UCI makes last minute call to ban INEOS Grenadiers' helmet during UAE Tour

Why does there need to be centralized control at all?

Because SOMEONE has to make up rules in advance so everyone knows and they can avoid discussing everything last-minute, in- and post-race and accusing all of cheating, somebody has to be given the authority to do checks, to penalise. We can’t all go riding with guns and settle things ourselves. Do you know any sport that works without judges or a federation? To fight and represent their members, organise insurance, use of public infrastructure etc.
I’m VERY open-minded as concerns viable alternatives but I’ve not seen anyone propose viable sustainable alternatives, even if some think throwing (oil) money at things will solve all problems and yes, short-term that puts a lot of band-aids and Rolexes on people but you know, sport was a great thing before money became involved and I’ve not seen much improvement because of it.

False choice fallacy. Just because there needs to be rules doesn't mean there needs to be a monopoly. I race all the time and haven't done a UCI race in years, see gravel racing in the US.
That people still believe what you say just goes to show what a farce government schooling is. (And yes, that's precisely what teaches the false choice fallacy, because without that, they would lose power.)

Nobody said there should be or they want a monopoly, If someone wants to create a BETTER alternative I’m all for it, if you think oil money will achieve that past max a first decade, start travelling to their events. Like with buildings, I’d rather change an existing structure into something better and have made a first suggestion how to, trouble is most fans have little energy left after spending so much of it moaning, become an activist or at least vote with your wallet.

1. There is a better alternative. The US has chosen the gravel model.
2. What's with the obsession with oil?
3. I have voted with my wallet. I haven't done a UCI race in many years, and I race all the time.

Gravel is great in itself BUT, firstly, not every place or region has gravel roads, cycling can be done just about everywhere. Secondly let’s wait and see if it stays viable, after all 100y ago cycling was basically gravel and it died a death when roads became commonplace, Bmx didn’t stay popular, Cyclocross is only having its moment because of a few names, ice skating has never taken off outside a few countries, rollerskating has been forgotten even if it was shortly reinvented as blading, etc.
The biggest problem of all with sport (and/or) splitting off in different directions is the risk of killing the little that was there. I’m not saying gravel will kill the TdF or Monuments or that boxing didn’t grow due to splitting but I’ve also seen the opposite. Cycling at the lower levels is a precarious thing. I’ve lived in a cycling country that got divided into 3 federations, the result, same number of riders (initially) but split into several races that compete for the same dates, ie race sizes which were often already sad have dropped to pathetic levels. In some categories you’re practically guaranteed a medal and points just by finishing and the number of medals has tripled, everyone’s a winner now but without merit. That was initially, now numbers are rock bottom because a whole bunch of enthusiasts just no longer enjoy the effort to go to a race not knowing if it will be one. So yes, fine if you can grow the overall user base significantly and sustainably but maybe someone should come with a backup plan? After all, we’re not doing that well and if we all quit the roads even more, drivers will lobby to never let us back on again.

1. Not gravel racing specifically, the gravel model.
2. The UCI isn't responsible for the success of pro road racing (mainly in Europe), but is detrimental to it being better. That's why almost no-one does UCI races in the US anymore.
3. Demand is mainly a natural phenomenon. People say you can build it, and you can a bit by supplying what people want (then they demand it), but that's an argument against the UCI, as they purposely stop innovation, which is a spectacle that people want to see.
4. The backup plan is the gravel model. That's why it grew while UCI cycling failed.
5. There will always be professional cycling as long as there are bike manufacturers (above a rock bottom level). The highest paid might be paid less, but just try to imagine the Tour not existing! Also, if people like me will pay to race (not be paid), there will always be bike races to watch. With video coverage of races getting less expensive (drones, go-pros), we will always have race coverage of some sort as well.
I guess what I'm realizing is that the entire economic model of cycling is 40+ years out of date, and it wouldn't cost much at all to compete with it, if Unbound and the Lifetime Grand Prix actually cared to.
-An Economist