- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
CiCLE Women's Classic (VeloUK)British Cycling’s “unacceptable” transgender policy suspension makes leading women's race sponsor pull out, as organisers weigh up offers
The organisers of the women’s and junior men’s CiCLE Classic are confident that the races will go ahead as planned in June after “numerous” offers were made by potential new sponsors following an online appeal.
The races, which form part of British Cycling’s National Road Series and the Junior National Road Series respectively, appeared to be on the brink of cancellation on Tuesday after long-term sponsor Pete Stanton announced that he was withdrawing his backing in protest against British Cycling’s recent suspension of its trans athlete policy.
Stanton, who had funded the women’s race since its inception in 2016 and was one of the driving forces behind its creation, told Velo UK that he has many friends within the transgender community and that “I feel that I would be letting them down if I did not make a stand to show my support for their rights”.
Stanton’s withdrawal has left the organisers scrambling to plug a £15,000 funding gap to secure the future of the Melton Mowbray-based races, which have quickly become one of the highlights of the British cycling calendar thanks to their use of gravel sections and farm tracks, as well as an illustrious list of winners, including Katie Archibald, last year’s victor Abi Smith, and the 2014 junior men’s winner James Shaw.
The men’s Rutland-Melton CiCLE Classic, the top-ranked UCI British men’s one-day race since the demise of the RideLondon-Surrey Classic, is unaffected by Stanton’s departure and is set to take place on Sunday 24 April.
British Cycling has pledged to offer additional support of just under £10,000, while race director Colin Clews launched a public appeal on Tuesday in a bid to secure the remaining funds. Since then, Clews says he has received “numerous” offers of financial support from companies and individuals, as well as women’s rights groups.
Yesterday, the campaign groups Sex Matters and Fair Play for Women announced that they have made a formal joint offer to sponsor the race. However, Clews says he and his colleagues are wary of accepting financial backing from campaign groups for fear of “politicising” the race.
Last week British Cycling suspended its transgender and non-binary participation policy with immediate effect, essentially blocking trans athletes from competing pending a full review.
The national governing body, which has found itself in the spotlight since the UCI’s decision to bar transgender cyclist Emily Bridges from making her racing debut as a woman at the British Omnium Championships, described the situation as “unprecedented in our sport” and argued that the current system is “unfair on all women riders and poses a challenge to the integrity of racing”.
Explaining his decision to step away from the CiCLE Classic, Stanton said: “The transgender policy adopted by British Cycling had been the result of a full consultation process and was believed to have been working well until last week when it was suspended without any further consultation.
“Whilst fully supportive of women’s sport, I also have many friends and colleagues within the transgender community whom I feel that I would be letting down if I did not make a stand to show my support for their rights.
“This is not the first case of a transgender rider competing under UCI rules, or even as part of an official UCI team, and to arbitrarily change that position based on one individual case, I find totally unacceptable.”
He continued: “I am desperately saddened by the Emily Bridges case and the actions that it has prompted me to take. I sincerely hope that a satisfactory resolution to her case and that of similar cases in the future can be quickly found in the interests of all parties involved, and sport in general.”
ONE MONTH to save @CiCLEWomens following the loss of our long term sponsor. Can you help? New major or small sponsors sought urgently. Enquiries to: cicleclassics [at] gmail.com pic.twitter.com/sLOwzrKHFw
— colin clews (@CiCLEWomens) April 12, 2022
Following Stanton’s departure, Clews launched a public appeal in an attempt to find “like-minded partners who can help us to deliver the race in 2022 and support its future development.”
The race director also paid tribute to Stanton, who he described as “massively committed to the development of women’s racing within the UK.
“His financial contribution to support this aim over the past six years is way beyond that of any other private individual. As an organisation we hope that it may be possible to renew our collaboration at some stage in the future to continue our joint pursuit of promoting domestic women’s racing at the highest level.”
A phenomenal response to our plea made yesterday means there WILL be someone following in @abijesmith wheelmarks in June @CiCLEWomens THANK YOU EVERYONE!!! Including @BritishCycling News to come! pic.twitter.com/o0VeUI8Aqt
— colin clews (@CiCLEWomens) April 13, 2022
Yesterday Clews took to Twitter to announce that “a phenomenal response to our plea made yesterday means there will be someone following Abi Smith’s wheel marks in June,” and praised the “absolutely incredible” outpouring of support from the public.
However, while he told BBC Sport that he and his colleagues are currently considering the joint offer made by Sex Matters and Fair Play for Women, alongside other commercial alternatives, Clews admits to having reservations about the potential political impact on the race if it becomes linked to women’s rights groups.
“At the present time, myself and colleagues are considering that [offer] amongst other options that might be available to us from commercial sources,” he said.
“We want this event to continue into the future and therefore we would prefer to link with a partner or number of partners who are able to give us financial backing for a number of years ahead, so we're not in the same position next year as we've found ourselves in this year.
“Secondly, and this is important to appreciate, we are a cycling event, our objective is to pursue women's cycling and to promote it at its highest possible level in this country, but I have colleagues who have reservations with regard to the potential link to women's rights groups that might indicate to anyone out there, or certain individuals out there, a politicising of the event.”
Clews, who says he “endorsed” British Cycling’s suspension of its transgender and non-binary participation policy, told the PA news agency that the pitch from Sex Matters and Fair Play for Women was so far the “only firm offer on the table”, but indicated that crowdfunding could still be an option to secure the 2022 edition of the race, though a high-risk one that wouldn’t provide long-term stability.
The race director also called on cycling's governing bodies to settle the debate currently raging around transgender participation in the sport.
"What is so important to us is the fairness of any races we put on and certainly the current suspension that British Cycling have imposed on Emily Bridges we can only endorse because that goes along with that fairness element,” he said.
“But competitors such as Emily, they wish to compete, we shouldn't be stopping them from competing, but it's how and where and when they compete that's the big question.
“I'm afraid those are questions that shouldn't be placed with me as an organiser, they are for the governing bodies to resolve.”
If funding is secured, the women’s and junior men’s CiCLE Classics will take place as planned on Sunday 19 June.
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- pockstone 3 sec ago
Of more interest is the scatter chart showing how much of the floor you've painted.
- chrisonabike 7 min 33 sec ago
I do have some sympathy with "someone gave humans a powered vehicle that could go faster than 5mph, what do you think will happen?" But I'm gonna...
- chrisonabike 14 min 29 sec ago
She had one for that also - apparently because there is often a delay (maybe 2 week deadline on NIP) before the law gets in touch with you, AND you...
- peasantpigfarmer 18 min 19 sec ago
May I suggest not disabling the drop shell button. One less "Loon" 😆
- chrisonabike 25 min 31 sec ago
Yeah have been noticing that. In Edinburgh there have been some big temperature fluctuations - perhaps they're worried their fridge is on the blink?
- David9694 1 hour 4 min ago
Arrest after motorist crashes into shop in Sittingbourne High Street and Raja of Kent Indian Restaurant in High Halden, near Ashford...
- Rome73 1 hour 23 min ago
Also, it's very 'jumped up' to judge that someone is 'jumped up' - without even knowing them.
- Cugel 1 hour 30 min ago
"Backbone"? - Is this the notion that our political representatives (a government of MPs and Lords, currently) should represent the interests of...
- Rendel Harris 2 hours 16 min ago
Aw, poor Tassie! To add insult to injury you classed ACT, with a lower population, as a state, which it isn't!
- hawkinspeter 8 hours 47 min ago
"Acting like", not necessarily "built like". However, I don't think leaf springs work under tension and instead require compression which isn't how...
Add new comment
72 comments
That's what defines a woman?! I know several women whom everyone including you (I assume) would agree are biological women, who can't have a child naturally. Maybe they're just not trying hard enough.
Apologies, that's not what I was intimating. What I meant is that biological women have the ability by and large to bear children. Something Trans women will never be able to do. I was trying to point out to the heterophobe the differences between one and the other. No offence intended.
ooooh turns out you did exactly the same as these idiots
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/04/06/republican-woman-def...
so you're a misogynist as well.
To be clear - biker Phil thinks a woman is defined by their ability to bear children. That's what they have posted more than once now.
Only 3 athletes in the health line story are trans males and one was competing whilst on a womens team.
None have them gone on to have successful sporting careers.
You keep posting the same tripe that means absolutely nothing. Grasping at straws and all the while punctuated with the obligatory "transphobe" name calling. This isn't about stopping trans people from entering spaces or living their lives, this is about protecting the sporting rights of 50% of the population.
I'm pretty sure none of them would object in the slightest to a trans man competing in the Tour de France, so I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here.
Unless you're saying that it should be acceptable to force trans men to ride the Tour - they'd probably object to that. But then, they'd probably object to forcing cis men to ride it too.
What I am saying is that it will not happen, because a trans man could not physically compete against men in the event. It would be an unfair advantage for the biological men, just as it is an unfair advantage for a trans woman to compete against biological women.
Even if that's true, it's also true for 99.99??% of cis men. So I'm still not clear what point you're making. That men (cis or trans) should be allowed to compete in women's races as long as they're not good enough to beat the top women, perhaps? You seem to be rather confused between 'being permitted to' and 'having the athletic and sporting ability to'.
The point biker Phil is making is that they're a transphobe and celebrate when equality is reduced.
Hence I keep saying - the transphobes keep claiming something is unfair, yet cannot even explain what ".fair" means in a field of by definition genetic outliers.
Nobody will ever be able to say anything which you disagree with and not be a transphobe. Change the bloody record.
It's easy - don't state transphobic statements. Many many people manage to do so.
Grow.
What I am saying is that it would never happen, because a trans man would physically not be able to compete against biological men as they wouldn't have the strength, hence why trans women should not compete against biological woman. Because they will be stronger than women because of their physical make up.
That wasn't what you were saying though. You said
Which bears no relation to what you're arguing here now, which doesn't justify your accusation of hypocrisy.
There is a huge amount of irony in the withdrawal of the sponsor. From previously doing it to promote women's racing, they then withdraw it as a protest because transgender athletes are not allowed to compete against natal women. Did the sponsor get opinions from the female competitors before taking this action? It might have given them more insight to the situation and consequences of the action.
This is a new and really difficult area of sporting ethics but it spills over into so many other areas (law, religion, society) which is why it produces such drastic opinions and a 'soap box' for campaigners on both sides. The chance of getting an outcome that keeps everyone happy is unlikely.
Quite a large number of the competitors, cis or otherwise, seemed pro the bc rules. Given, you know, they voted fir them.
Were they direct competitors? Show the list of names of people that voted for Emily to race directly against them because from what most of the reports tell, everyone was willing to boycott the race.
by "everyone", do you mean "some"?
You have this bizarre idea that because you assert something it must be true
The delusion is strong in this one...
Ding ding ding ding!
Once again playing around with the language, nuance, outliers. It's the same old story. Posting links that you say are transphobic and yet others would say show clear definitions between the sexes. Refuting that XX and XY define the boundaries whilst pointing towards genders. It's all just bluster now with no credible evidence but stories like this Keep coming out and people are starting to take notice
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/hospital-says-patie...
And you have shown loads of evidence of people in agreement? Where's this list of people that consented to competing directly with Emily?
yoir ability to make stuff up is awesome. Being precise with language isn't playing around it's dong soemthing you seem incapable of doing - failing to say offensively transphobic and misogynistic things eVery day
Your goal shifting is also the sign of the truly desperate. You're allowed to claim that EVERY competitor did not want to compete. You provide zero proof, just your usual hand waving I hope no one notices then, when you're called on your crap, you decide to make up a new standard to challenge it's about three fallacies in one, which is hilarious
fiund your proof that the trans competitor threw the competition, as you claimed? Or did you make yet more shit up?
Keep throwing that muck Nos. Muddying the waters. All without actually moving the conversation forward because you know you have nothing left to offer except calling people transphobic again and again. It's the on-line equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "ner ner ner-ner ner".
You keep mentioning equality but it seems your idea of equality is degrading the rights of 50% of the population. They are the mothers, wives, daughters and friends of a lot of other people. People that can more than likely vote. They may not have voted in their lives but something like protecting womens sports may just mobilise them if it becomes an issue a political party highlights. It could very well become the new Brexit. It could throw the plight of many quiet living trans people into the limelight. People that more than likely just want to live as the gender they identify as instead of trying to compete as the sex they aren't.
What muck? *I* wasn't the one who made the absurd, likely libellous claim that a competitor deliberately underperformed, and then failed to provide any support for the assertion at all.
How do I "move the conversation forwards" when the transphobic lobby makes stuff up out of whole cloth? It's hard to debate liars.
How is figuring out a way to have fair competition where all can appropriately participate degrading rights? How is piling on yet more discrimination to a group already suffering high amounts at all fair or equitable?are you so lacking in empathy or just so full of apparent hate and paranoia that a transwomen failing to win means she MUST have thrown the race?
I won't continue to respond as you're not worth any more time or brain space. You have no capability here.
But do you recognise that the incentive to do so clearly exists, and is far from absurd?
I don't know exactly where it is but Lia's times were looked at and were very suspicious. Again, you use strong words like 'libellous' to scare and intimidate people in to silence.
Your cause wants biological women to shut up, take it, stop making noise or else we'll do all we can to have your livelihood removed. That kind of misogynistic bullying can't be ignored and is getting trans people worse thought of. It's doing damage to their cause. surely you can see that stories like this do a lot of damage to trans people causes?
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/hospital-says-patie...
Trans female MMA fighters fracturing the skulls of female fighters. Trans female swimmers beating female Olympic silver medalists. None of this shines a positive light on the plight of trans people who for the most part just want to get on with their lives. Hate spewing trans-radicals like you just heap more misery on their plight too but insisting it's right that 50% of athletes move over and accept a reduction in their rights.
Best off sticking to the liberal echo chamber that is twitter while it's still fertile ground for your hate.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7lSDzRircvE
It's somewhere in the latter half of the video Sharon says Lia's times are highly suspicious. But, no doubt you and your het-hating radical-trans lobbyist have already written Sharon off as a transphobe.
Sponsors women's cycling, yet throws his toys out of the pram when men aren't allowed to join in. Keep your money mate.
I'm sure you're not prejudiced against trans women, so perhaps consider rephrasing your comment? Calling trans women men comes across as, well... it's not a good look is it.
Trans women need love and support against against all the bigots out there. We should give them that while having civilised discussions about how to include them in elite sport.
Fwiw, I think it's hard to justify how
formerly maleathletes that haved formerly raced in the male category can compete against the rest of the women at elite level. But there's no need for nastyness.Formerly male? Some would argue they've always been women (and therefore call you transphobic and bigoted to boot).
Language is hard!
I should have phrased it "formerly raced in the male category"
Don't worry; it is a minefield. After all, why were women ever racing in the male category?
Pages