ANALYSIS | “An organised crime” and a “yellow card” for the organisers: The 2025 Vuelta a Espana in the words of the riders and experts

The 2025 Vuelta a España was supposed to end in Madrid with the traditional parade stage and sprint finish, a day of champagne photos and smiling podium ceremonies. Instead, the race was halted amid pro-Palestinian protests in the Spanish capital, leaving Jonas Vingegaard crowned champion in the unglamorous setting of a hotel car park. For riders, staff, and organisers, it was a surreal and unsettling conclusion to three weeks already marked by disruption, shortened stages, and questions about the role of sport in politics.

The protests, directed against Israel’s participation through Israel – Premier Tech, forced neutralisations, reroutes, and cancellations throughout the race. Stage 5’s team time trial was blocked, Stage 11 was neutralised with no winner declared, Stage 13’s Angliru ascent was delayed, Stage 16 had its decisive climb removed, Stage 18’s time trial was cut in half, and finally Stage 21 was abandoned altogether. By the end, no one doubted the seriousness of the situation, but opinions on what it meant, and how it should have been handled, varied dramatically. Let’s take a look at some of the most interesting perspectives from riders, staff members, and experts, from three shocking weeks in Spain.

For many riders, the constant uncertainty and the abrupt cancellation of Stage 21 left bitter feelings. Intermarché – Wanty’s Kamiel Bonneu, who completed the full three weeks, did not mince his words on X: “This was not a protest, this was organized crime. If you’re aim is peace do it peacefully.” His anger reflected the view of many in the peloton who felt the demonstrations crossed a line from political expression into outright sabotage.

Race winner Jonas Vingegaard was similarly disappointed in the aftermath of the Madrid finale: “It's a shame that such a timeless moment was taken away from us. I'm very disappointed about it. I was really looking forward to celebrating this victory with my team and the fans. Everyone has the right to protest, but not in a way that influences or jeopardizes our career.”

Yet Vingegaard also showed empathy earlier in the race, acknowledging the broader cause: “I’ve said that I understand what’s going on and why they’re protesting. I just wish they’d done it somewhere else, I won’t hide that, so that we could race properly. But they’re doing it for a reason. They’ve found a platform here that they haven’t been able to find elsewhere.” These comments highlight the tension many riders felt: recognising the seriousness of the issues in Gaza, while questioning the methods that placed their safety and careers at risk.

For Israel - Premier Tech’s Matthew Riccitello, who emerged as one of the revelations of the race by winning the white jersey and finishing fifth overall, the emotional toll was significant. “To be honest, it’s been really tough for all of us. Not just our team, but the whole peloton. I haven’t been on my phone much, just when talking to family and friends. It’s been a stressful three weeks.”

From the Spanish government, the reaction was more measured. Minister of Education, Vocational Training and Sports Pilar Alegría said during the race: "I consider it fundamental that the Vuelta a España can be held, just as other major international events have been held. It would be bad news if a competition of this magnitude had to be suspended. What we are seeing these days with the demonstrations, in my opinion, is understandable. Spanish society cannot and should not remain neutral in the face of what is happening in Gaza. Nor can sport turn its back on the reality that surrounds it."

Alegría’s comments recognised both sides of the conflict: the importance of maintaining the race as a cultural and sporting institution, and the legitimacy of public anger over the humanitarian crisis. Her position contrasted with the riders’ immediate concerns about security, reflecting the broader challenge of balancing freedom of expression with the safe functioning of international events. Still, some riders felt that comments like this were unnecessarily encouraging potential danger to them.

The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) condemned the disruption but emphasised neutrality. “The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) firmly condemns the actions that led to the neutralisation of the 11th stage of La Vuelta Ciclista a España. The UCI reiterates the fundamental importance of the political neutrality of sports organisations within the Olympic Movement, as well as the unifying and pacifying role of sport. Major international sporting events embody a spirit of unity and dialogue, transcending differences and divisions.”

However, beyond this statement, the governing body took little visible action. Riders and teams were left to wonder why their security had not been reinforced, and why so much of the responsibility was left to race organisers.

Several voices from within the sport were scathing in their assessment of both the Vuelta organisers and the UCI. Jan Ullrich did not hold back: “There’s no real backbone. They let Israel - Premier Tech continue and put the decision back onto the team. Somebody has to take responsibility now.” Rick Zabel was similarly dismissive, “The organisers are hardly covering themselves in glory. The fact is, the Vuelta’s image has already suffered badly.”

Patrick Lefevere, never one to stay silent, questioned the basic duty of care provided to teams. “You can ask whether organisers don’t have a duty of care towards the teams,” he wrote. “Shouldn’t they be securing our parking areas? You start to wonder why organisers aren’t stepping up. They invite us to their races, use our riders and equipment to sell their event, and yet we’re left to fend for ourselves when it comes to basic protection.”

This critique reflects a wider consensus that the UCI and the Vuelta’s organisers were too quick to issue statements and too slow to provide concrete protection. Instead of taking control, they pointed fingers, at the demonstrators, at political realities, and at Israel – Premier Tech itself, while riders bore the risk. In short, the UCI and organisers did not do anywhere near enough.

Israel – Premier Tech, at the centre of the storm, faced immense scrutiny. Some organizers and commentators suggested that the team should withdraw to defuse tensions. IPT rider Tom van Asbroeck forcefully rejected this idea: “The organizer of the Vuelta deserves a yellow card for insinuating that our team should leave the competition. That would be the last straw. What about UAE or Bahrain, where human rights are a sticking point? Let the riders simply compete.”

His argument highlighted the inconsistency of singling out one team for political reasons while others, backed by governments also facing human rights criticism, competed without question. It was a reminder that sport is rarely free from geopolitics, and that selective application of principles undermines credibility.

For some in the peloton, the Madrid finale was the ultimate warning. Michal Kwiatowski captured the sense of unease: “You can’t just pretend nothing is happening. From now on, it’s clear for everyone that a cycling race can be used as an effective stage for protests and next time it will only get worse, because someone allowed it to happen and looked the other way.”

The 2025 Vuelta exposed a fundamental dilemma. On one side lies freedom of expression and the right to protest, particularly over a conflict as devastating as Gaza. On the other side lies the safety of riders and the integrity of competition. The problem was not that protests existed, but that organisers and governing bodies did not find a way to safeguard the race while respecting democratic values.

Bonneu’s fury, Vingegaard’s disappointment, and Riccitello’s stress all point to the human cost of inaction. Riders were not just inconvenienced; they were placed at risk on public roads where security was lax. And that, in terms of the cycling context is the most important thing. It is one thing for fans to be left disappointed, and for stages to be shortened, but putting the riders safety in danger is the most important element of the sporting context of this debate.

The Vuelta of 2025 will be remembered as the race where politics and sport collided head-on. Its legacy may well shape how cycling adapts. Organisers of the Tour de France and Giro d’Italia will be panicking now, knowing they could be next, as the protesters showed just how easily they could change the face of the race.

The sport now faces urgent questions: should grand tours reroute away from urban centres more vulnerable to disruption? Should stronger policing become standard, even at the cost of the open, fan-friendly atmosphere that defines cycling? Or should governing bodies begin engaging with activists directly, opening dialogue to reduce confrontation?

What is clear is that the UCI and race organisers cannot rely on statements and finger-pointing alone. Riders expect more. Teams demand protection. Fans want both security and integrity. If the 2025 Vuelta a Espana proved anything, it is that cycling can no longer assume it will roll untouched through political fault lines.