In his final season as a professional rider, Alessandro De Marchi says he is “happy and relieved” to no longer represent Israel-Premier Tech, the Italian saying “it’s better to follow your morals” and urging “real action” from the UCI “to position the cycling world on the right side and to show awareness of what’s going on in Gaza”.
The quotes come from an in-depth interview by cycling journalist Chris Marshall-Bell published in yesterday’s edition of The Observer. De Marchi, who is retiring at the end of the season, rode for the Israel-branded team in 2021 and 2022 (and wore the maglia rosa while representing them) but says he would not now and that “back then I really understood very little about Israel”.
While De Marchi was not racing for his current team Jayco AlUla at the Tour de France, the Italian saw the protest at the end of stage 11 in Toulouse, an Extinction Rebellion demonstrator running onto the finish straight wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the slogan ‘Israel out of the Tour’.
Speaking since the protest, De Marchi said: “We need to see real action from our governing body to position the cycling world on the right side and to show awareness of what’s going on in Gaza. We have to show that as a cycling world we care about human rights and international law violations.”
Israel-Premier Tech are not a state-owned team, although the Observer piece notes they have received a “small amount from Israel’s ministry for tourism”. However, through funding by Canadian-Israeli billionaire Sylvan Adams, the team has been a regular sight in professional cycling for the best part of a decade now and have been represented at all of the world’s biggest races, by riders such as Chris Froome and 2023 Tour de France stage winner Michael Woods.
> Chris Froome appears in official Israel video promoting cycling event to support Gaza hostages
The team has regularly faced minor protests at races, such as during last year’s Tour of Britain, and insisted they “continue to race proudly as Israel-Premier Tech” despite removing the Israel name from its team vehicles and riders’ training kits as a “precautionary measure”.
Owner and funder Adams, who attended Donald Trump’s inauguration and encouraged US attacks on Iran in June, has called the team “ambassadors” for Israel and a means of promoting a “more realistic vision” of modern Israel.
“I would have really struggled to be there now,” De Marchi said. “I won’t criticise anyone riding there because everyone is free to decide, but right now I wouldn’t sign a contract with Israel. I wouldn’t be able to manage the feelings I have, to be able to be involved in something like that.
“At the time [in 2021] they gave me a chance to keep riding at the top level, they gave me a good contract and salary, and I was looking at the house I had to build and my family. Other riders are the same.
“Of course now I am older and able to reflect in a way I didn’t five years ago, and I appreciate that in life there are times that, though it may be hard, it’s better to follow your morals. Right now I would do things in a different way.
“Back then I really understood very little about Israel. The people behind the team had a desire to show off the beauty of the country – that was a clear policy of the team – but there were never any feelings against Gaza or Palestinians, or reference to the occupation in the West Bank. There was a lighter propaganda, let’s say, where the view of Israel was projected. You could feel it was a complex, divided society. But you could also see that there was no space to discuss Gaza.”
A spokesperson for the team told the Observer that it does not comment on “personal opinion”.
Perhaps the most major protest at Israel-Premier Tech’s prominence in the sport came during this year’s Tour de France, the aforementioned Extinction Rebellion demonstrator wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the slogan ‘Israel out of the Tour’ at the end of stage 11 in Toulouse.
The protestor was arrested and will stand trial for endangering the riders, the Tour’s general commissioner Stéphane Boury intercepting them just as Uno-X Mobility’s Jonas Abrahamsen and Jayco-Alula’s Mauro Schmid were sprinting for victory.
Claiming responsibility for the act, Extinction Rebellion said the protest was carried out “to denounce Tour de France’s complicity in the genocide” and accused the race of “helping restore the image of the Israeli colonial regime” by allowing Israel-Premier Tech to participate.
XR Toulouse also criticised the team’s owner Adams, claiming that Israel-Premier Tech was created with the aim of “bleaching the image of the Israeli colonial regime”.
“Neutrality does not exist. Not acting in a situation of oppression is like taking the side of the oppressor,” the group said in a statement.
At the Giro too, during the finale of the stage to Naples, pro-Palestine activists ran into the road, on that occasion in front of a charging peloton, and not a two-up sprint. Other protests were seen at the Tour Down Under in Australia at the start of the season.
Last year, Israel–Premier Tech removed mention of Israel from team vehicles for the 2024 season as a “precautionary measure”, replacing explicit mention of Israel with an “IPT monogram, comprised of the Star of David and the Premier Tech ‘PT’, on the team vehicles and other branded elements”.
The team did not win a stage at this year’s Tour, British rider Jake Stewart finishing sixth on stage 20 on Saturday. Stewart is one of five Brits to represent Israel-Premier Tech and counts Froome, Joseph Blackmore, Ethan Vernon and Stephen Williams as teammates.
52 thoughts on ““It’s better to follow your morals”: Former Israel-Premier Tech rider “relieved” to no longer represent team, urges cycling world “to show awareness of what’s going on in Gaza””
When you start calling out
When you start calling out the non-state affliated activities of a sponsored sports team you are on a slippery slope no matter what cause you choose. In fact when you choose to call out only those with a link to Israel, when you are meant to be a climate change protest organisation there’s clear opportunity to claim you are showing extreme bias against Israel.
Like it or not IPT represents a far lesser degree of Sportwashing than the direct sportwashing of say a repressive petro-state, or a French oil company partially responsible for a century of climate destruction.
In short 0/10 for protest target selection – XR.FR – must do better at picking targets.
(Yes there is a genocide happening in Gaza, no it has nothing to do with IPT any more than it does the individual Israeli citizen, and no this post does not express support for any of the actions of the Israeli Govt. There’s a thing called nuance that died around the time Social Media was invented.)
It’s not ‘state-affiliated’,
It’s not ‘state-affiliated’, but was set up to ‘promote’ Israel, which one could logically take to mean ‘make people see it as something other than a genocidal state’. The government claims the wins as wins for Israel, so although a private organisation it seems about as close to a national team as you could get.
Whataboutery with re petrochemicals or oppressive states isn’t helpful, as none of those are actively involved in genocide afaik.
Yes, nuance has died but also it’s ok to condemn an effectively national team of a genocidal state which our own country is currently arming. In direct disagreement with you, I’d say that this is one of the more egregious examples of sportswashing currently taking place.
A good argument but it seems
A good argument but it seems to rest on the “Israeli state” claiming IPT wins. and “effectively a national team”
I can find no evidence of either of those apart from your statement. Care to share?
I agree the petro states stuff is whataboutery – my whole point is that to criticise IPT is to indulge in equal if not even more tenuous whataboutery.
Sorry, I was mistaken –
Sorry, I was mistaken – Israeli state hasn’t but the intentions of the team and its founder are clear. It is about promoting the positive side of Israel, which is logically countering the negative side, therefore – sportswashing.
https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/sylvan-adams-sees-the-fruits-a-decade-of-investment-in-israeli-cycling/
Yes. Sylvan Adams and Benji N
Yes. Sylvan Adams and Benji N seem to be pretty close. A team doesn’t need to be officially a national team to function as a national dev and promotion team. And when the Israeli govt and IDF are doing what they’re doing people are horrified and the fall-out might be a bike team, so what. The kick back is growing.
Just because people are upset
Just because people are upset doesnt mean
a) They should target a bike team
b) targeting a bike team will have any effect.
Its literally people going “I cant do anything to stop the Gaza genocide so I’ll do something utterly pointless to make myself feel better”- its childlike in its stupidity.
Are you children?
What *should* people do to
What *should* people do to protest genocide, in your opinion?
Protest the Embasy of the
Protest the Embasy of the State of Israel would be logical since they do represent that state.
Further, protest your elected representatives who have parliamentary agency at the Foreign Office, State Department etc.
(Adjust for your country of origin)
Further, protest your preferred mainstream media publication to share your argument.
lonpfrb wrote:
Which you can do by making a disruptive protest that gets your cause and organisation on the front page of the newspapers.
Do you not think people are
Do you not think people are doing all of this already?
There is always the option of
There is always the option of (plot) to block major roads…
Suspension from a major architectural object such as a bridge seems to be reasonably effective at gaining press coverage … especially if said bridge is adjacent to a major road.
Of course, both of these options cause sever disruption to the general motoring public and seem to be met with ill will – almost as if the public only want to support protest when there is little or no interruption / inconvenience to them.
Protesting at major sporting events does however, can leave the protesters out in the cold, coverage wide. Didn’t they not cover the protests during the ToB?
I don’t see why sporting events should be immune from being a protest venue.
Smart protest or not, there’s
Smart protest or not, there’s no rules to protest. Do what you like – get attention, get people talking, whatever. I’ll support anyone’s right to be disruptive and/or creative in protest. There’s laws to cover how disruptive or the outcomes, that’s all that’s needed.
Slartibartfast wrote:
and they are the only team sports-washing? There are also the state sponsored teams that need to be considered.
Good for him. And with any
Good for him. And with any luck, this will backfire and be a bit of a Streisand effect topic.
You may have to explain this
You may have to explain this for us thicker people here.
As in, they attempt to make
As in, they attempt to make the country look good through publicity, but all the protests etc just instead highlight all the negative aspects, so the overall impact is that they spent a lot of money with the net effect of making the country look bad.
Thanks! I see what you’re
Thanks! I see what you’re saying.
Way back in the day (early
Way back in the day (early noughties?) a photographer documenting coastal erosion in California took a picture, one of 12,000 of the coastline, which included Ms.Streisand’s mansion. She sued for some absurd sum for invasion of privacy and the case was dismissed on the grounds that the photographer had a right to photograph costal erosion and if her gaff was in the background then tough. Prior to the legal action only about a dozen people had viewed the photo, afterwards about 500,000 a month went to the site hosting it and had a look. Ever since it’s been shorthand for someone taking an action to suppress information that has had the unintended consequence of making said information far more widely disseminated than it was before.
This is the kind of protest I
This is the kind of protest I can get behind. Not that I could ever have got in front of him, anyway
Human rights activists
Human rights activists shouldn’t disrupt sporting events because it has no impact on the cause they support. If they want to make a difference for the people of Gaza, then they shall get directly involved.
De Marchi said IPT, or rather ISN back then, gave him a good contract and salary, which surely prevented him from doing some research on his then employer. How do you spell hypocrite in Italian?
What *should* people do to
What *should* people do to protest? Protesting high profile events raises visibility and awareness, that’s the point. Horse racing had nothing to do with suffragette movement, so what was the point?
MaxiMinimalist wrote:
And yet here on road.cc many of us – including you, I believe? – have been debating the cause over the last couple of weeks precisely because this protestor did what he did, so his actions have raised awareness and stimulated discussion at the very least. The idea that you can’t do anything to make a difference unless you “get directly involved” is of course absurd; “why don’t you go and volunteer in Gaza if you care so much?” is the modern day equivalent of “why don’t you go and live in Russia if you hate this country so much?” Ultimately the only solution to the horrors of Gaza will come through international governmental pressure and diplomacy, so demonstrations and protests that bring the issue to the forefront of public debate and maintain pressure on our elected representatives to help try to find a solution is very worthwhile indeed.
The suffragettes would have
The suffragettes would have disagreed, as would Tommie Smith. Spotting events are high profile, draw a global audience, and are an excellent opportunity to guve a protest visibility.
If Russian registered teams
If Russian registered teams and their federation are banned by the UCI (as is the case) then Israeli registered teams should be too. Either sport is neutral about states engaged in illegal acts of aggression and war crimes (and Israel is accused of greater crimes than Russia AIUI); or it is not and it should apply the same bar to all states.
It didn’t seem to bother him
It didn’t seem to bother him when he was riding for dictator Maduro Venezuela team in 2012. Alula is also a government-backed tourist initiative to promote a country active in the genocide in Yemen, and highly inactive in avoiding the potential genocide of their muslim brothers. I highly respect people putting their morale above their short-term interests, but a lack of consistency in said morale is also unforgiveable.
Karbonlite wrote:
careful now… talk like that could get you a rap on the knuckles.
Decent people boycott Isreal.
Decent people boycott Isreal.
Decent people boycott Isreal.
Decent people boycott Isreal.
Given the Jews where gifted
Given the Jews where gifted part of Palestine in ’56 by the UN – they’ve asserted themselves to own that land and kill the occupants and the last bit is being played out now. Most people’s/countries are assertive.(as per history) but none to the effect that Israel is towards the Palestinians and other countries…
I find watching all this
I find watching all this horrifying, BUT while both sides in the current conflict have factions who have declared genocidal / ethnic cleansing intent (and acted upon that) etc. and there’s reportedly currently little public sympathy for the plight of those in e.g. Gaza (see e.g. BBC interview here, some young military reservists of course so perhaps not the most likely to sympathise)…
…I don’t think it is correct or unprejudiced to assert “the Jews … [have] asserted themselves to own that land and kill the occupants”. Sounds like a certain prejudice to me. I think you’d thank yourself (later) for editing your post there.
Nor do I think Israel is acting uniquely “assertively” compared to other places.
Those statements could meet various definitions of antisemitism – see e.g. here, here – e.g. the second by holding Israel (and by extension jewish people) to higher standards than other places. Though “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”.
And that is even as the current government appears to be particularly flagrant in going beyond many of the supposed international “norms” of treatment of an occupied territory / during a conflict.
Perhaps a review of the (long, messy, contested) history would be in order after that?
It was antisemitic because it
It was antisemitic because it conflated Israel and Judaism: essentially depicting them as a unified political entity.
Not because it held Israel to the universal standard of not committing genocide.
The first sentence was
The first sentence was antisemitic as we have both noted. The second on the face of it says Israel is more “assertive” than anybody else (context apparently sorting out disputes with violence) – which looks rather like saying Israel (as you note – previously conflated with “the Jews”) is more violent than the rest, no? The defence would be whether it’s objectively true (noting the OP brought up “per history”) and I would argue not, given the horrid histories of many nations including the UK (as an example here’s an academic discussion of how this current round compares with others).
It’s probably axiomic that there are no neutral views in this conflict but for those with (perhaps a vain) hope that it stops (before one side eliminates the other) I feel care with language is needed.
Car Delenda Est wrote:
It’s utterly illogical to say (as so many do at present) that it’s antisemitic to conflate Judaism and Israel and at the same time to say it’s antisemitic to criticise Israel. It has to be one or the other, it can’t be both.
Rendel Harris wrote:
It’s utterly illogical to say (as the IHRA definition of anti-semitism does) that it’s antisemitic to conflate Judaism and Israel and at the same time to say it’s antisemitic to criticise Israel. It has to be one or the other, it can’t be both.— Car Delenda Est
A slight edit – but I agree with you.
Yes indeed, that was what
Yes indeed, that was what landed Corbyn in so much pother (generally with media outlets and political organizations that were themselves notably antisemitic in the recent past) for refusing to accept it, it seemed absurd then and it still does now. For those (unlike your good self) who don’t see the argument: either you say that Israel and Judaism are entirely separate entities and it is antisemitic to say otherwise, in which case Israel’s policies and actions can be criticised in exactly the same way as any other state and it is not antisemitic to do so, or you say that it is antisemitic to criticise Israel’s policies and actions in which case it can only be so if Israel and Judaism are inextricably intertwined. Personally I take the first proposition and do not blame Judaism for Israel’s actions anymore than I blame Christianity for those of the USA or Islam for those of Saudi Arabia; others may take a different view and believe that if you attack the actions of Israel you are attacking Judaism. However it is self-evident that the two propositions cannot occupy the same logical framework.
Do you mean you think the
Do you mean you think the IHRA definition is saying both of those are true?
Although it has been criticised on several grounds (particularly the examples, imprecision etc.) I think I’m with e.g. Hugh Tomlinson QC who thought that on the face of it the definition is not saying both are true, due to the wording: “Applying double standards by requiring of it [the State of Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” being qualified by “Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” (emphasis mine).
Of course that’s where the arguments begin – and many members of e.g. the current Israeli government (and their supporters e.g. in the US) would presumably say it’s not illogical and they don’t want to have it both ways, but the criticism is beyond that applied to other states.
I think per the part of the IHRA definition above they are mostly * wrong here but that seems to be the argument. And of course due to the usual “hypocricies” of international politics there is ample room for whataboutery.
As usual, other definitions are available – and also subject to criticism.
* Naturally plenty of thoroughly antisemitic types have also joined in.
I took their comment to be
I took their comment to be making the narrow point that the argument may seem to have more prominence than it actually does. The bit in Rendel’s original that was replaced was ‘as so many do at present’ – I thought the implication was that it may have generated a lot of noise in certain corners of the internet, but proportionately, not ‘many’ people have really given it much consideration at all.
It is strange, I’m struggling
It is strange, I’m struggling to think of a time a people have been treated as badly (putting it very mildly) as the Palestinians and Corbyn has looked at this and said “yeah that’s fine actually.”
Car Delenda Est wrote:
Do you mean Starmer, or is that sarcasm, or have I missed something major? Are we talking about Corbyn J (not his far-out brother)? I admit I’ve not kept up with him but last I was aware he’d only just got round to saying that Hamas have waged a campaign of terrorism. He’s a noted long-time supported of Palestinians (and indeed at one time wanted a much closer relationship with Hezbollah and Hamas) and after the attacks from Gaza was still reluctant to call Hamas terrorists.
chrisonabike wrote:
No, sorry, I was unclear – I meant the IHRA definition included the first. (I agree with your post.)
Steve K wrote:
Thanks for clarification – perhaps my reading patterns then as others seem to have followed you!
Correct, it’s not anti
Correct, it’s not anti-Semitic to criticise Israel.
Seeing the team ride with the
Seeing the team ride with the “israel” sponsership, makes my toes curl.. Dehuminisation ethnic cleansing kolonisation/ stealing the land, has been going on for 80 years. The Hamas oktober attack terrible as it was , was the excuse the israeli government was waiting for to commit this GENOCIDE. When russia attacked ukrane russians where banned, the name/sponsor israel should have been banned to
Sad to see from some of these
Sad to see from some of these comments that the well-established anti-Semitism of Jolly Old England still runs deeps. But it does give me something to feel better about as a Yank, no matter how messed up things here across the pond at the moment.
cmedred wrote:
Are you claiming that antisemitism doesn’t exist in America? According to the Anti-Defamation League polls 19% of Americans believe that Jews control the world banking system and 31% agree that Jews are biased in hiring other Jews for jobs. 68% of religious-based hate crimes in the USA, according to the FBI, are against Jews. Antisemitism has deep roots in America, from Henry Ford to Charles Lindbergh through to the current massive and horrifying resurgence of white nationalist neo-nazi organizations. You seriously “feel better” about the way things are in your country than in England? Seriously?
I no longer watch with much
I no longer watch with much enjoyment mens procycling. Sports washing by billionaires and states with scant regard for human rights has eroded much of my enjoyment and cheering for their riders feels like collusion with disaster capitalism and authoritarian regimes. I get no en joyment from watching these teams or riders do well and am glad when Trek or Visma or the other non tainted teams win. I get that sports need money but the UCI’s willingness to ban Russia and associated teams for invading Ukraine looks ridiculouis when they fail to sanction a team that supports a regime comitting genocide for 2 years. I have no idea why anyone is prepared to ride for them..I can only assume that their riders look at their pay checks and forget about people being burned alive, doctors and nurses being kidnapped and totured and children being shot in the head and starved.
Fortunately the rise of the womens peleton has brought some solace althjough Im sure that the same issue will eventually arise here.
The UCI’s cowardice on this issue is no surprise. it is a corrupt organisation on issues large and small..it doesnt sanction riders for racism but does if their jersey is undone crossing the line. it insists riders risk their lives on badly designed and poorly marshalled courses while suggesting that crashes are the result of the riders or their equipment furnishing exactly no science or data to support these judgements. It places its events in any country that will foot the bill regardless of how this might impact riders or events and – no surprise – ignoring Science and without talking to any trans athletes displaying the usual straight white man Transphobia.
Anyone might think that buying into billionaire funded western culture wars and mainstrem media client joiurnalism was the focus of the UCI rather than building the sport and encouraging diversity in one of the most exclusively white spaces still remaining in sport..as some of the comments on this piece tend to demonstrate.
PS Being anti Zionist, anti imperialist, anti Israel and anti genocide does not make you anti semetic – it makes you pro humanity and anti racist.
john59 wrote:
It already features a team sponsored by UAE, as well as another by a representative of the planet-burning crypto industry – probably others where questions could be raised too, if you looked hard enough.
mdavidford wrote:
Don’t have to look very hard to find Liv AlUla Jayco, co-sponsored by the tourist board of a city in a country where women are only allowed to cycle in off-road areas for recreation and exercise and then only if wearing a full body and head covering and accompanied by a male relative.
Every day’s a school day. I
Every day’s a school day. I was about to reply to the effect that the ‘Liv’ here has nothing to do with that golf thing – had no idea the AlUla bit was Saudi-related, and just assumed it was some Stralian brand. Guess it just goes to show that not all sportswashing is equally effective.
I only discovered that
I only discovered that because it’s one of the worlds in the UAE-created MyWhoosh!
Indeed. https:/
Indeed. https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/saudi-arabia-now-permits-women-to-ride-bicycles/4344330.html
Very well said John59.
Very well said John59. Reflects my own sentiments and disappointment with the sport, riders and commentators who I’d previously felt respect for.