7 minute read
Tour de France 2021: Avoiding the Domino Effect in the Peloton
ANNEMARIE GOODWIN, SPORTS LAWYER
Advertisement
This article aims to minimise crashes at Tour de France. This article identifies a link between crashes and spectator inference, physical contact during sprint finishes and detour disqualifications. Cycling is a dangerous sport. Crashes are inevitable. The law must still try to minimise crashes, avoiding the domino effect in the peloton.
SPECTATOR INTERFERENCE
Should spectator interference be tolerated at Tour de France? No. This is highlighted by an incident at 2021 Tour de France. A fan stepped onto the road, with their back to the oncoming peloton. The fan held up a sign (which contained a message for relatives) to the TV cameras. The fan was not cheering on cyclists. They were trying to get themselves on TV. Cyclist Tony Martin crashed into the sign. This caused a domino effect in the peloton. The result was arguably the worst crash in Tour de France history. 26 cyclists were injured.1 French police arrested the fan over this incident.2 The fan was charged with reckless endangerment and involuntarily causing injuries. Maximum punishment was one year in prison and $15000 EU fine. Due to their mental health, the fan was issued a $1200 EU fine. The result was to deter spectators from causing crashes at Tour de France in the future. Race organisers decided not to take legal action against the fan. Injured cyclist Marc Soler considered suing the fan.3 A harsh fine and/or criminal charges is appropriate. The fan deliberately chose to obstruct the road, causing widespread harm. The winner of Tour de France should not be whichever cyclist is lucky enough to avoid being knocked down by a roadside fan. The winner should be the cyclist with the most strength and skill.
Does responsibility to prevent spectator interference rest with race organiser ASO (Armaury Sport Organisation), the UCI (Union Cycliste International), French police or the spectators themselves? Eliminating spectator interference is a shared responsibility between ASO, the UCI, French police and roadside fans. ASO, the UCI and French police are already doing everything possible to prevent spectator interference. ASO and the UCI do not have the unlimited funds required to place barriers along the entire Tour de France route. French police do monitor roadside fans. At the 2021 Tour de France, French police arrested the spectator who caused Tony Martin’s crash. Given the ratio of French police to roadside fans, it is unreasonable to make French police solely responsible for eliminating spectator interference. In other sports like tennis, security can permanently eject a disruptive fan from the stadium. If French police eject a disruptive fan from one section of the race route then the fan can re-enter at another section of the race route.
The UCI regulations should be urgently redrafted to address spectator interference at Tour de France. A new law is required which imposes heavy fines and/or criminal charges on fans who cause crashes. Spectator interference must be defined very broadly to include any act. Examples do not just include the fan making contact with a cyclist. Examples also include an object held by a fan (sign, camera strap etc) and smoke from a flare held by a fan making contact with a cyclist. The law should apply regardless of whether the spectator interference is accidental or intentional. All that is required by way of evidence is video footage of the incident. Proceeds of the fine should be passed onto the cyclist, to compensate for any loss. Heavy fines and/or criminal charges should eliminate spectator interference. A ban on roadside fans at Tour de France is not a viable option. Their presence cheers up cyclists and enhances TV coverage for viewers. In other sports like tennis there is distance between a fan and their favourite athlete. Close proximity between a fan and their favourite rider makes cycling a great spectator sport.
PHYSICAL CONTACT
Should a cyclist be punished for deliberate physical contact in a sprint finish? Yes. There have been several relegations for repeated headbutting in a sprint finish, including Fernando Gaviria and Andre Greipel at 2018 Tour de France4 and Caleb Ewan at 2019 Tour Down Under.5 These decisions show accidental physical contact is acceptable in a sprint finish but clearly deliberate physical contact is not.
Some commentators claim deliberate physical contact during a sprint finish is simply part of the sport.6 The fact that a practice has existed for a long time does not automatically mean it is the best practice. Cycling is dangerous enough without cyclists deliberately knocking their opponents in the rush to the finish line. Cycling is not a contact sport like boxing. The Tour de France winner should not be whichever cyclist in the peloton is best at knocking their opponents out the way.
The Tour de France winner should be the cyclist with the most strength and skill. The 2019 Tour Down Under highlight was arguably Elia Viviani’s Stage 1 win.7 A viewer can watch this sprint finish several times without becoming bored. The win was a result of strength and skill. No physical contact required.
DETOUR DISQUALIFICATIONS
Should a cyclist be disqualified for a mid-race detour? No. The UCI introduced detour disqualifications in 2014.8 The reason for this rule is that detours can endanger roadside fans. They might also give a cyclist an unfair advantage over the rest of the peloton. The UCI Regulations offer punishments which include disqualification or a time penalty. The UCI Regulations also state race organisers will help minimise detours by marking the race route (using barriers or tape) where it is alongside a sidewalk, pavement or cycle path.
Some commentators claim cyclists have been racing on sidewalks which do not form part of the official race route for so long it is simply part of the sport.9 The fact that a practice has existed for a long time does not automatically mean it is the best practice. Some team managers believe barriers, not disqualification, should be used to prevent cyclists from detouring off the official race route. It is better to deter detours through time penalties or disqualification than barriers, which cost money. The UCI Regulations on detours are correct. UCI officials still need to use common sense. In most detour cases, disqualification is not appropriate. Most detours are too trivial to impact on the overall race result. If they do then UCI officials should simply impose a time penalty to address the advantage a detour has given a cyclist over the rest of the peloton. Most detours are made to avoid a mass crash in the peloton. Cyclists should be encouraged to Ride defensively without fear of disqualification. Only if the detour is not made to avoid a mass crash in the peloton and endangers roadside fans is disqualification appropriate.
There have been two significant detour cases. Peter Sagan’s detour at 2018 Amstel Gold and Luke Rowe’s detour at 2018 Tour of Flanders.10 Sagan’s detour did not endanger fans. Rowe’s detour did.
What if a detour avoids a mass crash in the peloton but also endangers roadside fans? How does the UCI morally evaluate if cyclist or fan safety is more important? These examples provide guidance on how UCI officials should assess a detour.
CONCLUSION
This article finds solutions to minimise crashes at Tour de France, eliminate spectator inference and deliberate physical contact between cyclists in a sprint finish, and allow cyclists to detour without disqualification if the reason is to avoid a mass crash in the peloton. These solutions avoid the domino effect in the peloton. B
Endnotes 1 James Matthey, ‘Shocking list emerges after idiot fan causes horrifying Tour de France crash’, 27/6/21, news.com.au https://www.news.com. au/sport/cycling/shocking-list-emerges-afteridiot-fan-causes-horrifying-tour-de-france-crash/ news-story/0204e2f318b44d013c02fc8d37389397 2 Chris Marshall-Bell, ‘Tour de France organisers will not sue fan who caused mass pile-up on stage one’, Cycling Weekly, 2/7/21 https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/tour-defrance-organisers-will-not-sue-fan-who-causedmass-pile-up-on-stage-one 3 Alasdair Fotheringham, ‘Injured Soler considers legal action against fan who triggered Tour de
France crash’, Cycling News, 1/7/21 https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/injuredsoler-considers-legal-action-against-fan-whotriggered-tour-de-france-crash/ 4 ‘Headbutts see relegations as sprinters melt down’, 15/7/18, SBS https://www.sbs.com.au/ cyclingcentral/article/2018/07/15/headbuttssee-relegations-sprinters-melt-down 5 Matt de Neef, ‘Double drama at Tour Down
Under: Bevin Crashes, Ewan Relegated’, [1617], 19/1/19, Cycling Tips https://cyclingtips. com/2019/01/double-drama-at-the-tour-downunder-bevin-crashes-ewan-relegated/ 6 ‘Controversy and Crashes TDU 5th stage’, 19/1/19, SBS https://www.sbs.com.au/ cyclingcentral/article/2019/01/19/controversyand-crashes-tdu-fifth-stage 7 Chris Marshall-Bell, ‘Elia Viviani wins Tour
Down Under Stage 1 after superb late sprint’, 15/1/19, Cycling News https://www. cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/elia-vivianiwins-tour-stage-one-superb-late-sprint-404926 8 UCI Cycling Regulations – Part 2 Road Races –
Article 2.2.015, 2.2.025 and 2.12.007 [7.6]. https://www.uci.org/inside-uci/constitutionsregulations/regulations 9 Patrick Fletcher, Sadhbh O’Shea, ‘Officials ready to disqualify riders using sidewalks’, [13-15], 31/3/17, Cycling News http://www.cyclingnews. com/news/tour-of-flanders-officials-ready-todisqualify-riders-using-sidewalks/ 10 Richard Windsor, ‘UCI must be consistent’, 19/4/19, Cycling Weekly http://www. cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/uci-mustconsistent-tiesj-benoot-critical-governing-bodybike-path-rules-376869
About the author
Annemarie Goodwin is a Sports Lawyer who specialises in tennis and cycling.
