Race to win, or ride for style?

As per my daily diet of all things cycling, I was reading along with Cyclingnews.com's coverage of the mundane when I came upon this little snippet by Matthew Cole from BikeRadar.com:

UCI ban skin suits and open face helmets for some mountain bike competitions

The UCI, the governing body for competitive cycling, has made some interesting changes to the rules for the 2009 season and beyond including banning the wearing of "tight-fitting clothing" and insisting that full-face helmets must be worn when racing and practising for downhill and 4X.

The wearing of skin suits has been a point of contention over the last year, notably in the Australian round of the mountain bike world cup. A skinsuit-clad Tracy Moseley (Kona) won the women's race by four seconds ahead of Rachel Atherton (Animal-Commencal), who claimed that the skin suit gave Moseley an unfair advantage.

"Fair enough to Tracey if she wants to do that to win, but for the sport and the longevity of the sport, to wear cool race kit and to make an image for yourself is more important than the odd win here and there," said Atherton.

The image associated with the story, illustrating the skin suit in full flight, can be viewed here.

However, I'm a bit perplexed about the controversy. Isn't winning the race the point of racing? It would seem that using innovative methods to shave seconds off your downhill time would be applauded by others, followed shortly by mimicking said method.

But, no. Atherton is more concerned about the integrity of the fashion of the sport than winning her bike race. In her words, "to make an image for yourself is more important than the odd win here and there."

The odd win? The last time I checked winning was the point of racing; it's what the sponsors pay you for. Then again, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm so out of touch with this particular discipline of cycling to understand that winning isn't important, but how you look is important.

And to some extent, I agree, looking good is important. For instance, there's the unwritten code of cycling by Pezcyclingnews's Josh Horowitz.

It's not meant to be the final word on everything related to cycling attire, but it helps put things into perspective.

Having said this, I realize there are situations that call for a pair of baggy shorts and a loose fitting jersey. Fine. But don't tell me that you'd rather be the best looking loser on the downhill circuit than be on the podium on a regular basis.

My theory: Atherton's muffin top prohibits the use of the skinsuit. And that's okay, just don't whine when you lose. And a note to the UCI: Don't cave to fashion and outlaw the skinsuit. Why not take a stand and outlaw something that would actually freshen up the racing. Like eliminating race radios in all road bike events.

Now, I admit wearing the skinsuit on the downhill bike is a throwback to John Tomac, but when did winning become uncool? Maybe it's European and I just don't get it.

Something that is cool, and is coming to a backyard near me, is my latest Trojan Horse. I'm using the very clever, and effective, ploy of improving my son's BMX skills to get my parents to allow a replica of this track to be built on their property. Both his bike skills will improve, and hopefully so will mine. At least that's the plan.




(For more info on the epidemic, visit Lee's website.)

I imagine hours of summer fun with my son carving the corners, doubling the rollers, and just generally enjoying the fun of cycling. It'll be a place where the latest component or bike toy won't matter; where there is no finish line or points series standings; and where if I want to break out the road kit and skinny tires to spank the pants off of my 7-year-old, there will be no governing body to intervene and ban my attire.

That is, of course, as long as I'm wearing the right colored helmet and my glasses are outside the straps.