Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Cycling Twitter unites to condemn racist comments from La Flamme Rouge account

Site claims co-owner responsible for the inflammatory tweets is now ‘inactive’

Cycling Twitter united this weekend in condemnation of a series of inflammatory and racist comments aimed at ‘non-traditional’ cycling countries.

The tweets were posted by La Flamme Rouge, the cycling stats website, and have since been deleted. They concerned the development of the sport in Africa and later extended to a defence of so-called “traditional” cycling values, purportedly only held by countries in western Europe.

In the context of the conversation about African cycling and representation, the user (one of La Flamme Rouge’s co-owners) tried to claim that professional road racing – a very Euro-centric sport with an extremely disproportionate number of white athletes and a spew of high-profile racist incidents in the past decade – did not have a racism problem. 

> Janez Brajkovic says racism was endemic at Bahrain-Merida in 2017

La Flamme Rouge "Guest Countries" tweet - via Twitter

The account later tweeted, “I like road cycling because it’s about tradition and like me many Dutch, Italians, Belgians, French and Spanish that are the core founders of the sport. Guest countries should not try to change rules and traditions of a sport they didn’t found, using their standards.”

The tweets were heavily criticised across social media, with some cycling websites announcing that they would no longer use La Flamme Rouge’s stage profiles in their race coverage. 

Some used the account’s definition of “founders” and “guest countries” to highlight the success of riders from nations such as the UK, USA and Germany. However, others (such as the cycling journalist Kate Wagner) stressed the context in which the comment was made, one which centred on the lack of representation of black African cyclists in the peloton, and that “the whole sentiment was rooted in anti-blackness specifically.”

The furore follows similar provocative remarks made in December, when La Flamme Rouge’s co-owner labelled fans calling for greater coverage of women’s racing the “women’s cycling Taliban”.

 One of the site’s other owners, Andrea Gurgone, has since published a statement describing the comments as a “disgrace”.

“Over the past few months our Twitter account has gone from a fun place to chitchat about our beloved world of cycling into a negative sinkhole, where one of the co-owners felt the urge to make the account his own identity,” Gurgone wrote.

He went on to blame the lack of accountability for the site’s social media on a loose organisational structure, and later admitted that unsuccessful attempts were made to handle the situation nearly a year ago. 

According to the statement the user in question no longer has access to the account. The future of La Flamme Rouge’s Twitter remains unclear.

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.

Add new comment

9 comments

Avatar
Simon_MacMichael | 2 years ago
4 likes

Just a reminder that among the website terms and conditions (linked below) is to not post content that is (among other things) "personally abusive" and where brought to our attention we reserve the right to remove it. Thanks.

https://road.cc/terms

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to Simon_MacMichael | 2 years ago
1 like

I can't seem to see it here, but is there any terms and conditions for previously banned posters coming back on the site with a different username?

Avatar
mdavidford replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 2 years ago
1 like
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

I can't seem to see it here, but is there any terms and conditions for previously banned posters coming back on the site with a different username?

Seems like it would be covered by

Quote:

You may not use a false e-mail address, impersonate any person or entity, or otherwise mislead.

There's also the generic provision

Quote:

Visitors may post [...] content [...], so long as the content is not [legally problematic] or objectionable

which seems like it gives a fairly large amount of leeway for binning off someone who's behaving badly.

Avatar
SimoninSpalding | 2 years ago
0 likes

But they are still complicit because the culprit has not been named, and has only had their Twitter password revoked.

Avatar
mtm_01 replied to SimoninSpalding | 2 years ago
0 likes

It was Emmea90 - been around the PCM scene and a co-founder of LFR for years

Avatar
Slartibartfast replied to mtm_01 | 2 years ago
3 likes

That bio! Seems like a nice person.

Avatar
barongreenback replied to Slartibartfast | 2 years ago
5 likes
Dogless wrote:

That bio! Seems like a nice person.

Yep, another freedom defender who only wants to defend their right to be unpleasant.

Avatar
brooksby replied to barongreenback | 2 years ago
4 likes

Funny how many people there are who demand freedom of speech but only when it's freedom to say something they already agree with...

 

eg.

My village FB group is 'The Daily XXXX'.

A group of 'freedom of speech' lovers who'd been kicked off the group then set up a new group called 'The XXXX Daily', intended for all those people to exercise their freedom of speech without the Evil Admins interfering.

Someone who joined that group without being banned from the original group came back to the original group to say they'd lasted an afternoon before the 'free speech loving' new group had banned him (apparently because they didn't want anyone agreeing with the removal of the Colston Statue in Bristol...).

Avatar
Secret_squirrel replied to mtm_01 | 2 years ago
2 likes
mtm_01 wrote:

It was Emmea90 - been around the PCM scene and a co-founder of LFR for years

Obviously so proud of their tweets that they have now "protected" their account.

Latest Comments