Jonas Vingegaard’s crash at Paris-Nice earlier this month has once again raised critical questions about cycling’s concussion protocols. Despite the seemingly minor nature of the crash, the incident underscores a larger issue the sport has yet to address effectively.
Vingegaard, the leader of the race at the time, was involved in a fall with 84 kilometers remaining on stage five. He suffered a cut on his upper lip and appeared to injure his wrist. Nonetheless, showing typical resilience, the Danish rider immediately returned to his bike, a decision common in the sport. No immediate concerns were raised following the incident, but after the stage, Vingegaard was visibly in discomfort, holding his wrist while being examined by a team doctor.
Later, his teammate Victor Campenaerts revealed that Vingegaard had experienced “dizziness” during the stage, prompting further concern. “Given the circumstances, it’s very impressive that he finished this stage,” Campenaerts told Sporza. “I didn’t get the impression that he was very lucid.”
This statement suggests a potential concussion, a diagnosis that Vingegaard later confirmed. “After the crash, I was dizzy, and after the stage, I got very nauseous and was incredibly tired, which continued for the next several days,” Vingegaard explained to B.T.. “I’m happy to be back on the bike, even though it took a little longer than expected due to my concussion, which required a lot of rest.”
The 28-year-old was forced to withdraw from both Paris-Nice, which his teammate Matteo Jorgenson won, and the Volta a Catalunya, currently in progress. Vingegaard’s next race is now slated for June at the Critérium du Dauphiné, though that could change.
This situation highlights a persistent issue in cycling: the sport’s failure to effectively address concussion risks. Despite Vingegaard’s dizziness during the stage, he continued riding. This raises the question: why was he allowed to do so?
The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) has a concussion protocol, which includes an initial assessment immediately following a crash, followed by follow-up checks after the race and the next day. In Vingegaard’s case, it is understood that the protocol was followed and that he passed the initial test, allowing him to continue. However, this raises broader concerns about cycling’s handling of head injuries.
Unlike sports like rugby, where the “if in doubt, sit them out” rule is enforced, cycling’s dynamic nature complicates immediate assessments. In rugby, matches are played in stadiums with substitutes available, and neutral doctors can conduct tests away from the action. In cycling, however, riders are constantly on the move, and tests can only be conducted at the side of the road, often under pressure to get back in the race. The culture of toughness in cycling further complicates the decision-making process about when it’s appropriate to step away from the race.
A notable incident in 2023 further highlighted the issue. At the Tour Down Under, James Knox of Soudal Quick-Step was stopped for a concussion test after a crash but was later disqualified for drafting behind cars while trying to return to the pack. While Knox did not have a concussion, the test had already removed him from the race, pointing to the challenges in managing such situations.
There is no easy solution to this problem. Conducting concussion tests after every crash could disrupt races and lead to confusion, particularly in stage races. Riders and teams are often under pressure to make quick decisions while the race unfolds. Allowing riders to complete races without losing time after a concussion test could open the door to abuse, particularly in mountain stages, where it could be perceived as unfair. The challenge remains particularly complex in one-day races.
What is clear, however, is that cycling must take more effective action against concussion-related injuries. Vingegaard’s decision to continue riding after the crash was a tough one, and while broken bones are easier to diagnose, head injuries are often invisible and far more complicated to manage. The current protocols, although well-intentioned, are difficult to enforce consistently, leaving brain injuries as a persistent risk in the sport.
Cycling must prioritize head injuries and ensure that if there is any doubt, riders are not allowed to continue. The safety of the athletes should be paramount, and it’s crucial that concussion protocols are enforced more effectively to prevent long-term harm.
Related topics
- UCI Track Champions League Canceled After Just Four Editions
- Brennan Wins First WorldTour Race
- British Road Championships to Stay in Wales for Three Years