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

Cycling
Thursday, 20 February 2025 at 09:33
joshuatarling
The UCI has officially banned the INEOS Grenadiers' helmet, the Kask Aero Pro Visor. Despite receiving less than 24 hours' notice before the UAE Tour, the ruling did not prevent Joshua Tarling from securing victory in the stage 2 time trial.
Tarling, who claimed the bronze medal in the time trial at the 2023 World Championships, continues to be one of the most exciting prospects against the clock.
The jury communique stated: "The Commissaires Panel informs all Sports Directors that the Equipment Commission of the UCI prohibits the use of the following kinds of visors of the following brand, Kask.
"Therefore, the riders who do not have a different helmet shall take the start without those visors for tomorrow’s stage."
A spokesperson for Kask explained the situation to Cycling Weekly: "We received the communication from the UCI regarding the ban of the KASK Aero Pro Visor and KASK Aero Pro Visor 2.0 less than 24 hours before the time trial at the UAE Tour.
"Despite the very short notice, we took immediate action to comply with this communication, working closely with the race commissioners. We have always supported the UCI and complied with their regulations, and we always will."
INEOS Grenadiers sports director Oli Cookson emphasised the team's adaptability: "We found a good resolution, especially with the chief commissaire here, who’s been incredible working with us.
"We’re always looking to work within the rules and also to push the sport forward, and that will be with our sponsors and materials as well. I think there’s always that balance."
Cookson reflected on the behind-the-scenes efforts: "Let’s just say we were the swan’s legs, and the riders were the swan above the water.
"Everything was managed around that. There’s a lot of good people in the team, and we had options in place."
claps 1visitors 1
9 Comments
Mistermaumau 20 February 2025 at 14:43+ 3842

Jeez, what’s all the lazy reporting and reading here?

The helmet is NOT banned, it’s the visor that goes with it, they can ride with the helmet without the visor and as the visor probably doesn’t fit any other helmet it’s no big deal.

That’s the price you pay for not submitting your new gadgets for approval in time.

Besides, any half logical engineer would have expected a magnetic accessory to be banned, too easy for it to fly or be knocked off and cause mayhem in a peleton, like loose or respectlessly discarded water bottles.

User Avatar
leedorney 22 February 2025 at 17:33+ 781

UCI as usual, spoiling the fun 👎

acem82 22 February 2025 at 17:33+ 565

Meanwhile, the UCI is allowing roundabouts in the last KM to be unmarked, causing most of the peloton to go the wrong way.
We need to abolish the UCI and their control-freaks need to be fully banned from cycling.

Mistermaumau 22 February 2025 at 05:37+ 3842

And who will take over?

acem82 24 February 2025 at 22:50+ 565

Why does there need to be centralized control at all?

Mistermaumau 25 February 2025 at 07:27+ 3842

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.

acem82 01 March 2025 at 16:15+ 565

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.)

Mistermaumau 26 February 2025 at 12:49+ 3842

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.

acem82 27 February 2025 at 17:29+ 565

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.

Mistermaumau 27 February 2025 at 09:58+ 3842

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.

acem82 01 March 2025 at 16:17+ 565

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

mobk 01 March 2025 at 16:17+ 1752

You are missing the point. Sure they went the wrong way, but they went the wrong way with the right sock height.

Just in

Popular news

Latest comments