Experts pin the blame for stalemate at women's Omloop on team sport directors: "There is still so much friction between those teams"
Cycling
Tactical disasterclass at the Omloop Het Nieuwsblad WE. No nice words can justify the failure to find common language between the teams of two outright favorites. While FDJ - Suez ultimately broke the stalemate and tried to fix at least some of the damage, the SD Worx - Protime ladies may have as well not sent a team to Belgium as not only the breakaway, but later also Demi Vollering and Puck Pieterse slipped through their fingers.
The tactical battle continued in post-race comments, when riders of involved teams blamed one another for not taking on the responsibility, but refusing to do any work themselves. At the end of the day, only winner Lotte Claes and runner-up Aurela Nerlo will most likely be the only ones smiling about today's race.
Against all logic
"This is not possible," Sven Vanthourenhout fumes at Sporza. "This really goes against all logic. If you name the top favorites for this race in advance, you end up with Demi Vollering and Lorena Wiebes. Then those teams should take their responsibility in the race, but that is not happening. No, the gap is even increasing to thirteen minutes! That really must not happen."
According to Sep Vanmarcke, the ultimate responsibility lies with the sports directors. "The ego of the sports directors has spoken. Both FDJ - Suez and SD Worx - Protime did not take responsibility, which caused them to lose each other."
Marijn De Vries later added: "There is still so much friction between those teams, with Lars Boom who is now team leader at FDJ - Suez and everything that happened around Vollering..."
Despite the course of the race, the analysts are very positive about winner Lotte Claes. "She is a really good rider. Maybe she wouldn't have won the Omloop if she had ridden with the favorites, but she can really cycle very fast. She was already sixteenth at the Tour de France Femmes, then you can really do something."
Nonsense, it's a tactical win. SD Worx successfully denied Demi yet another victory.
If that's their cunning plan, SD Worx could lose a lot of races stupidly this season and deservedly so
Just in
Subscribe to our Daily Newsletter today!
Popular news
Latest comments
- Christian Scaroni, Clément Champoussin, Harold Tejada, Simone Velasco ... Peripheral riders who have failed to make much impression so far in their carrier, suddenly starting to win everywhere, climbing with the best in weekly WT races. Aging riders years after their prime, now seen more often than none at the head of the peloton in the classics. Still, no what is talking about the Chinese candies in the roomBM10-04-2025
- It's easy to dismiss doubters. We need someone like David Walsh who dares to ask the hard question. In the mean time, I wouldn't worry too much about Tadej. Whether he dopes or not, at least, he's not a terrible person like LA Doper.
KerisVroom10-04-2025 - Pogi is an outlier. You cannot prove an outlier using the statistical data of average pros. If he releases the data, it will only cause even more suspicion. In 2020 TDF he was dropped by Roglic in the mountains. So how does he do the TT where in the flats he nearly beat Tom Dumoulin and beat everybody else on the climb by a ton. No matter what Pogi is too much of an outlier which can be proven by dataabstractengineer10-04-2025
- Sorry? Have you not noticed how many winners and others have been cancelled post event, not least from the Beijing and London Olympics? If that doesn’t qualify for practice generalisation in sporting procedure, what is, we’ve even gotten to the stage of pre-emptive barring under suspicion of possible doping. If you’re going to look at a problem like this seriously, don’t just look at what makes media headlines in the parts you pay attention to. There is probably a wiki list (very long) of athletes who were disqualified for substance irregularities post event, and each had the opportunity to their long and costly process to defend themselves, it just doesn’t make the news unless you’re already a megastar (in which case you’d be extremely stupid nowadays to risk it, but then again, many people, especially in sport, fall in or close to such a category.Mistermaumau10-04-2025
- Not comparing GT results but you should not forget guys like Kuiper, Kelly, Moser, who did pretty well in both.Mistermaumau10-04-2025
- The 10 year thing is already implemented since years in sport, why should cycling (probably worst offender) be exempted? “ Today, under the World Anti-Doping Code, samples can be stored for up to 10 years after their initial analysis and still retain the same legal impact if analyzed further and prosecuted. WADA President Witold Bańka said: “WADA is fully supportive of this initiative and commends the IOC and ITA for their work in this area. The long-term storage of samples for further analysis has proven to be an important tool in the protection of clean sport. As detection methods are constantly being improved and updated, retaining samples for 10 years means that those who have cheated cannot rest easy for a full decade after they have been tested. “It is a requirement under the 2021 International Standard for Testing and Investigations (ISTI) that Signatories must have a written strategy for storage and further analysis as part of their testing programs and I am confident this policy will have a further impact in the years to come. Furthermore, this storage and further analysis program goes towards meeting Anti-Doping Organization’s compliance requirements under the ISTI and provides a cost saving at the same time, as the cost for the transfer and storage of samples is covered by the IOC.” The further analysis of samples collected during Beijing 2008 and London 2012 has so far produced more than 130 Anti-Doping Rule Violations, which clearly highlights the effectiveness of such a program to provide more effective detection while also acting as a deterrence.”Mistermaumau10-04-2025
- Releasing data doesnt solve the issue of credibilty. Because what ended to be is people making intepretation of the data which leads to innuendo. If he really want to improve his team why don't he just ask UAE of Visma to show them what do they do to their team? I feel sorry for anyone who was born after the doping era carrying the sins of the past. Their hard work and achievement always viewed as suspicious. I'm glad I'm not a pro cyclist so I don't need to keep proofing my innocent everytime I'm doing something remarkable.jelantik10-04-2025
- In every sport, records are broken and more-performing athletes emerge every year. And no one questions them. It's sad that certain people INSIDE the cycling are the first to create and increase suspicions about the sport they claim to love . And they do it without any prove, driven by frustration and envy, because they're always the losers to throw shit at their sport. It's never Vingegaard or Van der Poel; it's always the losers who act this way. Shameful. (sorry for my bad english)
maria2024202410-04-2025 - It's kinda crazy that people who make a living in professional sport don't understand how competition works. You have the sport. You have pharmaceuticals which may improve performance. You test for as many as you can. If you pass the tests, you keep your result. It's only in cycling that a substantial minority think that all results should be provisional for 15 years. In nearly every other sport, people watch and enjoy what they see, or if they don't like what goes into producing what they see, they don't watch.
Barney10-04-2025 - It is pretty cool that a Grand Tour rider is even riding Paris-Roubaix, much less in the discussion for a podium. This is a throwback across many generations of cyclists to the pillars of Hinault and Merckx. Enjoy it while it lasts.Barney10-04-2025