"It feels like you’re only allowed to have an opinion if it’s unanimously positive" – Jan Bakelants responds to backlash over women's cycling criticisms

Jan Bakelants, the former professional and outspoken commentator on the sport, has addressed the growing debate over criticism of women’s cycling, following Marijn de Vries’s outspoken reaction after the recent World Championships.

Speaking on the latest episode of Wielerclub Wattage, Bakelants expressed frustration at what he sees as a narrowing space for honest analysis. “After a while it starts to feel like you’re only allowed to have an opinion if it’s unanimously positive about women’s cycling,” he said. “You’re no longer allowed to state the facts. But surely we’re entitled to question how things are unfolding?”

The discussion referenced de Vries’s post-Worlds critique, in which she suggested a double standard persists in cycling: achievements and dominance in the women’s peloton are often shielded from scrutiny, while equivalent performances in men’s racing face far more critical analysis.

During the podcast, host Ruben Van Gucht drew a parallel between Tadej Pogacar’s current dominance in the men’s peloton and Annemiek van Vleuten’s supremacy a few years ago. At that time, critics labelled the rest of the women’s peloton as “lacking quality,” implying Van Vleuten faced little genuine competition. Bakelants admitted he sees a similar pattern emerging today. “I don’t want to spark a polemic, but I do actually agree with that. That’s simply where the sport stands right now,” he said.

Tom Boonen, participating in the debate, acknowledged the difficulty of such discussions. “I live in a house full of women,” he said. “Some discussions you simply cannot win. You just have to let them go.” Dirk De Wolf concluded the segment by noting that the panel would continue observing the situation but would refrain from further public commentary.

Bakelants’s remarks underline the tension between enthusiasm for promoting women’s cycling and the need for critical, informed analysis. For fans and analysts alike, it raises a key question: can the sport embrace robust discussion without fear of reprisal, or are honest critiques destined to be silenced in the name of positivity?