Sunday, June 20, 2021
HomeBlogsMeridian-Kamen Pro David Mclean's BlogPhil Hindes, the UCI and the Rules

Phil Hindes, the UCI and the Rules

-

Phil Hindes

You all know the story by now, Phil Hindes didn’t like his start in the team sprint so he deliberately fell off to get a restart. The rule exists so that if you fall off or pull your foot out you get a second shot, it’s like the second serve in tennis.

The trouble is there is another rule that effectively says you are not to abuse this privilege, on pain of disqualification, from the round or the entire competition depending on severity. Since it’s usually impossible for the commissaire to judge with 100% certainty if it was an accident or not (however obvious it is) the rule has (to my knowledge) never been enforced.

The trouble was that Hindes admitted to faking his fall to the BBC’s Jill Douglas (and the world) afterwards. For the first time (possibly ever) the rule could be applied. Fortunately the good and fair British patriots breathed a sigh of relief as Hindes got let off the hook.

Never had so many sighs been breathed on so many sofas over such a small rule infringement.

You all know the story by now, Phil Hindes didn’t like his start in the team sprint so he deliberately fell off to get a restart. The rule exists so that if you fall off or pull your foot out you get a second shot, it’s like the second serve in tennis.
Phil Hindes gets it a bit ‘crossed up’, and decides to bale.

If you are as focussed on winning as team GB are then rules like that pretty much have to be abused, perhaps reluctantly, but still, winning is winning right? Right? You’ve gotta do what you’ve gotta do? Right?

The only people to protest were the French squad they were racing against, a team who I am sure have done the same many a time before, they want to win too remember? See previous rhetorical questions.

This is an old rule, everyone should have known it, it was only Hindes’s admission that caused the “problem” of it being able to be enforced.

The real problem however isn’t so much with Hindes but with the rule itself, he is a human being, that means he has human nature and that means he and his team will take advantage of unenforceable rules. As these things go it’s not a big deal, so long as you stick to the script no one gets in trouble, or is it?

The very existence of an unenforceable asks a moral question of every athlete that partakes in that sport. The rule can be broken but no one will know. Does this moral dilemma ring any bells? Anyone? I’m not going to say it but you all should be thinking it.

Sometimes this isn’t possible, sometimes the technology simply doesn’t exist to make sure there is no cheating. The best approach to rule writing in this situation is to be pragmatic. It is perhaps tragic that the most effective methods to prevent doping (there, I said it) can’t ever really prevent it, only reduce it.

The biopassport is one such example; it is simultaneously the most effective anti-doping tool in sport and a shoulder-shrugging admission of defeat at the same time. Whilst a well written set of rules prevents you from cheating the pragmatic biopassport says “you can dope if you want to, just don’t take the piss”.

I’m not accusing anyone of doping here, least of all Hindes, I’m just drawing a parallel to highlight the seriousness of bad rule writing. And yeah, I was trying to be controversial.

For more terrible rule writing and poor enforcement keep watching the track cycling. I just love how the commissaires compensate for it by creating and enforcing the most pointless rules in their repertoire. See the women’s team sprint debacle to get my point.

What next? A Rule for Sock length? Oh wait, they’ve already done that.

Related Articles

Whats going on, David McLean?

It’s been a while since David McLean posted, he intended to do something a little more regularly but unfortunately he's been preoccupied with health problems for much longer than expected.

Chronic Doping Scandal Fatigue

I have chronic-doping-scandal-fatigue. We always knew that Lance Armstrong literally had a never-say-die attitude. Perhaps in recent days this fact has become more abundantly clear even than when he was actually on his deathbed. He’s had a lawsuit chucked out of court within a few hours of submitting it because it was so terrible; it was for a restraining order against the US anti-doping agency. It was 80 pages long and contained “improper argument, rhetoric, [and] irrelevant material”, not my words, the judge’s. Lance Armstrong just got benchslapped.

Keep Racing on the Roads. Please

There is no doubt that British cycling is alive and well at the highest echelons of performance - Britons won the Tour, the world champs and pretty much the entire velodrome; there's also no doubt that British cycling is alive and kicking at the grass roots level too - membership has doubled since 2007. It makes sense to assume that all is well in between, too, right? Unfortunately not; BC is the governing body for beginner’s racing, Regional racing (2nd and 3rd cats), all levels of women's road racing, National level racing (Elites and 1st cats) and the semi professional/professional teams below Sky. All of these parts of the sport are in trouble - but particularly at the higher end.

Fan lessons 101: The Lance Armstrong situation, Heroes, Heroism and Amorality

I was chatting to a friend the other day who expressed how sad he was about the whole Lance Armstrong situation; I think that is something we can all agree on... Heroes, Heroism and Amorality. Then later in the conversation he went on to say how he hoped Sky were clean, thus setting himself up for more potential sadness and disappointment.

The Tour of Hellas and some Greek Economics

On Wednesday I shall be riding the UCI 2.2 Tour of Hellas which so far as I can tell is basically the Tour of Greece. There are five stages in all and they are all fairly hilly but not too steep, which is good for me (if I am riding well).