“Anyone who rides through the light must be removed from the race” - UCI rule raises questions after Pogacar and Evenepoel railway incident at Tour of Flanders

The Tour of Flanders was thrown into early confusion by an unusual and potentially controversial moment, as a split peloton at a railway crossing briefly raised the prospect of disqualification for some of the race’s biggest names.

As the bunch approached the crossing, the barriers began to fall, forcing part of the peloton to stop while others continued through. Among those who made it across were Tadej Pogacar and Remco Evenepoel, while a second group, including Mathieu van der Poel, was held up behind the closed gates.

Race officials quickly moved to neutralise the situation, instructing the front part of the peloton to ease their pace and allow those delayed to return.

The breakaway up the road, however, was not affected and was allowed to continue, extending its advantage in the process.

While the race itself moved on, the incident immediately raised questions around the application of UCI regulations. “Riders are obliged to stop at a red light,” the governing body stated in conversation with Het Nieuwsblad. “Anyone who rides through the light must be removed from the race.”

The rule is explicit in its wording, leaving little ambiguity in principle. Any rider who passes a closed railway crossing after the signal has turned red risks disqualification, alongside additional penalties including fines and a deduction of UCI points.

The only potential nuance lies in the exact timing of the signal change, specifically whether the light was already red at the moment riders crossed.

On the road, the race quickly settled back into its natural rhythm. A 13-rider breakaway remained clear, while UAE Team Emirates - XRG continued to control the peloton in support of Pogacar following the earlier disruption. The favourites were all brought back together after the incident, restoring parity ahead of the decisive phases still to come later in the race.

Yet while the sporting situation has been resolved, the episode leaves a lingering question around consistency in rule enforcement. The regulation itself is clear. The reality, at least in this instance, appears more flexible. And in a race as tightly contested as the Tour of Flanders, even a momentary divergence between the two is enough to spark debate.