supporting, meaning they had to carry their own spare tires etc.
One thing I've observed is that for us commuters (me too), bikes are no longer tied to racing. We can have anything we want. The ubiquitous "hybrid" is used in no racing discipline, and the classic mountain bikes that are favored by many computers are largely obsolete for competitive mountain biking.
Kinda quietly making fun of folks who show up on (e.g.) $10,000 road bikes and then get dropped 5 miles into the ride is a whole Thing.
True life, I'm not sure there's a good reason for a person spending their own money to buy a new road bike that costs more than $4-5K new. You can absolutely get started for way way less (probably $1500 new retail), but once the hook sets and you decide This Is Something I Like, there are things you'll want.
Carbon frames are far more comfortable to ride than aluminum. This extends to handlebars, stem, and seatpost.
Lighter-weight wheels -- also carbon -- are an upgrade you can feel IMMEDIATELY. I think it has to do with rotational weight vs. static weight. Nicer wheels have nicer bearings in them, too.
Electronic shifting doesn't make you faster in and of itself, but once you've used it you'll fall in love with it. Shifting is effortless, and combined brake-and-shift actions become viable in a way they aren't with mechanical shifting.
My Giant was just under $5k, and that's after an upgrade or two (mostly the addition of a power meter). Do I ride with folks on $10-15k bikes? Oh yeah. MOST of them are pretty serious riders, but they're not any faster on that Pinarello than they would be on (e.g.) my bike. It's effectively jewelry at that point.
(Now, the exception is if you're shaped in a way that makes off-the-shelf frames difficult. I know a couple folks -- one very well off and very short, the other decidedly middle class and VERY tall -- who got fully custom frames, but for both of them it was really the only way to get a bike that fit. For the middle-class guy, this means his bike is worth more than his car, but it's a forever-bike (titanium frame), and he's an 8-10,000 mile a year guy, so...)
Everyone is essentially riding very expensive version of the same bike. 90% of riders will be on Dura Ace and equipment that the biggest distinguishing qualities are paint and size.
https://www.cyclingnews.com/features/tour-de-france-2024-tec...
You're reasonably close to right: 18 of 22 teams ran Dura-Ace, which surprises me because in my enthusiast circles locally the split with Shimano and SRAM is much, much more even. (I personally prefer the latter.)
What REALLY shocked me is this:
"2024 marks the first year that the Tour de France has been without a team using a Campagnolo groupset. This means that it was a two-horse race between Shimano and SRAM for stage honours."
I mean, I know Campy wasn't what it had been. I only know a few folks who run Campy groups, and I don't know anyone who uses the Campy electronic groupset. It's all so expensive, and most shops don't have someone with any experience with their gear anymore, which becomes a death spiral for people who buy their own gear. Still, the idea that the only Euro maker got shut out of even participating in the Tour is amazing to me.
More and more new bakes are sold with SRAM components than it used to be. So people have now more opportunities to pay for SRAM products on a new bike, and afterwards buy replacement parts when required.
Also, for each given price category, SRAM is usually a bit cheaper than Shim.
Meanwhile Campagnolo is more and more expensive while offering nothing more than the two others. Also less partnerships with bike manufacturers, even Italian ones.
And some Asian brands are starting to be more and more reliable.
Every rider IS effectively on the same bike. They're either running Shimano drivetrains, or SRAM. I don't imagine the Olympics could spend the millions in R&D to invent their own drivetrain system for a once-every-four-years event.
If you were referring to the bike frame itself, it's kind of the least-important part of the bike.
If we're talking about emotors, they need to be compatible with the drivetrain, regardless of frame.
Example: Pogacar's Colnago is decidedly not aero; Cavendish's Wilier ain't the best sprinter bike.
But they're all competitive, because like I said, the role the frame plays in the overall "system" is negligible. It's marketing. The aero gains on the new Madone are entirely in the handlebar, and are erased if you add a rider to the bike.
But why invest millions to develop a bike? Get a few score identical (but the fit) top model bikes off the shelf and call it a day.
These categories are much more focussed on the driver, as the racetrack and cars are all identical.
I'm pretty sure that something like this can be brought into cycle racing. Everybody gets the same frame, wheelset, crankset and groupset, and you install your own cockpit (saddle and handlebars).
And those incredible new records by the top riders can only be explained by doping. Faster than with EPO. Mechanical doping is still an additional possibility, sure. Esp. after several riders complained about those motor noises last year.
This truth, however, is obfuscated by mental side effects of erythropoietin, which tend to convince users of it’s efficacy
Another is there would be no pressure on the bike technology so the audience would know they're not performing as well as they could on some consumer bike, reducing the appeal of it. It's already stink that there are weight minimums.
its all a matter of equipment preference and for sports that involve using equipment i think that would be a personal choice of minor optimizations and preferences that you should be granted given you would have worked a lot with it to get to the olympics
Taking an extreme example - imagine if we said “everyone must wear size 9 shoes so everybody’s on equal footing”.
For example, road bikes have different frame shapes that are suitable depending on your torso length compared to leg length.
Of course, the natural next step would be allow some flexibility (different frame size but same material), but you can see how that could be a slippery slope of legislation and lobbying that would end up in a similar situation to where we are today?
You -should- be able to just mandate Hubs and cranks to get around this.
Or make sponsors provide a 'slew' of wheels and cranksets for all their riders (i.e. spares as well) that can get inspected before the race, and are randomly distributed between the riders sponsored.
Buuuuut UCI hasn't even figured out doping, so lol
Well yes, but different sports are also better suited for different individuals. It's just making the equipment part of the definition of the sport.
Take a look at the variety of weightlifting shoes, as an example of gear for a specific sport.
It seems reasonable that these sports could narrow down the list of approved equipment down to a few approved suppliers every year.
https://www.cbc.ca/listen/cbc-podcasts/1427-broomgate-a-curl...
Same for swimming with high tech, low drag, bouyant swimsuits. Again, the international body had to step in and ban some materials/designs to prevent domination by nations that could sink resources into the engineering.
but rules around the type of equipment you can use, and the race host supplying specific equipment to all riders, is a very different thing.
External influences should be minimized within reason.
Viewership would break records, at least.
So it doesn't sound as crazy to me.
It's purely a branding and sponsorship related piece.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Camaro_(third_genera...
The actual EV revolution that the Worlds needs is through bikes, not cars.
Which is _only_ the majority of the global population.