Originally Posted by
Leinster
All of this. If she'd finished 10th, she might've got herself fired, but a rainbow jersey would tend to mitigate a lot of sins.
And I'm sure her decision was made well before the last minute, and UHC people knew well before the last minute. I guess the real question is, if it was as simple as getting her body position an inch lower, why had Wilier not done something about it sooner? She's been riding for UHC through all of 2015 and, between her, the team and the bike supplier, they're only now getting around to addressing the fact that her old bike was faster on a 30km TT course?
Maybe the answer is that the fit issue is not the truth.
Noticed that CN just posted a follow up op-ed piece by a female cyclist/reporter with an obvious bias. Basically blaming Wilier, and saying Villumsen had no real choice because of it.
I'm surprised CN put that up without any further reporting on the story.
I'm usually all for the cyclist, but something is fishy about this whole thing.
I don't know why Wilier would keep sponsoring them. They are made out to be a)non-responsive to female riders -even though they are sponsoring a female squad b)non-competitive tt bike not worthy of the top level c) non-responsive to top sponsored athletes. d)don't make bikes that fit female cyclists.
The team they are sponsoring is either lying to them and making them the fool, or have athletes willing to take the money, but diss the product.
If that's how sponsors are represented within cycling, a lot better to just keep your good name and sponsor gran fondos or other cycling events and individual athletes outside of the pro tour.
Wilier actually enjoys a high brand reputation but all it takes is perception that your tt bike is non competitive, and consumers will skip it. That's what sponsorship is for- to up the brand perception.
That's how Trek sold crappy bikes for so long. When the Lance Dopestrong era ended, they actually started developing good bikes.