Watching old footage of the Tour de France is fascinating, especially if you can count the time you've been following the sport in decades rather than years.

The first Tour I watched from start to finish was in 1986, but as with anything that you follow continuously over a long period, you don't always spot the changes.

I hadn't appreciated how radically the sport has changed until I watched some clips from that '86 Tour the other day. Just about everything is different: bikes, position, clothing (no helmets in those days).

Tuning into radio silence

I was most struck, however, by another, arguably even more significant, difference between then and now. And it concerns tactics.

In those days, escapees - lone riders or small groups - frequently out-witted the bunch to stay clear. When the peloton got it right, and snaffled the break almost within sight of the line, it tended to be more by accident than design.

These days, that is a daily occurrence at the Tour, when the sprinters' teams will time their pursuit to perfection. And as impressive as this is, and as thrilling as the bunch sprints unquestionably are, the predictability can get a bit boring.

Tuning out

I think that the introduction of race radios - allowing two-way communication between directors and riders - is the most significant development in this respect. Now, team directors communicate constantly with their riders; time gaps are relayed in real time, directors can calculate exactly how much leeway to give a break, and the riders can be automaton-like in carrying out instructions.

One argument against race radios, then, is that they can contribute towards making the racing more controlled, and therefore more predictable. But another, it occurred to me as I watched that old footage, is that they can transfer so much responsibility away from the riders.

As one director from that 1986 Tour told me recently, tactics used to be decided on the road, by the riders. Directors decided on the strategy, with riders having to make tactical decisions - whether to go with that attack, whether to chase down that rider - as the race unfolded.

This arguably made for better racing, and better riders, who could think for themselves, because they had to. And those who showed real initiative in this regard - Bernard Hinault springs to mind - were suitably rewarded, and rightly revered.

Micro-management

There are parallels in football and rugby, as Richard Williams, the Guardian's chief sports writer, observed in his column this week. Williams deplores the "micro-management" of some coaches, and suggests that "the game would be much healthier if [...] managers were allowed to communicate with their players only during the half-time interval."

Think of Sir Alex Ferguson and you picture him sitting in the dug-out chewing gum, but not - or rarely - on the touchline, bellowing instructions. Instructions are given in the dressing room, with the players then entrusted to follow them on the pitch. Indeed, Ferguson often speaks of his desire to let his players "express themselves" on the pitch, which also implies a high degree of trust.

When the Tour de France tried to ban race radios during two stages of last year's race the team directors protested on safety grounds, and won the argument.

But the movement to outlaw radios is gathering pace, from the bottom up. The International Cycling Union (UCI) has banned them in most races below the top tier.

British Cycling confirmed this week that, in line with this ruling, they will ban radios from their elite series, the Premier Calendar. But John Herety, manager of the Rapha Condor Sharp team, who opposes to the ban, makes a good point. "If it is because racing has become predictable or boring, then why are they allowing radios in ProTour events, which are the ones that are televised?" Herety told Cycling Weekly. "It doesn't make sense."

Power plays

Hear, hear, Herety. But the question of whether they are banned at ProTour level - and in the Tour de France - will come down to whether it is the dog that wags the tail, or the other way around; in other words, whether it is the teams, or the governing body, who wield most power.

On the evidence so far - including last year's failed attempt at a ban - the answer is the teams. Which somewhat undermines one's confidence in the UCI's ability to impose the radio ban in the top races... spelling bad news for a return to the old days of unpredictable racing, and good news for those who (exclusively) like bunch sprints.

back to top