ANALYSIS: The UCI proved to be a mafia at a World Championship haunted by the death of Muriel Furrer

Tadej Pogacar and Lotte Kopecky's World Championships are over. The races that dictated who wears the Rainbow Jerseys for the next twelve months are over. And what a way to end a sunny Sunday, after a week of rain, with a performance that will go down in the annals of cycling history by a Slovenian who, 100 kilometres from the finish line, decided to set off for victory.

Reflecting on the Championships, Carlos Silva of our sister channel Ciclismoatual analysed. The fans had fun, the sport won. Faced with such resilience and the will to want that jersey more than any of his rivals, Tadej Pogacar didn't fail. Just as Lotte Kopecky had done the day before, where she fell behind several times, but here she came, recovered, closed the gaps and rejoined the fight. Going into the last kilometre of the women's road race, those watching the race had placed their bets, and given the weaknesses Lotte had shown in the last few kilometres, it wouldn't be on her that they would bet for victory. But champions are made of a different kind of fibre, and Kopecky clung to her dream and used every ounce of energy she had left to achieve it.

It was undoubtedly the Pogacar and Kopecky World Championships and many were happy with the results. However, it shouldn't be remembered as the Pogacar and Kopecky World Championships. It was the World Championship of Muriel Furrier, an 18-year-old girl who should have been rescued, should not have died and should be with us today. I have mixed feelings. I feel sad and I feel angry, because you can't spend your time talking about safety in cycling and continue to watch deaths in races organized by the UCI.

Whenever we receive news of the death of a cyclist in a race, the UCI is quick to act with phrases like "The UCI regrets the loss" or "It's too early to discuss how we could have prevented it". This time they went one step further in their hypocrisy by banning all staff on duty at the race from speaking because investigations were being carried out. The UCI is quick to express its regret, but is it also quick to take action? What action? How many measures has the UCI taken in the last decade to protect and look after the safety of cycling?

This year, the UCI made official a new protocol for high temperatures to protect cyclists from racing in temperatures of 40 degrees, as had happened in the 2023 Tour de France. In the 2024 Vuelta a Espana however, cyclists faced a very harsh heatwave and the protocol remained on the back burner. Why do race organizations continue to go unpunished and are not held accountable for frequent safety failures, for not complying with UCI guidelines, as recently happened in the Itzulia Basque Country? Vingegaard had warned 6 months earlier that that descent and that bend were dangerous, but the organization never took the blame, putting it on the cyclists.

The same UCI guidelines say that in a race there should be no corners in the last 200 meters of a sprint finish is planned. This leads to trajectory deviations, more touches and obviously more crashes. Another one that's made to look good on paper.

The UCI is testing the use of earphones in races and the sanctions for yellow cards. It announced this with pomp and circumstance in July at a press conference, but those same race radios do save lives, as was the case of Jenthe Biermans, who fell down a ravine on his way down the Passo del Mortirolo in this year's Tour of Italy and escaped because his fellow riders radioed the cars with precise information about where he had fallen. But the UCI wants to do away with radios!!!

Richard Plugge has been ousted as CEO of the SafeR organization, which was set up to ensure safer competition conditions for cyclists by trying to avoid dangerous situations in races. The project is still in the doldrums, because there are many interests at the AIGCP, interests that are being put ahead of the safety of cyclists and the sport. Who is interested in maintaining these political games to the detriment of safety and why?

What about consistency? I bring this up because I've seen rules applied very strictly to some, while to others nothing happens at all. Examples of this? Zurich 2024 World Championships, men's elite road race. Mathieu van der Poel should have been disqualified from the race after he went for a walk during the race, putting the spectators present there at risk. Marlen Reusser did the same in a race and was immediately disqualified. In 2023, during the Tour of Flanders, the Pole Filip Maciejuk, then with Lidl-Trek, was suspended for several months for an incident identical to the one caused by Lorena Wiebes a week earlier at Brugge-De Panne. And Tim Merlier at the 2024 European Championship, when he went halfway behind the cars and ended up winning the race. Double standards?

According to known figures, between 1971 and 1980, 4 cyclists died during races in which they took part, 5 between 1981 and 1990, 6 between 1991 and 2000. From 2001 to 2010, 9 cyclists died in competition, while in the last decade, between 2011 and 2020, 21 cyclists died. In 2023 and 2024, 4 cyclists died on the road while competing. This is a clearly incomplete list that doesn't take into account the many tragedies that have occurred in women's competitions and at youth level.

David Lappartient has been president of the UCI since 2017 and always shirks responsibility when something serious happens. Muriel Furrer was 18 years old, fell during her race and was somewhere unattended in the middle of the forest for over an hour. If Muriel had had a Transponder under her saddle, she would have been rescued sooner. Why is the Transponder only used on the Elites? But Lappartient has disgustingly shaken the water out of his cap and, without any statistics to back it up, said that "50% of cyclists' crashes are due to their behaviour".

This sums up the UCI's lack of responsibility when it comes to safety. The UCI, in the person of its president, should resign after the tragic events of the last few days. Cycling needs people who take care of cyclists' safety and Lappartient, who had already been ostracized, has now reached the point of contempt. Cycling needs new blood that doesn't move in political circles. We need the parents of the young people who see their children taking up this sport to be sure that, although it is always a dangerous sport, they have someone to look after them and their safety.