If Luke Rowe and Marlen Reusser were watching the men’s Road World Championships on Sunday, they could be forgiven for being a little confused, maybe even angry.
As cameras switched back to the Mathieu Van der Poel group at 58 km to go, the Dutch rider could be seen bunnyhopping onto the sidewalk to his right and accelerating past his chase group companions to bridge across to several riders just ahead. Unsurprisingly given Van der Poel’s skills, the whole move is incredibly smooth, perfectly executed, and quick as a flash. It was also against the rules.
Both Rowe and Reusser have previously been immediately disqualified from major race – Rowe from the 2018 Tour of Flanders and Reusser from this year’s Gent-Wevelgem – for deviating from the legal course. As both those riders (and several others) have found out the hard way, there’s a rule against the practice and the UCI has not been shy about enforcing it.
So they – and sharp-eyed fans watching – no doubt had questions when Van der Poel hopped onto a footpath at speed and in close proximity to spectators – some of whom hadn’t spotted what was happening. Furthermore, if he had not taken to the footpath, he either 1) wouldn’t have bridged across to the riders just in front or 2) would have had to slow down and go behind and around his chase group companions on the other side instead, a longer path that would have taken a much bigger effort to sprint across the gap to the riders ahead.
In other words, it could be argued Van der Poel both endangered spectators and gained an advantage; both elements are noted in the rule banning riding on footpaths and, crucially, just one must be present for the UCI to sanction the rider in question. But – here’s the part where Rowe and Reusser might get angry – the commissaires took no action with the defending champ going on to secure a bronze medal at the finish line.
Why wasn’t Van der Poel disqualified as they were? This is where things get a little messy, and arguably all the more confusing for those previously sanctioned for similar infringements. Clearly disqualifying van der Poel would have been a massive call, one which would have overshadowed the entire race and one which would take a brave commissaire to make. Rules are rules and should apply the same to one and all, but what makes the lack of punishment even more puzzling is that a DSQ isn’t the only penalty tool available to commissaires in this instance. In fact, the real question isn’t so much why Van der Poel wasn’t disqualified as why Rowe and Reusser were.
What the rules say and how they’ve been enforced
Article 2.2.025 of the UCI regulations states “it is strictly prohibited to use sidewalks, paths or cycle paths that do not form part of the course … If a dangerous situation is created inter alia for other riders, spectators or race personnel by such action or if such action procures a significant advantage over other riders, the rider will be sanctioned in accordance with article 2.12.007.”
Luke Rowe arguably had no choice but to take to the path with a flick in the peloton initially forcing him onto the road side and then a retreating spectator forcing him to take evasive action and going further off the road onto the bike path, but still he was almost immedately ejected from the race.
Reusser claimed she had similarly been forced onto the path to avoid a crash with around 3 km remaining in this year’s Gent-Wevelgem, although no crash was visible on TV (unlike Van der Poel she was not a factor in the sprint finish). Both Rowe and Reusser lost considerable ground in their incidents and as such gained no advantage, but they did end up riding behind spectators which could be considered dangerous.
Reusser’s disqualification came just eight months after the UCI announced a 30-day ban for Filip Maciejuk after the then-Bahrain Victorious rider had caused a serious crash at last year’s Tour of Flanders. In the announcement of Maciejuk’s ban, the UCI reiterated it was committed to “continuing its work to make road cycling a safer sport for riders” and reminded riders that it is “strictly prohibited for riders to use sidewalks, lanes or cycle paths that do not form part of the race course and that any breach of the rules of safety or care which causes immediate risk to others shall be subject to disciplinary action.”
Finally, James Lowsley-Williams and Bryan Lewis were both ejected from the 2017 Tour of Britain for mounting the path, despite said incidents taking place on paths with no spectators in sight, although arguably both did gain an advantage. Against those examples, the complete lack of any penalty for Van der Poel stands out.
Why wasn’t Van der Poel DSQ’d then?
We don’t have information on all the cases where riders diverted onto footpaths and weren’t sanctioned but the above incidents, in particular Reusser’s from this spring, indicate that commissaires are watching for riders who break the rule and will step in with penalties. We also don’t know why the commissaires officiating on those days decided a disqualification was necessary, when a fine was also an option.
But now, just months after Reusser’s DSQ and over a year on from Maciejuk’s ban and public reminder, the UCI has turned a blind eye to Van der Poel’s path riding offence, creating at least the appearance of favourable treatment for one of the sport’s stars.
In fact, this isn’t even Van der Poel’s first offence. He also escaped any penalty or fine for this footpath mounting and blatant corner-cutting infraction back in the 2018 Dwars door het Hageland although no spectators were present and he gained no advantage.
Interestingly, though, the commissaires at Worlds needn’t have worried about creating a race-changing controversy by disqualifying Van der Poel. The penalty for riding on a sidewalk as laid out in column one for World Championships level events is a 250-1000 CHF fine, a 25 point UCI deduction, and, since August 1 this year, a yellow card. A disqualification is reserved for “serious cases” at the commissaires’ discretion.
We have checked the UCI communique from yesterday’s race and Van der Poel received no fine, points deduction or yellow card. But why? Some penalty was clearly called for and it wouldn’t have changed the race outcome or results sheet; Van der Poel would have retained his bronze medal and neither the points deduction nor the fine – likely paid by the Dutch federation anyway – would have caused him any pain. In other words, it should have been an easy decision.
One could speculate as to why the defending World Champion and superstar cyclist wasn’t sanctioned for a rule violation in the finale of the UCI’s flagship event. One could also ask whether a lesser rider in a lesser race would have got off so lightly. But perhaps the more appropriate question is why Rowe, Reusser and others have been disqualified previously. Were their offences really much more egregious than Van der Poel’s?
Whatever the reason for the difference, the non-application of the rules is just the latest example in a list of examples of favourable treatment for the sport’s highest-profile riders. Last year we had Wout van Aert avoid any penalty at the E3 Saxo Classic despite a clear infringement of the rule explicitly prohibiting chain lubing or mechanical assistance from a moving vehicle in the closing kilometres.
It’s not only male superstar riders who benefit; the year prior it was Annemiek van Vleuten who won the World Championships with aero socks that clearly violated the sock height rule and a non-compliant skinsuit. She escaped with just a fine despite the UCI’s own table of penalties explicitly stating the sanction for such an offence is disqualification and a fine.
This year it was Van der Poel, and while we don’t know why he has twice evaded penalties for the same offence, the pattern leaves one to wonder if a lesser name would be just as lucky or if the next rider to hop onto a path can use Van der Poel’s case to appeal for leniency.
This all could of course be simple human error, but this seems unlikely given it’s not one single commissaire who’d make this call but a jury panel and the UCI now uses video footage to aid with such decision making. That said, the video assistant referee (VAR) in soccer proves that human error can still impact a match. It’s also possible the commissaires on the day wrongly thought disqualification was the only applicable penalty, as many on Twitter (X) did, and as such sidestepped what they saw as a hugely controversial decision not knowing a much easier one was available to them.
But commissaires, while not full-time employees, are supposed to be intimately familiar with the rules, including its penalties. Part of the problem is the UCI has a habit of writing vague rules that leave plenty of grey area to play in, but even when they are black and white like this they are applying them pretty inconsistently. If the UCI’s sometimes-ridiculous rules are to mean anything, they should be applied evenly to all, or they should be dropped.
Did we do a good job with this story?