UCI defend late Paris-Roubaix tyre system ban after Visma criticism over “level playing field”

The UCI have responded to criticism from Team Visma | Lease a Bike over their late decision to ban adjustable tyre pressure systems ahead of Paris-Roubaix, defending the move as necessary to protect a “level playing field” within the peloton.

The ruling, which removes Visma’s Gravaa system from use just days before the race, had already drawn a sharp reaction from within the team. Head of Performance Mathieu Heijboer questioned both the timing and the explanation, describing it as “a vague story” and pointing to the lack of any prior intervention. “There was also no prior warning. In fact, we still used it at GP Denain.”

At the centre of the dispute is a system designed specifically for the demands of Paris-Roubaix, allowing riders to adjust tyre pressure mid-race to balance grip on the cobbles with speed on the road.

In a Monument where equipment choices can shape the outcome as much as physical strength, its removal is not a marginal detail.

In a response provided to Domestique, the UCI set out its reasoning, pointing to the principle that performance-enhancing technology must be accessible across the peloton. The governing body argued that with only one team currently using the system, it represented a “significant advantage”, particularly in a race like Paris-Roubaix where technical factors can be decisive.

The UCI also pointed to the status of Gravaa, the company behind the system, which filed for bankruptcy earlier this year. Following several weeks of analysis, it was concluded that the product could no longer be considered commercially available under its regulations, a requirement for use in competition.

On that basis, teams, manufacturers and the AIGCP were informed on 25 March that the system would not be authorised for use for the remainder of the 2026 season.

That explanation provides clarity on the governing body’s position, but does not address the concerns already raised within Visma over how and when the decision was made.

Beyond the technical argument, the timing has been central to the team’s reaction, coming just days before one of the most equipment-sensitive races on the calendar. That context fed into a pointed remark from Heijboer, who suggested: “That is, of course, no coincidence.”

There is also no suggestion that the team will take risks in defiance of the ruling. “That’s a risk we are obviously not going to take,” he said, with penalties ranging up to disqualification. But the impact is still clear. Asked directly whether it affects Wout van Aert’s chances, Heijboer’s response was brief: “Yes.”

The UCI may now have publicly defended its decision, but the disagreement it has triggered is unlikely to end with Paris-Roubaix itself.

At its core sits a question that extends beyond a single race: how to define accessibility in a sport where technological development continues to accelerate. For the UCI, the line is drawn at availability across the peloton. For Visma, the interpretation remains open to challenge.

With that gap now clearly exposed, what began as a late pre-Roubaix ruling is already shaping into a broader debate over how cycling balances innovation against fairness.