Adam Hansen - What everyone should know about the SRAM case...

SafeR is an organisation made up of the four stakeholders in cycling: the CPA (riders), AIGCP (teams), AIOCC (organisers) and the UCI. Each stakeholder presents proposals and safety requests. 

While the gear ratio test was a proposal from a different stakeholder than the CPA, the riders did conduct a survey in which a majority believed restricting the gears would improve safety. Less than 20% were against it. Riders have expressed more urgent concerns regarding course design, the 3km rule, motorbike proximity, hookless tyres and barrier safety.

Why was the gear ratio test important? The CPA supported the gear ratio test because we are committed to following the collective voice of the peloton, and that includes rider feedback. 

The same applied when we opted to increase the 3km rule. After it was tested at the Tour de France, rider feedback was positive and the UCI updated its regulations. While it is adjustable at the moment, we are still looking to have it fixed at 5km for all races.

Race radios are another example. After testing in two events, riders confirmed that radios are vital for safety, preventing a UCI ban.

Hookless tyres, while a hot topic, are an example where riders are afraid to speak out because their teams are sponsored by a product they do not feel safe racing with. If I were to quote a rider who messaged me yesterday: “They are a death trap and nothing will be done until one of us dies!” 

I receive many messages from riders who are afraid to speak out against their teams and sponsors, especially when they do not feel comfortable using a product and are forced to do so.

The gear ratio test was not a unilateral UCI decision. It was approved by all four stakeholders, including the teams. In fact, SRAM initially supported the initiative, sending mechanics to UCI headquarters on two separate occasions to assist in planning the test for the Tour of Guangxi. 

Then, just before Guangxi, SRAM took it to court. This was merely a test and it is a shame it never happened, as it is one of the ways SafeR and the UCI follow rider feedback, as they have done in previous tests. 

The CPA welcomes riders’ involvement in important matters. Riders are more involved today than ever before. This is what the CPA wants.

The CPA’s position in supporting the UCI in this case is based on a vote by the national associations. In practice, this sits with SafeR, as the test was a joint agreement by all four stakeholders, teams, riders, organisers and the UCI. The structure of SafeR is based on all four stakeholders reaching conclusions and advising the UCI to follow through. 

If the UCI does not follow through, then SafeR has no purpose. I believe funds could be used in a more productive way, but SafeR did not start the court case, and we do not want future tests to be blocked. It is vital that riders can be involved and give their feedback.

Adam Hansen is a former Australian professional cyclist best known for completing a record 20 consecutive Grand Tours between 2011 and 2018. Since retiring from racing, Adam Hansen serves as President of the CPA (Cyclistes Professionnels Associés), the international riders’ union, where he represents professional cyclists and advocates for improved safety, transparency and working conditions within the sport.