Watching the peloton - Professional Road Racing thread 2026

Dauphine (aka Tour Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes) coming up June 7-14, all 8 stages streaming on Peacock in the US. No idea who's racing.

From ProCyclingUK.com...

Screenshot_20260601_180015_Chrome.jpg


Looks exciting!
 
Last edited:
Upway Certified Pre-Owned E-Bikes Upway E-Bikes Mobile
Jeremy McCreary said:
After reading half a dozen accounts of this disqualification, still feels like there's a big missing piece to this puzzle.

Since it makes no sense that the bike would be intentionally underweight in a stage like this, I think there should be an independent investigation of the weighing equipment and process. The stakes are too high to do anything less.

Especially sad for Wiebes, who's caught in the middle of this mess but arguably pays the biggest price. She neither prepped nor weighed the bike herself. She has to rely on others to get these things right, and someone let her down royally.
Click to expand...
This is what I have found so far. The team weighed the bike, and it was teched by the UCI. Then the team decided to change from a double chainring to a single chainring. The bike was weighed by the UCI after the finish, and the penalty was assessed by the book.

If this is truly what went down, this is 100% on the DS of her team. Removing a chainring has to reduce the overall weight. If they taped on weighs to make up for it and they fell off, that's still on them.

This is why TT bikes are impounded after tech.
 
Nice win today by Jordi Meeus in Stage 1 of the Tour of Wallonie. Ben Oliver ends up 5th after leading out the sprint and had it until 50m to go. MVDP is supposed to be here but I haven't seen him.
 
stompandgo said:
This is what I have found so far. The team weighed the bike, and it was teched by the UCI. Then the team decided to change from a double chainring to a single chainring. The bike was weighed by the UCI after the finish, and the penalty was assessed by the book.

If this is truly what went down, this is 100% on the DS of her team. Removing a chainring has to reduce the overall weight. If they taped on weighs to make up for it and they fell off, that's still on them.

This is why TT bikes are impounded after tech.
Click to expand...

Correction weights falling off is the most plausible narrative I've heard so far — provided that's physically possible.

Was this chainring change some kind of last-minute rush-rush thing?
 
Urtopia E-Bikes Urtopia E-Bikes Mobile
Jeremy McCreary said:
Correction weights falling off is the most plausible narrative I've heard so far — provided that's physically possible.

Was this chainring change some kind of last-minute rush-rush thing?
Click to expand...
No idea. The rider HAD to know. She probably suggested it. If weights fell off, that's on them.

There's lots of discussion about this worldwide. Those suggesting that the penalty was too harsh do not understand the UCI. Regulations are changed and modified all the time. They are discussed by the Management Committee and published in Amendments. But on race day, the regulations in force at that time are the "law". This particular regulation has no options. It's crystal clear. Elimination or disqualification of the rider, and a $1,000 Swiss Francs fine to the team. There is zero room for the jury to interpret anything. I've been on a jury myself in a similar situation (fighting) where the regulation is equally clear. There is no debate. Ya break da rules, ya pays da price.
 
Ben Oliver from Modern Adventure logs his first pro win, and the first stage win in a UCI 2.Pro race for the team. He beat Arnaud DeLie, Jordy Meeus, Danny Van Poppel, and Tom Crabbe clear by a length. He ends up with the leader's jersey at the end of the day. It was only a matter of time that these guys made themselves known at this level.
 
stompandgo said:
No idea. The rider HAD to know. She probably suggested it. If weights fell off, that's on them.

There's lots of discussion about this worldwide. Those suggesting that the penalty was too harsh do not understand the UCI. Regulations are changed and modified all the time. They are discussed by the Management Committee and published in Amendments. But on race day, the regulations in force at that time are the "law". This particular regulation has no options. It's crystal clear. Elimination or disqualification of the rider, and a $1,000 Swiss Francs fine to the team. There is zero room for the jury to interpret anything. I've been on a jury myself in a similar situation (fighting) where the regulation is equally clear. There is no debate. Ya break da rules, ya pays da price.
Click to expand...

Yes, rules are rules, but scales also have finite accuracies. According to Cyclingnews.com, the manufacturer of the scale the UCI uses claims an accuracy of ±20 g.

With a mandatory penalty so severe, that must also be taken into account. In which case, I think Wiebes should've been given the benefit of the doubt.
 
Again, you don't understand, or agree, with how the UCI works. You cannot "give the benefit of the doubt" when the regulations are clear. That said, what would have been a better course of action would be for the UCI to impound the bike after the race, and weigh it several times at the start and finish locations. They could choose to rescind the penalty if they prove to themselves that their scales were not accurate at both locations. That may have happened, I don't know.
 
stompandgo said:
Those suggesting that the penalty was too harsh do not understand the UCI
Click to expand...
Its quite possible to believe the penalty is too harsh for a 21 stage race and still understand how and why the penalty was applied. The UCI puts themselves in these positions with poorly thought out rules and penalties. Then they fuel controversy and speculation by not releasing information. You'll note I said she was given the only available penalty in my first post about this.
 
Jeremy McCreary said:
Yes, rules are rules, but scales also have finite accuracies. According to Cyclingnews.com, the manufacturer of the scale the UCI uses claims an accuracy of ±20 g.
Click to expand...
If the scale make and model is correct (from a BikeRadar article in 2025 TdF) it is a Kern CH 15/20

According to the specs it has a .5% tolerance taken from it's max rated weight measurement of 15kg. In other words a tolerance of 75g. Since it only resolves to 20g, it's linearity is +-40g. In other words, on a perfectly calibrated scale, in a perfectly executed weighing procedure you could get a reading of 6.76kg for a bike that weighs 6.8kg and that would be considered accurate by the mfgr.

Of course we don't know what scale was used or what the measurements actually were because I think all the numbers so far have come from the team. Again, if it's case closed no questions asked, then the UCI should easily be able to produce documentation showing the scale calibration and actual results.
 
BlackHand said:
Its quite possible to believe the penalty is too harsh for a 21 stage race and still understand how and why the penalty was applied. The UCI puts themselves in these positions with poorly thought out rules and penalties. Then they fuel controversy and speculation by not releasing information. You'll note I said she was given the only available penalty in my first post about this.
Click to expand...
I'm the last guy in line to defend the UCI. They do some really dumb stuff. I disagree that the penalty was poorly thought out. When someone intentionally breaks the rules, everyone else is harmed. Nobody talks about them, only the guilty party. As for releasing information, that's a slippery slope. The UCI is not a debate society. Like I said before, the bike should have been impounded. She has backup bikes.
 
stompandgo said:
Like I said before, the bike should have been impounded. She has backup bikes.
Click to expand...

You're suggesting that they might have impounded the bike for more definitive testing while allowing Wiebes to continue the race on a provisional basis?

Sounds like a fair solution to me — especially since Wiebes herself probably had no direct involvement in the alleged infraction. Wonder why the judges didn't do that?
 
Last edited:
Trans Balkan Race: A disgrace for Radzilla :(

I was willing to proudly announce a big win for Poland's Radosław Gołębiewski in Trans Balkan Race, a 1397 km/30,000 m self-supported gravel race. We all were sure Radzilla would win with a great margin! Then, some 74 km before the finish line, his satellite tracker stopped working... Then the news came: DISQUALIFIED.

It has turned out his sponsor was supporting him many times, and the Race Director caught the last support scene on a camera, as the final proof. What a shame. What a disgrace. I'm sorry for Radek but I'm also sorry for us fans who spent four days observing the tracker position...

I don't want to say more but in our community it is similar to the downfall of one Lance Armstrong.

Meanwhile, Poland's Marcin Barwiński is on the 1,093th kilometre in the 17th position. He got a contusion before Control Point 2 and made a right decision for an 18-hour rest. Not a cheater!
 
Last edited:
Jeremy McCreary said:
You're suggesting that they might have impounded the bike for more definitive testing while allowing Wiebes to continue the race on a provisional basis?

Sounds like a fair solution to me — especially since Wiebes herself probably had no direct involvement in the alleged infraction. Wonder why the judges didn't do that?
Click to expand...
Almost. I think I laid out my suggestion above. I also said that the UCI may have done this. I don't have details.

Rider finishes. Bike is weighed. Tech fails. Impound the bike immediately. Delay preliminary results and podiums (they have to be presented in order). Weigh the bike multiple times with more than one scale that are calibrated at the finish. If all weigh-ins fail, it's an easy jury decision. If even one passes, then it's a tough jury decision. If I were on the jury, I could make a case for both sides. Make a decision, inform the teams, hold the podiums.

She had to know that this could have been a possibility, because the crankset was changed after weigh-in. She knew that she was riding a single chainring on a bike that used to run a double.

BTW, for clarity, Judges are responsible for results, and results only. Commissaires are responsible for regulation enforcement. Only Commissaires are on the race jury.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back