"It's nerve-wracking" - Uno-X Mobility boss shares concerns on administration of Tour de France wildcards
Cycling
January came and went, and in a blink of an eye it’s now past the midway point of February.
Yet, the Tour de France has still not announced its wildcard invitations.
Thor Hushovd, CEO of Uno-X Mobility, has admitted that tensions are running high. "It's nerve-wracking. We would have preferred to know which races we're going to ride now," he told TV2.
In previous years, invitations have been issued at varying times. In 2024, they were handed out on January 18, while in 2023, they were awarded on January 4. In 2022, the decision came slightly later, on February 11.
"It would have given the team more peace of mind to know whether we would be riding the Giro, the Tour or the Vuelta. It would have made the job much easier."
"At the same time, we are just a piece in a big game. There is not much we can do now. We can't exactly call ASO (Tour organiser) and put hard against hard and say that we must have information by such and such a date!" Hushovd continues.
The Tour has reduced the number of teams for safety reasons, aiming to create a smaller peloton and reduce the likelihood of crashes.
"I don't quite understand why they want to issue three invitations. It goes against what the UCI and the sport want with smaller fields and safer races. But there are more people fighting for the places now, and then conflicts of interest arise."
Kurt Asle Arvesen of INEOS also weighed in, saying, "I guess ASO is trying to get permission to send out invitations to three teams. They don't have an easy choice this year with Uno-X, TotalEnergies and Tudor. We really hope that it works out for Uno-X; it's really important for both the team and Norwegian cycling."
Just in
Subscribe to our Daily Newsletter today!
Popular news
Latest comments
- So in the end he did pretty well tactically too :-)Mistermaumau07-04-2025
- Why Maria, what is your reasoning? He was already ill during E3, thought he’d get over it but it got worse which is probably when he took them. His doc will be amongst the best-informed and his infection perfectly analysed. Read this and stop relying on generalised outdated assumptions about antibiotical treatment, part of the reason they may soon no longer be effective at all. “ In 2008, one of us (L.B.R.) posited that of the different ways the medical community could reduce the amount of antibiotic treatment prescribed, the one that seemed safest and most achievable was to treat infections only for as long as necessary to achieve optimal cure rates (1). It is difficult and potentially dangerous for providers not to prescribe antibiotics at all, but it should be easier to convince them not to prescribe antibiotics for so long. The evidentiary basis of traditional durations of antibiotic therapy is that a week is 7 days (2), which is why tried-and-true antibiotic regimens are 7 to 14 days long. The definition of a week was decreed by Roman Emperor Constantine the Great nearly 2000 years ago (2). This seems an unsatisfactory evidentiary basis for modern medical practice. Fortunately, in recent years, more than 45 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of short-course versus traditional, longer courses of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of community-acquired and nosocomial pneumonia, acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis and sinusitis, complicated urinary and intra-abdominal infections, Gram-negative bacteremia, acute bacterial skin infections, osteomyelitis and septic arthritis, and even neutropenic fever (3, 4). All RCTs for these diseases and 2 meta-analyses of these RCTs (5, 6) found no difference in efficacy between shorter and traditional courses of antibiotic therapy. Of note, the short-course regimens that were studied were typically not based on Constantine’s 7-day week. For pneumonia specifically, 8 RCTs have shown that 3- to 5-day courses of antibiotic therapy are at least as effective as 7- to 14-day courses for community-acquired pneumonia”Mistermaumau07-04-2025
- Totally. There may still be some details to disgust us but it won’t change anything to the basics of what happened and that the punishment was totally appropriate. If there was/is anything relevant to add, nothing is stopping him from doing that, he hasthe platform and connections and know-how how to defend himself in precarious affairs so why hesitate??? No use to your ego once you’re dead ;-) Barring a Trump pardon and awarding of fake US TdF titles, I don’t see it happening on this planetMistermaumau07-04-2025
- Silly comment in light of what was revealed post-race. Obviously the illness affected him on the day, he was even outsprinted by MP and Wout kept up with him.Mistermaumau07-04-2025
- Meaning, if dad was asked before he knew of the top secret* illness he wouldn’t have been able to integrate it into his “analysis”. * knowing how he likes talking, I expect it was kept secret even from him so as not to give things away.Mistermaumau07-04-2025
- Yes, but you have to take into account the order of interviews and the spread of knowledgeMistermaumau07-04-2025
- The truth is already out. Thats what the purpose of the testimony he gave was. Nevermind someone innocent would not have ruined so many lives in the process. If he somehow was ever allowed back in pro cycling or his records restored, not only would it be a travesty for Justice in sport, but it would be the end of cycling. Already done so much damage, and continues to by making stupid statements on his podcast to stay relevant. If he actually had any respect for the sport, or other people, he'd stop treating the world like fools and own his past and present. Not try and make up sob stories. Especially when all they do is highlight his entitlement and privilege.HoopoeChai07-04-2025
- "very sick" but only 3 antibiotic days? strange.
maria2024202407-04-2025 - ahahah, nice and funny boy.maria2024202407-04-2025
- You're dreaming LA Doper !frieders307-04-2025