A recent survey by the Cyclistes Professionnels Associés (CPA), the union representing professional cyclists, has revealed an intriguing consensus among riders. Adam Hansen, the president of CPA, asserts that over 80% of riders support the UCI's proposed gearing restriction trial.
In an article for Domestique, Hansen explains that while the proposal didn't originate from the CPA, the union stands behind it, committed to reflecting the collective sentiment of the peloton.
The proposed test, scheduled for the Tour of Guangxi in October, would have limited rider gearing to a maximum of 10.46 metres development, roughly equivalent to a 54x11t with a 28mm tyre. This restriction would have significantly impacted SRAM-sponsored teams, as their 12-speed road cassettes start with a 10t cog.
However, the UCI was ordered to halt the test by the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) following a legal challenge by SRAM. The BCA argued that the trial lacked the necessary objectivity and transparency and could cause serious and irreparable harm to SRAM.
In a statement, the UCI contested the BCA's decision, questioning its jurisdiction over the matter: "[the ruling] is issued by a Belgian authority responding to a complaint from a US company against a Swiss sports association regarding a test to be carried out on Chinese territory."
But here's where it gets controversial... The UCI has decided to fight the BCA's ruling using funds from the SafeR budget, a decision that has sparked debate. SafeR, which is part-funded by contributions from teams, includes the CPA, UCI, Association of Professional Cycling Teams (AIGCP), and the International Association of Race Organisers (AIOCC) as stakeholders.
The CPA's support for the gearing restriction trial is based on a vote by the national associations and the riders' consensus. Hansen notes that if the test doesn't proceed, SafeR's purpose would be called into question.
And this is the part most people miss... In an ironic twist, SRAM-sponsored teams will effectively be funding litigation against their own sponsor. SRAM did not respond to requests for comment on this development.
So, what do you think? Is the gearing restriction a necessary step for the sport, or is it an unnecessary interference? Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments below!
