EXPOSING Tour De France’s Most CONTROVERSIAL Question

EXPOSING Tour De France’s Most CONTROVERSIAL Question

In early 2024, an idea came out from Team Movistar that got a blend of both positive and negative feedback. The team’s boss exposed an important question that’s kind of been in the Tour’s shadow for many years now: Should teams be allowed to replace sick or injured riders at the Tour de France and other grand tours? So naturally, the counter question is, how would this make the sport better, or perhaps, worse?

Do you want to see more? Subscribe now to watch WATTS anytime, anywhere: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpgkDU23KmxnRGCxz2y8NdQ

In early 2024, an idea came out from Team  Movistar that got a blend of both positive   and negative feedback. The team’s boss exposed  an important question that’s kind of been in the   Tour’s shadow for many years now: Should teams  be allowed to replace sick or injured riders at  

The Tour de France and other grand tours? So  naturally, the counter question is, how would   this make the sport better, or perhaps, worse? See, the purpose behind Movistar’s proposed   bold “replacement theory” is to make the sport  more “humane.” Without a doubt, being able to  

Simply swap a rider with another substitution  would stop riders from racing into situations   where they risk serious injuries that could end  their careers. But not only that, it could also   help a team salvage their season if their main  rider gets injured on the first day of a race. 

When this all would mean is that riders  who get sick or injured during the first   week of a grand tour could be substituted  with other riders. Also, riders who finish   a stage after needing medical help could  be given the chance to race the next day. 

But as good as all this might sound, are the ideas  coming from Movistar truly as revolutionizing as   they seem, and could they really make the sport  better? Or would they just cause too much trouble   to be worth dealing with, since teams could  exploit the “replacement theory” as a tactic  

To manipulate the rules for their benefit? Now, when you first hear the idea and the   philosophy behind it, it doesn’t sound bad  at all. Cycling is ultimately a team effort.   While individual performance determines the  winner, everyone needs backup. They’re not  

Suggesting swapping out a top rider midway or  subbing a sprinter for a climber right before   a tough mountain stage to boost their chances. The basic idea is to have a team of 10 riders   to start, but only race with 8. If 2 riders  get hurt or sick in the first week or first  

Half of the race, they could be replaced  with those spare two riders. And then,   the new riders brought in to replace the injured  ones would of course have restrictions. They could   only help the team and wouldn’t be eligible  for individual awards like winning a stage  

Or being ranked in the overall standings. To add more riders to a team’s roster, which   usually has only eight starters, would level the  playing field and make the race more competitive   as it progresses. Plus, it would definitely make  it even more entertaining to watch. In case a  

Team’s main GC rider gets injured, that wouldn’t  instantly mean that team is out of the picture,   if there were substitutions. In every Tour, some  teams face illness or crashes, while others are   lucky and make it to Paris without major issues. Last year, for example, Team Movistar’s main GC  

Captain Enric Mas crashed out on the first stage,  despite all the preparation and investment they   put in. All the hard work literally got erased in  a second, and so did the chances of succeeding in  

A race that only happens once a year. And not that  they wanted to replace Mas with another GC rider,   not at all. It just seems like replacing  an exiting rider to at least support the   remaining ones would be a reasonable thing to  allow. And honestly, it probably wouldn’t even  

Change the final outcome that much at all. Movistar also suggested that it would be   better for all riders if they weren’t pushed so  hard. The idea of riders being forced to endure   extreme conditions and the term “prisoners of  the road” just seem a bit outdated, don’t they? 

But of course, as with anything else, this could  lead to teams trying to manipulate the system by   pretending their riders are sick to bring in  replacements for a strategic advantage. To   prevent this, there would need to be strict rules  and limits, and an independent panel of experts  

Would have to make the final decision. Thinking  logically, in case the replacement riders could   only act as domestiques, without classified  times and the permission to win stages, their   only function would be to help a team’s remaining  riders have a fairer chance to compete. With the  

Rise of “super teams” and the increasing disparity  between wealthy and less affluent teams, balancing   the playing field could actually be a good idea. But then again, whenever there’s a good side to a   story, there’s usually a pretty strong counter  argument as well. And it exists here too. The  

Simplest thing to ask is just “Why?”. Some people  on social media were furious about the idea   of allowing replacements in cycling. One of the  comments was: “Replacements? No way! What’s next,   radios that let directors talk to riders? Strain  gauges on bikes that measure a rider’s power  

Output?” So, as you can see, not everyone agrees. But most of the cycling world is actually   somewhere in the middle when it  comes to picking a side. To be fair,   the idea as a whole is valid, but making it  fair and practical might be too difficult to  

Achieve. Some would even argue it’s impossible. Movistar said that there should be more compassion   and understanding in professional cycling, and  the sport should be more “humane”. The sport’s   traditions and rules often push riders to ignore  their pain and keep going no matter what, and if  

That could be changed, little would disagree. But there are just far too many ways in which   clever team managers could take advantage of  Movistar’s “replacement theory.” Have a rider   feeling a bit off after a rough few nights?  Team morale low after a tough start? With a  

Bit of trickery, the struggling rider could  be replaced with someone new and energized,   ready to support their team’s riders to  victory, or at least a podium or a good result.  Allowing rider swaps, even just in the first  week, leaves too much room for sneaky tactics  

And manipulation. Every change can be exploited  in a sport where little changes can make all   the difference. In case something like this was  indeed introduced, the UCI would need strict rules   to stop teams from exploiting it. They wouldn’t  be able to switch a sprinter for a climber after  

Flat stages or replace a rouleur right after a  Roubaix stage, or a, or b, or c. There are so   many possible restrictions and situations that  would be possible that it would take UCI a lot   of time and stress to even come up with them. And what’s more, every replacement during a  

Grand tour would become a controversial topic  discussed for weeks, or maybe even months,   afterward. If the winning team had replaced a  rider in the first week, there would always be   an asterisk next to their record in the books, and  people would see their achievement differently. 

Likewise, every past tour would be criticized  by the teams that didn’t win, who might claim   they could have done better if they had been  able to replace injured teammates before the   end. But that’s not really a valid argument,  since if those rules weren’t in place back then,  

You can’t really change anything, as  everyone was in the same position.  Thinking logically, Movistar’s suggestion  about allowing riders who finish outside the   time limit to continue racing has more merit.  If a rider crashes and needs medical attention   or treatment for injuries like concussion or  bandaging, they shouldn’t have to rush back to  

The main group to avoid being kicked out of the  race. That’s actually not humane when you think   about it. Nobody likes watching severely bloodied  and bandaged-up riders with torn apart jerseys,   time trialing through the convoy after getting  quickly checked out. It just isn’t pretty to  

Watch, and it makes everyone nervous. If a rider clearly can’t make the time   cut after getting medical help, they should get  another chance the next day. That’s not too much   to ask for. But yes, even though all this sounds  amazing on paper, we must repeat the same thing  

We’ve talked about earlier again: Can the idea  be exploited? And the answer is sadly obvious.  Plus, let’s be honest, some of the most  thrilling racing happens when a team is   under pressure. Recent events have proven that  teams with only a few riders can still deliver  

Incredible performances against all odds. Despite  that though, Movistar’s ideas should be applauded,   since they’ve got a valid point. But sadly,  they would likely never work, and brutal or not,   cycling is going to have to stay old-school,  the way we’re used to it right now. But what  

Do you think? Should teams be allowed to  replace sick or injured riders at the Tour   de France and other grand tours? Or would that  cause a complete chaos inside the peloton, with   countless teams abusing the new set of rules for  their own benefit? Let us know in the comments!