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
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.
Add new comment
9 comments
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
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
There's also the generic provision
which seems like it gives a fairly large amount of leeway for binning off someone who's behaving badly.
But they are still complicit because the culprit has not been named, and has only had their Twitter password revoked.
It was Emmea90 - been around the PCM scene and a co-founder of LFR for years
That bio! Seems like a nice person.
Yep, another freedom defender who only wants to defend their right to be unpleasant.
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...).
Obviously so proud of their tweets that they have now "protected" their account.