Team managers walk out on UCI President McQuaid as race radio row escalates

I would suggest that the organisers and accompaning motorcycles etc are more than capable of calling for an ambulance. Warning a group behind is not needed. They will see a crash or dare I say it take the same risk as the front bunch. Ordering up service or mechanics or drinks etc is not part of the spirit of the sport in my opinion.
Maybe a few radio controlled/equiped marshals instead. All saftey issues covered and now communication between the team car and riders possible. Its the latter which has to go.

Pro cyclists should not need to be told about nasty corners etc - they do this for a living. They have a lot of experience of bike handeling. I really can't imagine that a pro cyclist would want someone telling them its a bit gritty or there is sharp right hander coming up. What they want is their DS on hand so they can order bottles and food, to report mechanical issues or to get advice on strategy and time gaps. All of which makes it more predictable and less interesting to watch. It has nothing to to with safety. Look how many crashes there were in Paris Nice this year - must have been 10 to 20 every day - with radios. If anything radios probably make it less safe. It demands huge concentration to stay upright in a peloton and with someone barking instructions in your ear it can't help.

warning riders of changes in road conditions, nasty corners/road furniture ahead, oil on the road, crashes - they make the race safer by providing timely warning of hazards to a whole team at once. But that function could be fulfilled by having a 'safety' radio operated by the race organisers - riders could radio in hazards, and the organisers broadcast to all riders, but the team car is not involved.

I can't think of ways that radios could make a race safer.

Surely if the radios are required for safety, then the radio traffic can be monitored to ensure that no other riding instructions are being given?

Or is that too simplistic?

I agree race radio is negative but as reported, TV stations think it is boring and their opinion is critical. This is strange given that Vaughters and Bruyneel seem to think that the UCI is all powerful. You only have to read Vaughters childish 10 point plan to realise how ridiciously underqualified he is for his role and compleetly out of his depth. (which you will note he alludes too in the cycling news article mentioned by Matt_S). Vaughters and Bruyneel surely know the cycling food chain is riders> teams> sponsors> organisers> media. The UCI has little financial muscle. Personally I think the teams are being manipulated by the main organisers who are protecting their interests from attempts by the UCI to counter balance i.e. Tour of Beijing. The UCI unfortunatly is also out of its depth and is suffering from a nasty smeer campaign that it probably wont survive in its present form, exacerbated by crazy Pat loosing the plot yesterday.

As an aside, but underlying all this, I would not be at all surprised if SKY try and get their dirty trotters on a large slice of cycling TV rights in the near future. I can't believe that Sky pro cycling team is going to make a return on investment - this must be an R&D cost. I've no doubt they are or will be playing a hand in this dirty tricks campaign. You might think that is a good thing if you think that football has benefited from the Sky treatment...? Goodbye Eurosport. Hello pay per stage Tour de France presented by Richard Keys and President of the UCI, Lance Armstrong with special guest Dr Ferrari.

I was starting to get behing Vaughters, and his fight to keep radios after reading his piece on Cycling News. The points about safety are understandable, but also the riders being able to contact the car wrt assistance for mechanicals and punctures I found very valid.

However, after hearing the in-car radios (especially Vaughters) in Flanders, and watching Vaughters and BMC doing nothing other than order riders to be negative in Roubaix, then I'm starting to back the UCI on this one. Let the riders work out what they want to do. HTFU and ride.

I'm not a big Vaughters fan, and I'm actually in favour of the radio ban (or a version of it), but McQuaid is getting way above himself - he seems to think the sport is his personal empire to run as he sees fit, rather than having a responsibility to the stakeholders to do the best for everyone. He needs to be removed and replaced with someone who actually has the confidence of those they are responsible for.

Lance Armstrong for UCI president, anyone?

To prove the radio issue they should only allow sky team to have them. Then if wiggo wins the tour they will know that radios make you go much faster. If not then ban radios. Job done! Actually I don't think this issue has anything to do with radios, its about money and who controls it.

Gah is pro cycling a mess.

I think some journo/cycling fan came up with a great compromise. Like having 1 or 2 radios per team. It would make it possible for DS's to warn riders of danger and also pass messages back and forth, albeit with a little more difficulty. What would be interesting though is if say, a Super Domestique like Jens Voigt who wouldn't get a radio, decides to break away and then it could be quite interesting. Making choosing who would have the radio/s on the day a strategic choice.

I don't really care though, I just wanna enjoy my riding and when I can catch some races on TV. Shouldn't that be the aim of the ProTeams/UCI?

Then Pat McQuaid said "I'm going to take my ball and go home".