He may have been one of the stars of the first two series of Netflix’s fly-on-the-wall Tour de France documentary – after all, who doesn’t love a tense and moody post-stage, mid-massage debrief scene? – but Tom Pidcock won’t be heading to cycling’s biggest race in 2025, the British star confirmed in an interview with BBC Sport at the weekend.
Following his long, drawn-out transfer from the Ineos Grenadiers to second-tier Q36.5 Pro Cycling over the winter, Pidcock and his team are now reliant on wildcard invitations to WorldTour races, including the grand tours and most important classics.
And with the Tour’s final two invites set to be handed out to either breakaway-hungry Uno-X, Julian Alaphilippe’s Tudor squad, or French outfit TotalEnergies, Q36.5’s chances of making it to the start line in Lille on 5 July are somewhat slim, double Olympic champion on the books are otherwise.
Not that Pidcock, who’s had a love-hate relationship with the Tour and the pressures of riding for GC over the past few years, seems to mind that much.
(Georg Lindacher)
“We’ll have a year out from the Tour and try to get to the Tour in 2026,” the 25-year-old, who won a stage of the 2022 race atop Alpe d’Huez, told the BBC.
“I’m happy I’ve got a year out from it, a break. When I come back, it’ll be with a refreshed energy.”
While the former Amstel Gold and Strade Bianche winner is happy to sit out the Tour – where he appeared to be visibly bristling against the GC-focused demands placed upon him by Ineos at the race last year – for one year at least, he remains confident Q36.5 will secure invites to the events he’s most focused on: the one-day classics.
In fact, Pidcock is almost certain to race this year’s traditional Belgian Opening Weekend of Omloop Het Nieuwsblad and Kuurne-Brussel-Kuurne, with the aim of taking in a full spring campaign with the Swiss squad.
(Zac Williams/SWpix.com)
“We don’t have full control over the calendar, we have to get invited,” he added. “But in theory we should have all the races that I want to do.”
Meanwhile, at Q36.5’s media day in Calpe yesterday, Pidcock told reporters, including Daniel Benson, that his decision to break his contract with Ineos early, amid an apparent breakdown in his relationship with the British team, was “business, not personal”.
“Things were just not going how it was originally envisioned at Ineos and how I had imagined it. The solution, the mutual solution, was to end the contract, which was the best,” Pidcock said during a press conference.
The 25-year-old was sensationally dropped at the last minute from the Ineos squad for Il Lombardia in October following months of tension within the struggling squad, kicking off a protracted transfer saga that ultimately led to Pidcock leaving the team he turned pro with in 2021, and signing a three-year deal with Q36.5 in December.
But, the Yorkshire all-rounder says, there was no specific moment that hastened his departure from Ineos.
(Zac Williams/SWpix.com)
“Things were just not going how it was originally envisioned at Ineos and how I had imagined it. The solution, the mutual solution, was to end the contract, which was the best,” he said when asked why he moved teams.
“It wasn’t a specific moment. It had been going on for a while. There’s no secret that last year was difficult for me, and Ineos I guess. It was more of a gradual thing.”
Pidcock then pointed to the changes that have taken place within Ineos since he signed four years ago, including the departure of team principal Dave Brailsford.
Meanwhile, it’s also clear that he will be afforded more freedom at Q36.5, where his off-road and classics ambitions won’t be stifled by an apparent desire for further success at grand tours, which seemed to be the main, and somewhat overbearing desire, at Ineos, a team formerly dominant at cycling’s three-week races.
(Zac Williams/SWpix.com)
“To be perfectly honest with you, I’m struggling to give an answer to that question because I’ve actually moved on,” Pidcock insisted when asked again why his spell at Ineos had ended in such acrimonious fashion.
“That team was my second family and I had great memories there but it was time to change. I accepted that a long time ago and I’m fully focused here and that’s not a scripted answer, I’m just very good at putting things behind me and moving on.
“Ineos was a fantastic team. They have their motivations and goals, and how they want to achieve them but at the end of the day what happened with me was business, it wasn’t personal.
“I signed my contract with different people who run the team now and that did create some difficulties, just from what I imagined it would be like to what happened but they still gave me every support in things they wanted to achieve.
“I had a lot of people were questioning why I had come to this team and saying these are my prime years, and that I should be winning as much as possible. But it’s not all about winning. It’s about the story you write, who you write it with, and what you achieve.
“It’s not only about winning, it’s about what you build, and here I can gain more satisfaction than anywhere else.”
Add new comment
31 comments
Wondered if there'd be a slot to file my notes on pushing 13-months granddaughter downhill from Shooters Hill to Woolwich yesterday evening. Good cycle lanes on both sides of road (which I use on my 7-speed heavy town bike with luggage and my cf Roubaix Ultegra). Just three bikes used them: 2 pedal cycles well lit, one fast, one struggling uphill; one an unlit fat tyred emotorbike doing way more than the 20mph limit. Meanwhile, three bikes squeezed past us on pavement: two stealth, unlit; one well lit and moving carefully but, of course, still illegally; one hopped onto pavement, brushing against us from behind my left shoulder as I'd just crossed Nightingale Place junction with A205.
At least half of all people on pedal or electric powered 2 wheeled vehicles in SE London appear to be completely unaware Highway Code exists, and... never members of Tufty Club, nor heard of Green Cross Code or done Cycling Proficiency.
Being rush hour, hundreds of cars which never posed a threat or came close to us. And cars paused to let us cross, as in Highway Code Priorities.
I've started wearing a dayglow yellow waistcoat when walking or running to give bikes no excuse. Also carry walking pole to bring my pace up to 4mph and to hold in front of me as bikes charge along pavements and footpaths that are not bridleways or designated cycle paths.
In days before ebikes, I'd stop at lights, see hesitation in pedestrians and then feel their fear as a pedal cycle or two raced past me and through them. Then I'd catch and overtake till next set of lights. With ebikes, I can't catch up and, of course, a little voice inside says, "Why bother? Everyone does it, just ride through lights yourself. You look stupid stopping for pedestrians when nobody else does." I understand that's a deep behavioral psychology instinct that we have to fight consciously if we are to live well in a big city based world that's so very different from how we evolved - like urban foxes are modifying how they relate with other foxes due to unnatural population densities.
In morning, corrected an elderly but still vigorous Daily Mail reading neighbour about 'Road tax' and a couple of car:bike issues. Surprisingly, he took it very well and changed his assumptions. That was after I'd prepared the ground by noting why I was now wearing the dayglo waistcoat & using a walking pole. I'd prepared the ground by conceding that there are plenty of rogue bike riders. Both of us have wives who are much less nimble than we are, so bicycles on pavements are far greater threats to them than are cars on roads. Both of us now have to drive our wives to appointments, shops, etc
I think with electric vehicles - hire bikes, hire scooters, illegal privately owned scooters - the problem is that many of the people using them are not giving up their cars to move to electric transport.
Many of them will be going from pedestrianising to scootering, have little or no experience of riding a human powered vehicle or even an ICE vehicle, and in their heads they are just a faster pedestrian rather than a genuine vehicle. Hence the riding on footways, riding through lights, etc.
In my experience*, it's the riders of those hire bikes, hire scooters, and illegal privately owned scooters who are FAR more likely to just carry on through red lights.
*Confirmation bias may apply.
You have to love a car v bike article comment section in the local papers to see the huge success that our education system is.
"Fine those cyclists in dark clothing and no lights that I see everywhere at night!"
"Food delivery riders running red lights (so they can get my dinner to my lazy arse before I complain!).
"Cyclists should get off the pavement and use the cycle paths (that I drive in).
"I park in the cycle lane because I've never seen a cyclist use them!!!"
Road tax, helmets, follow the rules (especially the made up ones).
Etc...
"Why can't they just drive like everyone else?" (and contribute to the dreadful congestion I keep banging on about. Of course in the UK this would be a minor thing most places with our percent or lower cycling modal share - though even at say 5%-10% you'd notice because motor vehicles are so space-inefficient).
"Why are we spending all this money on cyclists?" (same reason as we spend money on street lights, traffic lights, roundabouts, pedestrian crossings, footways ... because people driving motor vehicles present a much greater risk to everyone around them - including other drivers,. And indeed to themselves. And while we have mass motoring with human drivers * infra is required to reduce that risk. But what they mean is "the money spent on someone else could be spend on me").
* Not necessarily faultless with non-human drivers either - although from the signs we know that "red squirrels drive slowly".
One I saw this morning:
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/urgent-investigation-he...
And, BTL in the comments:
"This is a problem and so are cyclist's headlights. Why do they not have them dipped??"
In what?
About 20 years ago, my Exposure Strada II came with two settings: full beam and urban (effectively a dim-dip setting). 600 lumens was huge for its time (and £240 at Earls Court Cycle Show but worth every penny and only just died). I did check. Dip setting in town was necessary.
Well... if we are to complain about cars, we have to be 100% flawless in our own behaviour, else our whole case is undermined. Cf Starmer's stupid acceptance of small gifts vs Tory £millions of corruption.
But, as I say around here, it's a lighting arms race. The days when Wonderlights were enough for A21 dual carriageway at night in February rain from East Ham to Tunbridge Wells are long gone! Cars blind cars, especially when cresting speed bumps. My Exposure Strada II, at 600 lumens, came with a dip setting nearly 20 years ago - I checked and realised full beam pointed straight forward was blinding and I didn't want a blind 1.5 ton metal box anywhere near me.
I've seen some excellent lighting combinations on bikes recently. But most bikes have no lights, utterly inadequate lights, or, occasionally, blinding lights that affect me, my granddaughter, and car drivers.
On lighting: anyone else prefer the old yellow dim sodium street lights? Modern bright white light street lights create greater contrasts between very bright patches and very dark areas. Maybe diffusers would help make for less intense contrasts on roads and pavements. Now my eyes are old, they don't adapt so quick, which exacerbates the contrast
if we are to complain about cars, we have to be 100% flawless in our own behaviour, else our whole case is undermined
Not this tripe again! If one car (actually, it's very many) goes through a red light, we don't see the morons writing 'all cars go through red lights.
I'd say rather - when arguing from a minority/out-group position - it's lose-don't win. The "whataboutery" is already there. If you exhibit a flaw, this will certainly be seized upon. But perfect behaviour won't help your case, nor will it disprove "ah, but I once saw / a friend told me ..." See the cycling fallacy here.
As for politicians pointing fingers at each other I'm not sure that's really the a comparable point.
Unfortunately - as you touch on - an "inadequate" light is judged in relation to the environment e.g. "I could barely see them next to the lights of the oncoming cars".
But "competition" armed with arc-light power aside - I am perfectly happy with my rather low-power but cleverly engineered dynamo-powered lights for most of my urban travel. They adhere to European standards so as long as I aim them appropriately they shouldn't blind folks - but pedestrians on our shared-use infra seem to see them and I can see well enough. (Plus they're always there, don't need charging etc.)
On the other hand I'm under no illusions that they will make me seen by drivers - especially if they are not looking (or just were looking for other motor vehicles, not cyclists - we train our brains to filter out "noise"). So bike and I wear reflectives - hopefully those on moving parts (e.g. the spokes / my arms and legs) will be salient.
That's completely ridiculous and is not ever the case with complaints about people's behaviour.
That York thing is weird.
It's all 20mph limits so can perfectly well incorporate contraflow cycling.
The answer is probably to rely on the NPCC guidelines and cycle on the pavement because the road is clearly too dangerous.
I think cycling the wrong way down one-way streets should be officially allowed, but with the cyclists having to cede priority to any other traffic. There's usually enough space for a cyclist and a car, but for the narrow roads it's easy for a cyclist to pull into a gap to allow a car to pass. Obviously, the cyclists would have to be careful of pedestrians, but that's par for the course anyway.
Not lived in York for a very long time, and I wasn't familiar with this area, BUT per a quick Streetview reminder these streets can be very narrow (well - when you allow the cars parked on either side...) The "filtered permeability" looks good though (bollards)!
I'm also not sure what the "routes" (desire lines) cyclists are following here would be - presumably mostly north-south avoiding the busier main roads? Is there a specific "link" here?
York is an oddity. IMO it should be another "cycle city" on a par with Cambridge. Everything in its favour - it's compact, the place is flat (apart from the hill - just a step up, to the north-east), there's a large student population, the centre is "historic narrow streets" and a major tourist destination etc. There are some an "inheritence" of traffic-free paths (old railway lines / paths beside the waterways - been there for decades now, can be seen on the cycle route map / google). Oh, and because it's east coast (ish) drier weather.
But of course, like almost everywhere in the UK it lacks a connected network of cycling routes (unless it's changed radically?).
I speculate that the political will is not there partly due to being in North Yorkshire - God's own (driving) country?
It's an extra confusion for: car drivers and... pedestrians and other cyclists who are riding in car direction. In our current car (2L Ford Galaxy automatic) I can cruise sedately at 10, 15, 20 mph and observe everywhere around and ahead of me. As pedestrian or cyclist I still find it counterintuitive to look for bikes coming from unexpected direction despite consciously telling myself it might happen at any moment. I do not want to be at a high level of nervous alertness while walking
Fake news! Everyone knows it's impossible to keep to a 20mph speed limit without constant focus on the speedo to the exclusion of everything else. You can read it everywhere!
Do you think the moto addicts of BCP worried about what "right" cyclists "have to tell anyone what to do on the roads'' ever ponder what "right" moto addicts have to tell drug addicts what to do with their bodies? Especially given that as a public health issue at the population level the lack of daily physical activity among Westerners is now as big a problem as drug use, maybe bigger.
It was an opportunity missed, even the coverage from France that was pencilled in by Eurosport/Discovery+ was mysteriously removed.
What was the point in that Shell sponsorship again? At the time they said "We’re looking forward to working alongside Shell UK over the rest of this decade to widen access to the sport".
One wonders what British Cycling are spending their money on. Track racing most likely......
If the National champs can't be filmed/streamed live, then what hope has the sport? It shouldn't be down to the local organiser to put this together. The national governing body should ensure all national champs are availible to watch. From memory, it wasn't long ago even the Road Nationals ( in the Isle of Man) weren't covered live.
As a MTB racing fan, I've got used to no live coverage of Nationals......
Saying that, the country (Netherlands) who've dominated recent World champs, didn't have live coverage either - as their national broadcaster prefers to cover Speed skating....
I think that tells you how big (or not) the sport of CX actually is......
This , unfortunately, is exactly the issue. BC cares about one thing above all, securing medals in Olympic events. And most of our success has always been track cycling. The good ol' lets play it safe and not venture into other areas. It's a shame when you see the talent we have. You can rest assured they will want to take credit for MTB success on the back of Tom Pidcock but won't do a damn thing to broaden their horizons into backing his other discipline. Why? There are no medals in the Olympics for cyclocross. It's that simple.
Got to agree with that and it's difficult to criticise them about that when the measure of the sports success (in terms of securing future funding) is how many medals did they bring home, particularly when track cycling has both a lot of medals up for grabs AND the same athletes can compete in several disciplines. Whilst we would all love to see the money spread wider, when the measure is ‘Pounds per Medal’ and track cycling provides a good return.
Remember how money was poured into swimming, tons of it and then when the success didn’t come how the funding was taken away. Possibly I missed it because I’m not interesting in swimming, but when was the last time you saw swimming on the BBC? We are at least getting some TV coverage.
When was the last time we saw cycling on the BBC ? Olympics, Worlds & Ride London last year, that was pretty much it wasn't it ?
No ones demanding national broadcaster coverage, as nice as that would be, but online coverage via YouTube should be the minimum expected for nationals.
And it's a really simple equation, the more interest & more people watching it you get, the more sponsors get interested and the more potential Olympic medal winning talent you will unearth.
If they're anything like other federations, then they're spending it on trying to win Olympic medals, because that's where the lottery funding comes from. No medals, no money. I'm fairly sure I remember an interview with some badminton (?) players who had just won a bronze which was more or less the difference between solvency and insolvency for their federation.
Which makes you wonder why they don't do more around MTB because that's been a happy hunting ground (as long as MVDP crashes in warm-up or DNS).
Maybe things will change in the lead-up to the winter 2030 Olympics. How do Zoe Bäckstedt, Cat Ferguson and Imogen Wolff perform on snow?
We went to the Cyclox champs on Sunday and what was probably the most surprising was that neither the venue or British Cycling charged a entry fee.
The cyclopark is now runs as a charity and whilst they charge £1.90 for parking and make a bit of money on drinks and snacks it seems insane that there wasnt any kind of fee. Obvisously let kids in for free, but even charging adults a fiver minimum would make sense for BC and the venue.
There was quite a few people there and ok they may have had a few less if there was a small entry fee but that money still could have been invested back into the sport.
Perhaps those who run Cyclopark felt that it was counterproductive to charge a fee. I'd expect that a large proportion of those attending to be riders and their families and supporters/pit crew.
BC just doesn't care enough about what should be a hugely popular discipline (particularly as it happens during a quiet part of the year for road & MTB). As for the coverage, the BC twitter was useless. Other than Kirstie's livestream, Velo UK's facebook posts seemed to be the best source of updates and results. Larry Hickmott singlehandedly outdoing BC, as usual. Last year's BC video wasn't a patch on the preview and race summaries uploaded to Youtube by amateur rider Giorgio Coppola. They should be ashamed of themselves.
I think whilst there was a large amount of friends and family, there was definitely quite a few general fans and some newbies. My favourite comment I overheard was "wouldn't this be easier if they used a mountain bike with suspension"
We know Belgium pumps a lot of money into the sport as shown by the fact that they had coverage of both days on VRT. Something maybe BC and the BBC should try to rectify.
First comment apart from mine I've seen about ticket money. If we understood bike racing as circuit-based vs point-to-point-based and looked for income from seats, standing, and concessions in a defined stadium/park/city centre, we might grow income and popularity: like T20 cricket which you can watch after work (or, as I did on Tuesday evenings, play it as far back as mid 1970s)
It's almost as if BC do not treat what they do as a business. Whilst I understand the logic of get people in, get them hooked, if there is no infrastructure or clubs or funding then the kids will go and find some thing else.
We often go to races on the continent and they are always busy, always with a fee and you can see where the money goes, a) by the number of riders, B) by the tv coverage, and c) by the fact that the riders are the best in the world.
Look what happened during the golden age of British cycling, we were a dominant force and there was funding that brought that success.
Minimal funding means minimal Champions.
Pages