Originally Posted by
chadteck
My point isn't to accuse those 2 riders of cheating, but I used them as examples because they were the most obvious cases. I wouldn't assume that they cleared it with officials. There have been times in the past where things like this were only called into question after the fact. Anyway, if the UCI's stance is that it's OK, then it is inconsistent with their rules regarding hydration and clothing alterations. It's clearly done for an aero advantage and the "safety" argument doesn't hold up. If safety is a concern, then not using the radio would be best.
The triathlon article wasn't the most informed source. The UCI rules on TT hydration are pretty explicit and not tri-like.
It did seem to me that your point was to ask if they were cheating, albeit among others. Perhaps the waffle here is over a Clintonesque nuance of what "accuse" means. However, I have no problem whatsoever with the accusation / question / discussion topic. It's a fair ask.
The dance of regulation / innovative interpretation / clarification or change is as old as officiating. There's a lot of that going on here. And the lynch pin to some legitimacy, if not a full safe harbor, is the radio at the core of the purpose. It gives wiggle room that hydration or clothing doesn't.
As for the "cleared it with officials" angle, there are various possibilities there. Certainly there could have been an advance consult. Another angle is to just present for the sign in and inspection. If passed, then silence is consent. There are a variety of infractions for which the officials may refuse a start if not remedied. This one seems to be pretty simple to remedy on the fly if the commissaire objected at the tech inspection. I have no idea what went down in this specific instance.