Sam Welsford’s started 2025 in decent form, hasn’t he?
After nabbing his fourth career stage win at the Tour Down Under on the race’s opening day in Gumeracha, the Australian sprinter made it two from two in Tanuda this morning, continuing his almost perfect start to the year on home roads (with the exception of his DNF at the Aussie road championships, Welsford’s won every race he’s started so far in 2025).
However, the Red Bull-Bora-Hansgrohe had to work for his stage win in the ochre jersey, crashing in the first five kilometres before being distanced on the third steep ascent of Menglers Hill with 25km remaining, prompting a tough, frantic 10km-long chase back to the bunch.
(Zac Williams/SWpix.com)
But, after being dragged to the front by Danny van Poppel (more on him in a minute) and given a sniff of the victory in Tanuda, Welsford didn’t disappoint, easily accelerating clear with 100m to dispatch Arne Marit and Bryan Coquard and take his second consecutive win at the race.
Not that the sprint itself wasn’t without controversy, however.
As Van Poppel – widely regarded as one of the best lead-out riders in the business – pulled off after teeing up Welsford perfectly, the Dutch rider then swiftly and clearly made a sharp move to his right, closing the door on Picnic PostNL’s Tobias Lund Andresen, whose own reaction forced Phil Bauhaus (Bahrain-Victorious) to slam on the brakes to avoid the barriers.
Van Poppel was promptly issued one of the UCI’s new-fangled yellow cards for his dangerous sprinting, and relegated from eighth to 118th on the day.
According to the UCI’s new rules on sanctions, introduced last autumn and made permanent for 2025, if Van Poppel receives another yellow card during the Tour Down Under, he’ll be disqualified from the race and receive a seven-day suspension.
Meanwhile, three yellow cards over a 30-day period will lead to a two-week ban, and six over the course of a season will result in a month-long suspension.
However, the Dutchman’s antics during the hectic run-in in Tanuda – which, at the end of the day, contributed significantly to Welsford’s win – prompted fans on social media to vent their frustrations at the UCI’s current rules on safety during sprints, with some calling on the governing body to introduce measures that would also penalise teams (and the victorious sprinters themselves) for dangerous lead-out practices.
“Danny Van Poppel didn’t even make it subtle and just jumped across the road in front of Lund after finishing his job AND looking behind,” wrote Mihai Simion. “Not cheeky, straight dirty.”
“Tobias Lund could very well have won if Danny van Poppel had not been so creative,” said Danish journalist Mathias Fisker Mundbjerg. “It is clearly a problem that you can make it ‘nice’ for your captain, who then wins without problems.”
(Zac Williams/SWpix.com)
“It's been happening for years, but Van Poppel's movement in today's sprint was deliberate,” argued former British champion and Eurosport commentator Brian Smith. “This will continue if relegation is the only deterrent.”
“Oh, Danny. Not cool. I do wonder if sprinters should be relegated from victory if their lead out so obviously blocks behind. A relegation for Van Poppel and yellow card only does so much,” wrote Dan Deakins, while Thomas described Van Poppel’s move as “clearly intentional and disgusting”.
Duluc Jean-Baptiste added: “Scandalous move by Van Poppel in the sprint... Typically the kind of move that should make his sprinter lose the victory. Really shameful and ultra-dangerous. You have to downgrade the lead-out AND the sprinter in this kind of situation. Otherwise, they will never learn.
“It would be shameful to give the victory to Red Bull-Bora given Van Poppel’s (clearly voluntary) move. If the UCI really wants to care about the safety of sprints, they must stop awarding a victory obtained (in part) illegally and dangerously.”
“Need team penalties for stuff like this. Relegate all of them,” concluded Joe.
> UCI considering use of “rider airbags” and gear restrictions to “enhance safety”
However, not all fans were jumping on the ‘relegate them all’ bandwagon, of course.
One user, All About Bora (which may give you an indication of where their allegiances lie in this debate), said: “Change in the rules is necessary, alright! But relegate all of them? Come on. The Van Poppel move was not okay, but it’s a move we see 10 times a year. No need to hyperventilate…”
(Zac Williams/SWpix.com)
And, after a tough and complicated day in the saddle, I’m not sure the flying Welsford was paying too much attention to yellow cards, UCI rules, or social media debates either, taking time to praise Van Poppel for his excellent, if controversial, work at the finish.
“Bloody hell – it was bike off in the first 5k to the race, and that was less than ideal,” the 29-year-old, jersey and shorts torn to shreds, told reporters in Tanuda. “It was a pretty hard day out there. The break of three came back quite early, and then everyone started getting quite nervous, then last time up the climb I was on my limit.
“I think it's always hard to win again, everyone looks at you even more. The parcours didn't suit us as well as yesterday, but we made it our race. I think it's a really dream start for us here.
“Oh, man, I don’t think I can describe how [Van Poppel] was. He pulled me back on after the climb, and then still managed to do that 20-second lead out at God knows what power. That was amazing. I’m just happy to finish it off for him, and Laurence [Pithie], Ben [Zwiehoff], Ryan [Mullen] – all the guys came back on the climb and tried to help me get back on.”
Add new comment
7 comments
Whether Ford Road needs resurfacing or not*, surely the reply ought to be addressing why they told her in the first instance that it had all been fixed rather than announcing that it's all fine and no work needs to be done at present.
It's not good enough for them to say it has all been fixed, someone to point out that 'no it hasn't', and then they simply reply as they have.
*It clearly does.
Is there a formal rule / protocol for pulling off? If not, why not? If everyone was aware that all leadout riders will pull off to the right, for example, then that can be avoided. Though that would n't then stop sprints up the LHS for the pull off to drift across the whole peleton . If that were the rule, then anyone getting trapped by the pull off has only their own reacecraft to blame.
The problem here is not the pull off, which was legitimate, it was the fact that having begun to pull off VP quite deliberately changed course back onto the sprinters' line to block.
the embedded clip starts too late to show the real problem. VP pulls off to the left- he is almost on the white line- but then looks over his right shoulder and veers hard right squeezing the chasing pair.
generally not on a first date.
It seems obvious common sense that a sprinter should be demoted if their win was clearly assisted by a teammate blocking a rival. It's akin to "crossing" in rugby, if a runner without the ball blocks a defender who could otherwise have made a tackle on the try scorer the try isn't allowed, no matter whether the scoring player did anything wrong themselves. Team sport, team penalties.
Exactly. Happens far too often in pro cycling. The team couldn't care less if their sprinter wins and the guys who got them there get a penalty. Just a cost of doing business as they might call it in the banking world.
The person who breaks the rules should be demoted to the back and the winner should be demoted 10 places or something to make sure there is little benefit to this sort of cheating.