UCI says it is cracking down on track cycling technology

Here is a link to the article from CyclingNews.com...

The UCI say that they are cracking down on track cycling technology, in particular the top 3 track cycling nations Australia, Great Britain and Germany. According to UCI president Pat McQuaid, technology in track cycling "has got a little bit out of control." He asserts that nations such as the UK are not playing in the spirit of the rules, and cites the high cost that  are willing to spend on prototype bikes ($100 000s).

I think that the motivation behind what he is saying is fair enough - the idea that athletes have the potential to compete on an equal basis is an important aspect of all sport. But I think that the UCI, like many other sports governing bodies, is ineffective in their management of such issues.

The UCI has plenty of rules governing allowable cycling technology. They regulate the position that the cyclist is allowed to ride in (the "superman" position was banned for being too aerodynamic). They regulate the shape of the bike, the weight of the bike, what clothing the cyclist is allowed to wear. But they don't have a very clear definition about what constitutes the "spirit of fair play," which I believe is a crucial step if they wish to require athletes and athletic programmes to adhere to it.

Athletes are always going to push the boundaries of their sport to gain the maximum possible advantage over their competitiors. There is nothing wrong with that, it is in fact the entire point of sport. If no one was able to gain an advantage over their opponents then everyone would finish together. Of course, on the other hand there need to be restrictions on athletes. With no boundaries most sports would quickly become technology wars rather than skilled competition. So the trick is to create a set of rules that reach the right balance. As I have mentioned before, many sports governing bodies (e.g. swimming and cycling) struggle to get this balance right.

In the case of track cycling, the problem is not that athletes and countries are breaking the rules. If they are, then it is a simple operation to catch and disqualify cheaters. If some of the regulations are difficult to enforce, then they need to be reformulated so that they can be. The UCI's problems are, in general, not due to a lack of reguilations either. I believe that over regulation, as well as imprecise regulations are the real problem.

By "imprecise regulations," I mean that the wording of some regulations doesn't categorically rule out the practice that they are trying to eliminate. For example, the "superman" position, invented by Graeme Obree, was banned by the UCI because it is "too aerodynamic." But the wording of the rule eliminating this position is in terms of the distance that the handlebar extensions can reach past the front axle. This has the unintended consequence of allowing very short riders to ride the "banned" position whilst still technically staying within the regulations. Now obviously this could be interpreted to be against the spirit of the rules, and most short riders do not take advantage of the loophole. But wouldn't it be better to formulate the regulation unambiguously, e.g. in terms of the relative position of the cyclist's body (e.g. regulate a maximum angle that the fore and upper arm can make, and thereby eliminate the straight arm "flying" posture that is charcteristic of the position)? Or simpler yet, ban time trial bars altogether. The aerodynamic gains made by the addition of time trial bars was greater than the extra gain made by flattening out to the superman position, so why draw the arbitrary line there? In my opinion, it seems like the banning of the superman position was more to do with a personal grudge against Obree than a legitimate regulation to curb the role that technology plays in cycling. In fact, in some ways, banning the superman position has increased the technological impact. Flattening out to the superman position was a very low-tech, low-cost way to make significant aerodynamic gains. These days most serious time trialists will spend time in wind tunnels, trialling different positions to find the most aerodynamic. This is extremely expensive, and the advantages gained from this are almost certainly larger than they would be if the more efficient superman position was allowed. In my opinion, the UCI has made a bad call on the issue of allowable riding positions. They should either ban time trial bars altogether, and have all track events subject to the same equipment rules (which would also decrease the cost of the sport at the lower levels) or allow the supeman positions, and any variation that may arise in the future.

Another rule that is problematic for the UCI is limiting bicycle weight. This rule exists austensibly to ensure rider safety and to reduce bicycle costs. But the weight is the same for all bicycles, regardless of size. In this case, shorter cyclists are at a relative disadvantage, as a 50kg cyclist's bike must weigh the same as a 100kg cyclist. obviously the smaller bikes are going to be relatively over-built, and will contribute a proportionally larger amount to the total rider+bike weight. I have heard of cases where smaller cyclists have resorted to filling their frames with balast to bring them up to weight, even though the larger sizes of the same bike, (and actually less strong because of the longer tubes, not to mention the higher forces that the larger riders exert on them) are considered acceptable. Adding cutlery to weigh down a bike hardly increases safety or decreases costs.

The UCI, like many other sports governing bodies, struggles to keep up with emerging technologies, and often reacts too late to ban equipment and practices that they believe to be detrimental to their sport. Most of these governing bodies, as well as the IOC, require that new technologies are submitted for approval before they may be used in competition, but they seem to have difficulty in regulating this requirement. The Cycling News article mentions "developments in nanotechnology" that they are worried will soon be applied to cycling clothing as an example of this. Surely dealing with this is a simple matter of maintaining a list of fabrics that are allowable for use in competitive cycling? New nanotech fabrics would have to be submitted to the UCI to request inclusion on the list before any were allowed in competition. The same strategy could work for most new technologies, which rarely arrive without any forwarning.

So in conclusion, I believe that the UCI is going the wrong way about decreasing the role of technology in cycling. It is not really possible to curb countries' enthusiasm to win these events, and the reality is that even in very low-tech sports, results are strongly dictated by the resources available to athletes. The cost of the bicycle itself is a small part of the total cost to support a potential medal winner in terms of providing them with sufficient means to devote enough time to training and recovering. The best athletes are certainly not working 40 hour weeks to support their cycling careers, and this is always going to give cyclists from countries with strong cycling programmes an advantage. So the UCI should work on forming a consistent and fair set of rules, rather than trying to get countries to try less hard.