Whatever the topic, After you talk about it with Guercilena for a while, you realize that her approach is always very rational.Analysis, synthesis, conclusion. And where the latter isn't possible, it's replaced by a hypothesis or a question. The same is true on the subject of security., after its women's team was disqualified for the GPS of Romandie, after the UCI proposed a series of measures that were more superficial than effective and the limitation of gear ratios, immediately banned by the Belgian guarantor.
Meanwhile the averages are rising and it is not clear if and how it is possible limit group speedsIt's not even clear whether it's necessary to intervene on bikes, roads, or something else. Probably because No one has yet done a complete and serious analysis.
«I am convinced – says the team manager of the Lidl Trek – that the safety issue must be addressed through safe materials. Speed improvement is inherent in performance technology. So even if we decided to limit one material, research and development would still go towards developing a faster one. Do we decide to impose 35" wheels? Engineering will make 35" wheels aerodynamic and with a moment of inertia equal to 90" ones, so certain limitations will never be long-lasting solutions.
The problem is that performance is improving, while roads are getting worse…
The point is exactly this. One of the points to be addressed is the attention to road protectionsIt would help a lot if there were an effective system, which would obviously also be expensive, to better protect certain points. And then comes the aspect of the materials, which however must be studied and thought about in a scientific wayWe need regulations that ensure greater safety and the right way to enforce them. But in my opinion, it's not all about speed.
What else is there?
A question of cultural approach. You have to get into the mindset that at a certain point you can even stop.In my opinion, one of the key issues is that fairness among athletes has diminished somewhat, because the average age of the group continues to decline. Consequently, the swagger of the 18-year-old contrasts with the maturity of the older athletes, who have a different reasoning in identifying the moment in which it is better to brake rather than kill themselves.
Are you telling us that it's possible to tell a rider to run a little slower?
I'm talking about my own. For a while now, we've been telling them: "Guys, the risk has to be controlled. I mean, between having you out for three months and finishing second, you're finishing second!" The investment I make on Ayuso, Ciccone, Milan, Skjelmose or Pedersen is not trivialSure, for God's sake, if you have to take risks for the sprint that's worth the victory, then take the risk. But if you have to crash on the bend with 70 kilometers to go and be out for a month, then no. They have to slow down, because the athlete's value is so high that you add it up at the end of the season, not on a single raceIf you have to win Flanders, that's one thing, but I'll never tell a rider to risk his neck with 20 km to go because we have to position ourselves well in the sprint at the Tour du Poitou-Charentes. We all know that falls hurt. and in my opinion the discussion should be much more scientific and analyzed in detail.
You talked about the boldness of 18-year-old riders…
By the laws of the market the average age of the group is decreasingI'm joining in too, I don't want to act good and say that others are bad. We let people go from one winter to the next, going from the 90 kilometers of the junior races to the 290 of the SanremoIt is inevitable that the risks increase. Even just from a physiological point of view, the lucidity that an 18 year old boy can have after 290 kilometers compared to that of a seasoned professional, who has already had gradual experiences to get to that point, is completely different and therefore the risk increases.
Do you think the WorldTour group would be open to slowing down on such early stages?
I don't think so, so theoretically it's very nice, but on a practical level, perhaps it's actually quicker to get your hands on the materials and the bicyclesBut it's clear that we'd choose the easiest solution, thinking it's the best. In my opinion, however, an analysis makes sense if I conduct it scientifically. If I apply criteria that make sense. So, faced with the clear evidence of the numbers, no one can make any objections.The problem is that we rely on opinions and continue to be stuck.
How do you make a credible analysis?
Serve a working group to analyze labor laws, involving the riders' association, the agents and the sports groups. It is also necessary to carry out long-term analyses, involving experts. There must be people from our environment in the commissions, but the objective analysis and the solution must come from people with the professional capacity and appropriate experience to solve the problem.
Should we start with a more serious analysis?
Do we have a detailed analysis of the reckless increase in falls since the 70s? Are we talking about the damage caused by a single fall, or are we actually talking about the volume of riders who fell and the extent of the damage? There are no longitudinal statisticsWe can't say whether you fall more or less in the first 100 kilometers than in the last 20. I assume that in the first 100 kilometers you fall due to distraction, while in the last 5 kilometers it's due to risk in the sprint. But this too is an opinion, and opinions don't find solutions. Opinion must be the starting point, then a real and scientific analysis must be done and entrust the experts with the task of finding the answers.
Have you collected any statistics?
In the last 2-3 years, we've started doing this with the doctors. In reality, the number of fractures hasn't increased, and it's not true that people are falling more. However, the number of riders involved in the same fall is different.It's like a plane crash compared to a car accident. The riders are all fresher, they're all better trained, the group is very compact, and if you crash, you all crash together.
You mentioned opinions as a starting point. What would you do?
We invest in technology to find an airbag in your helmet or jersey that, in the event of a crash, protects your head and spine. I would invest tons of money in airbag systems that are the same for everyone, that protect you in the event of a fall and avoid injury.Because falls will always happen, they're part of our sport.
How accidents were part of Formula One…
But first they found the fireproof suit, then the helmet. Then they intervened on the guardrails and at that point, even though they limited the engines, the speeds increased again. Cycling is different, you don't race on a circuit with escape routes and protections, but in my opinion the starting point must be to identify what really makes you feel safe and then work your way up to everything else. The focus must be on the rider and then the structure of the road.
Or you do as Pidcock says and avoid filling up on carbohydrates…
He said it as a joke, but theoretically he's right. I limit energy intake and in the end the one who has the best ability to manage himself wins. If instead everyone has the possibility to put 120 grams of carbohydratesIn the end, the whole group is strong, because nutrition is now moving in that direction. But what do we do? Do we limit all the nutritional aspects that try to impact normal life? It would be a counterproductive and above all anachronistic job., because development is moving in that direction. And in my opinion, development, whatever its scope, must be safeguarded.
