UCI Sets Regulations for Cycling Technology

Nothing motivates technology regulation like somebody pushing the limits just too far. And according to UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale) President Pat McQuaid, the top 3 track cycling nations Australia, Great Britain and Germany have pushed track cycling technology outside of the spirit of the sport. McQuaid said, “It has become apparent to the UCI that over the past few years it [technology in track cycling] has got a little bit out of control.” Some prototype bikes cost upwards of 50,000 pounds and give the rider advantages that less expensive bikes simply cannot compete against. Many bikes are available as prototypes in these top 3 countries that are not even commercially available elsewhere.

Regulation in cycling has long been a murky subject. Positions, such as the insanely aerodynamic ‘Superman’ position have already been banned. The fire of this debate has really gathered momentum leading up to the 2012 London Games. Some from the lead nations argue that other countries could similarly invest in better equipment and then give themselves the advantage.

Rosemary Barnes of Sports Technology Ethics wrote an interesting reaction on the scrutiny being placed on cycling technology. Click here to see it. She claims that overregulating in itself is actually putting some athletes at a disadvantage. She says, “Another rule that is problematic for the UCI is limiting bicycle weight. This rule exists austensibly (sic) 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 like where Barnes argument is coming from. She points out that the UCI and other governing bodies do not know how to set up unambiguous rules to regulate sports. Rules like ‘spirit of the sport’ are vague and lend themselves to inconsistencies. Much like when a judge makes a ruling in court, once a precedent is set, it is hard to go back. That being said, I actually think (if only given two extreme examples) I would rather see overregulation (in the spirit of fairness for all countries rich and poor alike) over allowing an athlete to essentially buy a title championship. Yes, athletes from advantaged wealthier countries can train with better equipment and perhaps for longer hours since they do not need to work separate jobs to support their families. However at the end of the day, on the playing field all things should be held as equal as possible. Whatever happened in the gym two weeks earlier is subject to advantages per country wealth (outside of steroids), but the day of the event any person from any country should have a fair shake at winning. Ref. cyclingnews.com, sportstechethics.com,